Allowed

Gkn Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

NGT21 Jul 2026Appeal No. 67/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL allowed the appeal against an Appellate Authority order that had set aside a Consent to Operate. The Tribunal held the appellant substantially complied with prior directions through planning permission, agriculture concurrence, and charges payment. It quashed the cancellation, noting the competitor's no-standing to appeal and admitting that the absence of a specific convers

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.08.2024 is set aside; the Consent to Operate dated 20.05.2023 is restored; interlocutory applications closed.

Gkn Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.4 & 5:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Tuesday, the 21^st day of July, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.66 of 2024 (SZ) & I.A. No.131 of 2024 (SZ) WITH

¶6

Appeal No.67 of 2024 (SZ) & I.A. No.132 of 2024 (SZ)

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶8

M/s. GKN Foods Products Pvt. Ltd.

¶9

Rep by its Managing Director, N. Sivamurgeswara Pandian, Theni District – 625 534.

¶10

… Appellant (s)

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

¶13

Rep. by its Chairman, 100, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶14

2. The District Environment Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Theni.

¶15

3. Rajsree Sugars & Chemicals, Rep by its Chief Financial Officer, C.S. Sathiyanarayanan, Unit -1, Varadaraj Nagar, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District – 625 562.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

(Both cases)

¶18

For Appellant (s): M/s. M. Velmurugan, S. Saravana Kumaran, Girija Velmurugan, K.S. Elangovan & V. Sriram. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2. Mr. K. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. a/w. Mrs. T. Hemalatha for R3.

¶19

Judgement Reserved on: 07^th July, 2026.

¶20

Page 1 of 12

¶21

CORAM :

¶22

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶25

1. The present Appeal challenges the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in Appeal No.65 and 66 of 2023 against the Appellant (GKN Food Products Pvt. Ltd.), whereby the Consent to Operate ( CTO ) granted in favour of the Appellant on 20.05.2023 was set aside.

¶26

2. The appellant unit, situated at Survey No.892/3A, Kodankipatti Village, Bodinaickanur Taluk, Theni District, submitted an application for Consent to Establish ( CTE ) for the manufacture of Jaggery Powder (80 MT/month) and Jaggery Blocks (40 MT/month). Subsequent to the submission of the CTE application, the appellant applied to the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Theni, seeking classification of the subject land. By communication dated 09.11.2020, the Deputy Director certified that the subject land is situated in a non-planned area and had not been classified under any planning zone.

¶27

3. On 16.12.2020, the 2^nd Respondent (DEE, TNPCB) inspected the unit and found that an industrial shed and office building had been established without obtaining prior CTE. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2020 was issued, to which the Appellant submitted its reply on 24.12.2020. Upon re-inspection on 18.01.2021, the 2^nd Respondent, by proceedings dated 29.01.2021, rejected the Appellant’s applications under the Water Act, 1974, and the Air Act, 1981, on the grounds that the unit had commenced construction on agricultural land without obtaining prior CTE and had failed to produce an approved building plan/building permit from the competent authority.

¶28

Page 2 of 12

¶29

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an Appeal Nos.10 and 11 of 2021 before the Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. During the pendency of the appeals, the 3^rd Respondent, M/s. Rajashree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., was impleaded pursuant to the orders dated 16.04.2021 passed in I.A. Nos.61 and 62 of 2021 and contended that the appellant’s unit falls within the reserved area allotted to it by the Commissioner of Sugar, Chennai. Though jaggery had been omitted from the purview of the Sugarcane (Control) Order by Notification dated 30.06.2007, the appellant, under the guise of manufacturing jaggery, was proposing to manufacture Chakkar/Khandasari Sugar, which continues to be governed by the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order.

¶30

5. The Appellate Authority in the above Appeal held that, consequent to the Sugarcane Control (Amendment), 2007, effective from 31.07.2007, no licence from the Commissioner of Sugars was required for establishing a jaggery manufacturing unit, as such units stood excluded from the purview of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. Also referred to the G.O.Ms. No.79 dated 04.05.2017, which stated that reclassification of land is necessary only where agricultural land is proposed to be converted for industrial use and that the land is recorded in the revenue records as “Punjai” and not as agricultural/wetland, no prior reclassification certificate is required.

¶31

6. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal in Appeal Nos.73 and 74 of 2021 (SZ) . By judgment dated 28.01.2022, this Tribunal held that while the TNPCB was competent to insist upon production of necessary permission for conversion of no-planning area for a particular purpose and the rules issued by the State of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No.79 (Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3) Department] dated 04.05.2017 and the appellant was at liberty to submit a fresh application after obtaining the requisite approvals under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 04.05.2017.

