Allowed

Remmy Substrates India P Ltd. v. the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

NGT6 Aug 2026IA No. 16/2024 in Appeal No. 28/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant, a coir manufacturer classified as 'White Category' industry, challenged an order levying Environmental Compensation. The NGT held CPCB guidelines for compensation apply only to Red/Orange/Green categories. The order levying compensation was set aside, but the Board was directed to assess damage for future levies following procedure.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing the Appellant to remit Rs. 69.75 lakhs as Environmental Compensation is set aside. The Authority is directed to assess environmental damage and levy compensation in accord

Remmy Substrates India P Ltd. vs the Chairman Tamil Nadu… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.01:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Thursday, the 06^th day of August, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.28 of 2023 (SZ) & I.A. No.16 of 2024(SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

M/s. Remmy Substrates India (P) Ltd.,

¶8

Represented by its Executive Director, Mr. Ramprakash No. 299/2, Kattampatti Post,

¶9

Tirpur- Polalchi Highway, Coimbatore - 642 202.

…Appellant(s)

Versus

1. The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy,

¶14

Chennai - 600 032.

¶15

2. The Joint Chief Environment Engineer (M), Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy,

¶16

Chennai - 600 032.

¶17

3. The District Environment Engineer , Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Coimbatore - South Plot No. E- 55A, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Pollachi Main Road, Kuruchi,

¶18

Coimbatore - 641 021.

¶19

…Respondent(s)

¶20

For Appellant(s): Mr. Abdul Saleem, Sr. Adv. a/w. Mr. S.A. Sayed Shuhaibb. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 to R3. M/s. R. Prabakar, P. Marudhupandiyan, S. Selvi/ Counsel for I.A.

¶21

Judgment Reserved on 8^th July, 2026.

¶22

Page 1 of 17

¶23

CORAM :

¶24

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶25

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶28

1. The present Appeal [Appeal No.28 of 2023(SZ)] is preferred by M/s. Remmy Substrates India Private Limited under Section 16(g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the 1^st Respondent – The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) in Proceedings No. TNPCB/T1/F.019388/CBS/2023 .

¶29

2. The Appellant submits that the Appellant industry is engaged in the business of manufacturing Coir products, viz., Coir Fibres and Coir Bricks/Blocks after having registered themselves under the Companies Act, 1956 and having obtained necessary licenses under the Factories Act, Tamil Nadu Fire Services Act and its Rules, Public Health Act, etc. Further, the Appellant industry has also registered themselves under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, vide Registration No. UDYAM-TN-03-0021561.

¶30

3. The Appellant further submits that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) , by its directions dated 07.03.2016 issued under the Water and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Acts, directed all the State Pollution Control Boards to adopt the revised criteria for categorization of industrial sectors under the Red, Orange, Green, and White categories. Pursuant thereto, the 1^st Respondent (The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board), by B.P. No. 06 dated 02.08.2016, adopted the said directions in their entirety. It is further submitted that industries engaged in the manufacture of coir products from coconut husks have been classified under the 'White Category' at Sl. No. 23 (Code No. 4023) . In terms of the said directions issued by CPCB, industries falling under the

¶31

Page 2 of 17

¶32

'White Category' are exempt from obtaining Consent to Operate from the concerned State Pollution Control Boards.

¶33

4. The Appellant further contends that the 3^rd Respondent (The District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB) and the officials of the TNPCB jointly caused an inspection at the Appellant industry on 18.09.2020. During the inspection, they have drawn the samples but not from the places where the said products are being especially processed and manufactured, as specifically requested by the in-charge of the Appellant industry. After a period of two months from the date of the said inspection, a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) dated 01.12.2020 was issued to the Appellant industry to show cause as to why penal action should not be initiated for absence of water pollution control measures and also to show cause for closure of industry and stoppage of electricity. The said notice was issued without any enclosures in order to ascertain the fact whether the analysis report of the samples was within the prescribed norms of the TNPCB, and have also not stated anything about the report received by the TNPCB.

¶34

5. After receipt of the said notice, the Appellant duly submitted their common reply on 21.12.2020. Thereafter, the 3^rd Respondent even before conducting an enquiry, sent a letter dated 07.01.2021 informing the Appellant that the reply submitted by them was not satisfactory and hence directed to appear for personal hearing on 19.01.2021. The Appellant duly attended the said hearing and placed their effective submissions. However, as there has been no response for nearly two months from the date of the personal hearing, the 3^rd Respondent had again issued a notice of inspection on 04.03.2021 and the same was also conducted on 13.07.2021, i.e., after a period of 4 months. Thereafter, there has been no response.

¶35

6. The Appellant would further state that on 24.09.2021 around 6.30 p.m., when the industry was in operation, the power supply has been abruptly disconnected without any notice. When the Appellant approached the EB Department, it was orally informed that the disconnection was effected only at the direction of the 3^rd Respondent herein. However, no notice or order was issued to the Appellant.