¶32

7. Pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the appellant applied before the District Town Planning Authority for planning permission. The Deputy Director, District Town Planning Authority, Theni, by proceedings dated 27.09.2022, called upon

¶33

Page 3 of 12

¶34

the appellant to remit the prescribed development, infrastructure and amenity charges. By communication dated 18.11.2022, the planning authority informed the appellant that the land was situated in a non-planned area and granted the requisite building technical permission.

¶35

8. In compliance with the directions of this Tribunal, the appellant’s unit also paid the Environmental Compensation of Rs.2,65,625/- imposed by the TNPCB on 10.01.2023. 9. Thereafter, a fresh application for Consent to Establish was submitted on 21.12.2022. Following inspection and verification of compliance with the conditions imposed by the TNPCB, the Consent to Establish was granted on 13.01.2023. Subsequently, upon further inspection and verification of compliance with the statutory conditions under the Water Act and Air Act, the TNPCB granted Consent to Operate on 20.05.2023. The 3^rd Respondent again challenged the grant of the CTO before the Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in Appeal Nos. 65 and 66 of 2023 , contending that the directions issued by this Tribunal had not been complied with and that the 3^rd Respondent (Rajasree Sugar) had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing.

¶36

10. The appellant submitted that every condition stipulated by this Tribunal and the TNPCB had been complied with before the grant of both the CTE and CTO. It is pointed out that the TNPCB itself, in its counter before the Appellate Authority TNPCB, acknowledging that the appellant had complied with all the conditions relating to sewage treatment, effluent management, disposal of solid waste, utilisation of bagasse, rainwater harvesting, pollution control measures and other environmental safeguards prior to issuance of the CTE.

¶37

11. The appellant contends that notwithstanding the admitted compliance recorded by the TNPCB, the Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, by the impugned order dated 13.08.2024, set aside the Consent to Operate on the ground that no satisfactory material had been produced to establish conversion of the land from agricultural to non-

¶38

Page 4 of 12

¶39

agricultural use, holding that the grant of CTO was contrary to the directions of this Tribunal.

¶40

12. Assailing the impugned order, the appellant submits that the Appellate Authority TNPCB failed to appreciate that the project site is situated in a non-planned area, where under G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 04.05.2017, payment of the prescribed land conversion charges together with the concurrence of the Joint Director of Agriculture and the planning permission issued by the District Town Planning Authority constitute compliance with the requirements. The Appellate Authority TNPCB overlooked the documentary evidence evidencing payment of land conversion charges, grant of planning permission, concurrence of the Joint Director of Agriculture and the subsequent communications issued by the planning authority confirming the status of the land.

¶41

13. Upon notice, the respondents entered appearance through their learned counsels and filed their respective pleadings.

¶42

14. The 1^st and 2^nd Respondents/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board filed a reply dated 17.12.2024 stating that the appellant applied for CTE to manufacture 70 Tons/Month Jaggery Powder and 30 Tons/Month Jaggery Cake on 14.12.2020. Upon inspection conducted on 16.12.2020, it was found that the appellant had already constructed an industrial shed and office buildings without obtaining prior CTE as mandated under the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 22.12.2020 for establishing the unit without obtaining prior consent of the Board. The appellant on its reply letter stated that they have applied for consent and assured that they will not commence further establishment before obtaining CTE order. A subsequent inspection revealed that the unit had commenced construction in an agricultural land without obtaining prior consent and had not produced an approved building plan or planning permission from the competent authority. It was also observed that the proposed site was located in close proximity to residential houses and habitation. Accordingly, the District Level Consent Clearance Committee rejected the appellant’s application for Consent to Establish by proceedings dated 29.01.2021.

¶43

Page 5 of 12

¶44

15. Subsequently, the appellant challenged the rejection before the Appellate Authority TNPCB vide Appeal No.10 and 11 of 2021, in which, by order dated 06.10.2021, the above rejection order was set aside and directed the TNPCB to grant CTE-NEW to the unit. Pursuant thereto, CTE was granted on 27.10.2021. The said order of the Appellate Authority TNPCB was challenged by M/s. Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals situated at Kullapuram Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, before this Tribunal in Appeal No.73 and 74 of 2021 (SZ). Initially, this Tribunal directed that the CTE granted to the appellant be kept in abeyance. By judgment dated 28.01.2022, this Tribunal allowed the appeals, the order of the Appellate Authority TNPCB in Appeal Nos.10 & 11 of 2021 are set aside and the order of TNPCB is restored with directions that the appellant’s application could be reconsidered only after obtaining the requisite planning permission and land conversion permission under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the TNPCB to treat the unauthorized construction as a violation and levy Environmental Compensation in accordance with the CPCB Guidelines.

¶45

16. In compliance with the directions of this Tribunal, the appellant informed the TNPCB that it had obtained DTCP approval and reclassified land-use from concerned authorities. The Board vide Proceedings dated 03.01.2023 issued notice to the appellant and levied Environmental Compensation of Rs.2,65,625/-, which was remitted by the appellant. The appellant also produced the report dated 16.05.2023 from Joint Director of Agriculture, Agriculture-Farmer Welfare Department stating that the said survey number land was not suitable for agricultural use and could be utilized for non-agricultural purposes. Also, the Assistant Director, Director of Town and Country Planning, Theni district, vide letter dated 18.11.2022 stated that the Survey Nos.392/3A and 393/13 comes under Non-Planned Area for construction of Jaggery Food Factory vide permission letter dated 30.09.2022. The Assistant Director of District and Town Planning, Theni District informed that the S.F No.892/3A of Kodangipatti Village is a nonplanned area and the Joint Director of Agriculture observed that the land can be utilised for non-agricultural purposes.

¶46

Page 6 of 12

¶47

17. Based on the documents produced and upon being satisfied that the deficiencies pointed out earlier had been addressed, the Board granted CTE on 13.05.2023 and the Board granted CTO on 20.05.2023, valid up to 31.03.2033.

¶48

18. The grant of CTO was challenged by the 3^rd Respondent before the Appellate Authority TNPCB in Appeal Nos.65 and 66 of 2023. Though an interim order staying the operation of the consent was initially granted, the same was subsequently suspended pending final adjudication. By order dated 13.08.2024, the Appellate Authority TNPCB stated the following:

¶49

“...20. Therefore, it is very clear that the reason for

¶50

granting an exception for converting land from agricultural use to non agricultural use should have been recorded by the authorities for issuing a conversion certificate. We have not come across any such records, much less of specific order for conversion produced before the 1st and 2nd respondents or before this Authority for consideration. In that event, we consider the specific direction mandated by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in its order in Appeal No: 73 & 74/2021 dated 28.8.2022 has not been complied with and no order of conversion has been obtained by the 3rd respondent for getting consent to operate.

¶51

In such circumstances, the order passed by the respondent-Board is violative of the directions issued by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal and does not stand the test of scrutiny of law.”

¶52

19. Consequently, the Appellate Authority TNPCB set aside the CTO granted by the TNPCB. In compliance with the order of the Appellate Authority, the TNPCB revoked the CTE dated 30.01.2023 and the CTO dated 20.05.2023 by proceedings dated 27.11.2024 and communicated the same to the appellant.

¶53

20. The 3^rd Respondent/Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals has filed its reply dated 22.01.2025 stating that the appellant commenced the establishment of the proposed jaggery manufacturing unit in June 2020 by installing machinery within the reserved area, without obtaining the requisite statutory permission under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. It is contended that no person is permitted to manufacture sugar or purchase sugarcane from growers without the requisite licence from the Central Government.

¶54

Page 7 of 12

¶55

21. The 3^rd Respondent made representations dated 25.06.2020, 17.12.2020 and 26.03.2021 before the Commissioner of Sugar objecting to the establishment of the appellant’s unit. It is further alleged that, though the appellant claims that the proposed unit is intended for the manufacture of jaggery, the machinery installed and the nature of the proposed operations indicate that the unit is intended for the manufacture of Chakkarai/Khandasari Sugar, which continues to be regulated under the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966.

¶56

22. It is further stated that when the appellant initially approached the TNPCB seeking CTE, the TNPCB rejected the application as the appellant commenced construction in an agricultural land without obtaining prior consent, requisite planning approval or building permit from the competent authority for a unit situated in a non-planned area, and the proposed site was located in close proximity to residential houses and habitation.

¶57

23. The Appellate Authority TNPCB allowed the appeals and directed grant of CTE. This Tribunal in Appeal Nos.73 and 74 of 2021 (SZ), set aside the said order and restored the TNPCB’s rejection and directed that the appellant could seek fresh consideration of its application only after obtaining the necessary planning permission, land conversion permission under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and after payment of Environmental Compensation for the violation committed by commencing construction without prior consent.

¶58

24. Despite the directions issued by this Tribunal, the appellant failed to obtain a valid statutory order converting the land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. The communications relied upon by the appellant from the Joint Director of Agriculture and the District Town Planning Authority indicate that the land is situated in a non-planned area and unsuitable for agriculture. Such communications, cannot be treated as a statutory conversion order under G.O. Ms. No.79, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.05.2017, nor do they dispense with the requirement of obtaining permission for change of land use from the competent authority.

¶59

Page 8 of 12

¶60

25. The appellant subsequently obtained CTE and CTO, without producing any lawful order permitting conversion of the land for industrial purposes. It is, therefore, contended that the TNPCB granted consents in disregard of the binding directions issued by this Tribunal.

¶61

26. The Appellate Authority TNPCB, in Appeal Nos.65 and 66 of 2023, held that no specific order evidencing conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use had been produced either before the Pollution Control Board or before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Appellate Authority TNPCB concluded that the directions issued by this Tribunal had not been complied with and that the grant of Consent to Operate was contrary to law.

¶62

27. The appellant cannot be permitted to rely upon additional documents or subsequent communications which were not produced before the authorities at the relevant point of time, nor can it seek to improve its case by producing fresh material in the present appeal. The legality of the impugned order must be examined on the basis of the records that were available before the Appellate Authority TNPCB.

¶63

28. The TNPCB, having granted CTE and CTO without ensuring strict compliance with the earlier directions issued by this Tribunal, rightly revoked the consents pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Tribunal.

¶64

29. Based on the pleadings, the earlier judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 2021 (SZ), the impugned order of the Appellate Authority TNPCB, the core issue is whether the appellant had substantially complied with the directions issued by this Tribunal and whether the ground that no formal land conversion order had been produced can be a reason to cancel the CTO issued.

¶65

Page 9 of 12

¶66

30. It is not in dispute that the appellant had initially commenced construction without obtaining prior CTE under the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981. Such commencement constituted a violation, for which Environmental Compensation was levied in accordance with the directions of this Tribunal. Pursuant to this judgment, the appellant approached the competent planning authorities, obtained technical permission from the District Town Planning Authority, remitted the requisite development and infrastructure charges, obtained the opinion of the Joint Director of Agriculture regarding the suitability of the land for non-agricultural use, and paid the Environmental Compensation of Rs.2,65,625/- imposed by the TNPCB.

¶67

31. The reports further disclose that after verification of the above documents and after satisfying compliance and consent conditions, the TNPCB granted the fresh CTE on 13.01.2023 and the CTO on 20.05.2023.

¶68

32. Significantly, the TNPCB has admitted that the appellant had complied with the environmental conditions prescribed under the Water Act, Air Act and the consent conditions before issuance of the CTE and CTO. No material has been placed before this Tribunal to demonstrate any deficiency in the pollution control measures adopted by the appellant’s unit.

¶69

33. In this regard, Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From agriculture to non-agriculture purposes in nonplanning areas) Rules, 2017, mandates prior concurrence of the Collector, in case of wetlands and a report from the Joint Director of Agriculture, in case of dry lands.

¶70

34. It is not in dispute that Sy. No.892/3A in Kodankipatti Revenue Village of Theni District is classified as “Tharisu” (Barren land). The Joint Director of Agriculture, in his communication to the Assistant Director of Town & Country Planning, dated 17.08.2021, has stated that after the spot inspection, opined that in view of the existing structures on the site, the question of grant of NOC does not arise. This report as mandated in Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From agriculture to nonagriculture purposes in non-planning areas) Rules, 2017, is

¶71

Page 10 of 12

¶72

already complied with. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Authority TNPCB that a specific order of conversion should have been produced by the appellant is not correct, as the Joint Director has already issued the report as per Rules 5.

¶73

35. Secondly, the order impugned is passed by the Appellate Authority TNPCB at the instance of the 3^rd Respondent herein as appellant therein. Under Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974, and the Air Act, 1981, an “aggrieved person” is any individual or entity whose legal rights or interest are directly affected by an order or direction by the SPCB, may prefer an appeal. The appeal preferred by the 3^rd Respondent herein is not in the public interest and that the appellant is a potential polluter but that of a commercial competition. The impugned order is passed at the instance of the 3^rd Respondent, as aggrieved person is based only on business rivalry. A loss of commercial profit or increased market competition does not make an entity as “aggrieved person” under environmental statutes.

¶74

36. The 3^rd Respondent had challenged the consent orders issued not to highlight the genuine environmental issues/violations by the appellant, which cannot be done through a statutory appeal. The 3^rd Respondent had not proved any ecological damage that may be caused due to the operation of the appellant. It appears to be a spoiling tactic to stall a competitor’s project.

¶75

37. The principal reason assigned by the Appellate Authority TNPCB for setting aside the CTO is that no specific order evidencing conversion of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural use was produced. However, the Appellate Authority TNPCB failed to examine the effect of the communications issued by the competent Town and Country Planning Authority certifying that the land is situated in a non-planned area, the technical approval granted by the planning authority, the concurrence of the Joint Director of Agriculture, and the payment of the prescribed conversion and development charges, all of which formed the basis upon which the TNPCB was satisfied regarding compliance and the issues relating to reservation of sugarcane area and the

¶76

Page 11 of 12

¶77

applicability of the Sugarcane (Control) Order fall outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶78

38. In the result,

¶79

(I) The appeals [Appeal Nos.66 and 67 of 2024(SZ)] are allowed and the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in Appeal No. 65 and 66 of 2023 is set aside. Consequently, the Consent to Operate dated 20.05.2023 issued to the Appellant is restored.

¶80