¶36

Page 3 of 17

¶37

7. The Appellant also states that the said order for the closure of the industry was received by the Appellant on 29.09.2021 wherein the 1^st Respondent has ordered for closure of the industry and disconnection of power supply with immediate effect under Sec.33A of the Water (P & CP) Act and Sec.31A of the Air (P & CP) Act respectively. Challenging the said orders, the Appellant preferred two appeals, viz., Appeal No.90 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Appellate Authority of TNPCB under the Air Act and Appeal No.72 of 2021 before this Hon'ble Tribunal under the Water Act respectively.

¶38

8. The Appellant further points out that in Appeal No.90 of 2021, the Hon'ble Appellate Authority of TNPCB granted an order of interim stay of the order passed under the Air Act. In the Appeal No.72 of 2021, this Hon'ble Tribunal, vide its order dated 08.10.2021 disposed of the appeal by considering the fact that the Appellant had already submitted application for revocation of closure order under the Air & Water Acts respectively, and directed the Board to take appropriate action against the Appellant including the imposition of Environmental Compensation if the Appellant operated the unit by using alternative method of providing electricity during the period of closure.

¶39

9. Thereafter, the Respondent Board passed orders for grant of consent and revocation of the closure order of the Appellant. Recording the said fact, the Hon'ble Authority, vide order dated 04.11.2021 in Appeal No. 90 of 2021 dismissed the Appeal as infructuous.

¶40

10. It is further submitted that the TNPCB issued a proceeding dated 10.11.2021 and re-categorized the coir industries under the ' Orange ' category, vide Code No. 2100 and issued guidelines. Challenging the said proceedings, a batch of Writ Petition Nos. 25737 of 2021 & others were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble High Court, vide its order dated 03.12.2021 granted an order of status quo and the same is intact as on today. The Appellant had also filed a Writ Petition no. 11489 of 2022 challenging the said proceedings,

¶41

Page 4 of 17

¶42

without prejudice to the consent issued and is pending before the Hon'ble High Court.

¶43

11. The Board has again issued a show cause notice dated 27.11.2021 under Sec. 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 to the Appellant to show cause within a period of 15 days as to why the environmental compensation of Rs. 69.75 lakhs should not be imposed. Upon receipt of the said notice, the Appellant duly filed their detailed reply on 17.12.2021. However, the 1^st Respondent without considering any of the submissions, passed the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 in Proceeding No. TNPCB/T1/F.019388/CBS/2023 (which was received by the Appellant on 18.09.2023) directing the Appellant to remit a sum of Rs. 69.75 lakhs within a period of 7 days from the receipt of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is being filed on the following grounds.

¶44

12. Insofar as the levy of Environmental Compensation is concerned, the Appellant contends that the CPCB, after various discussions, deliberated on developing a formula for imposing environmental compensation on industrial units for violation of directions issued by the regulatory bodies and have decided to list the instances for taking cognizance of cases fit for violation and levy of environmental compensation. They are as follows:-

¶45

(i) Discharges in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards/consent limits.

¶46

(ii) Not complying with the directions issued, such as direction for closure due to non-installation of OCEMS, non-adherence to the action plans submitted etc.

¶47

(iii) Intentional avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering the Online Continuous Emission / Effluent Monitoring Systems.

¶48

(iv) Accidental discharges lasting for short durations resulting into damage to the environment.

¶49

(v) Intentional discharges to the environment - land, water and air resulting into acute injury or damage to the environment.

¶50

(vi) Injection of treated/partially treated/untreated effluents to ground water.

¶51

13. The contention of the Appellant is that the Appellant industry does not fall under any of the categories as mentioned above. In other words, the present SCN was issued on the sole allegation that the Appellant industry has caused intentional

¶52

Page 5 of 17

¶53

discharge of the untreated trade effluent resulting in injury and damage to the environment. Nevertheless, in none of the Show Cause Notices issued to the Appellant there was an allegation that the Appellant industry has caused injury or damage to the environment. Therefore, without corroborating the alleged injury or damage by the Appellant, they are not at all liable for any environmental compensation because of the fact that the industry has not caused any injury or damage to the environment.

¶54

14. The Appellant further argues that the CPCB has developed the formula for levying environmental compensation, i.e., EC = PI (Pollution Index) x N (Number of Days) x R (Factor) x S (Factor for Scale of operation) x LF (Location Factor) for the industries falls under the category of Red, Orange and Green only. In the said categorization, the industries carrying on the business of manufacturing of coir items from coconut husks have been classified under White category, which does not need any consent from the concerned SPCBs. Further, the very object and reason for classification of industries under White category is that the said industries are not causing any pollution and the activities carried on therein are not causing any injury or damage to the environment. Infact, the Coir Board of India, vide its letters dated 14.08.2014 and 15.09.2014 have certified and promoted the industries manufacturing and dealing with the Coir products as 'non-polluting industry' .

¶55

15. The Appellant further submits that the instances mentioned at (i), (ii) and (iii) above, i.e., the discharge in violation of consent conditions; non-installation of OCEMS and non-adherence to the action plans submitted; and avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering the monitoring systems, were not at all applicable to the Appellant industry for the reason that their industry is in the White category and need not obtain consent as held by the CPCB. Whereas, the Respondent Board alleges that the Appellant industry discharges to the environment resulting in injury or damage to the environment and it falls under the instance (v) mentioned above. For the same and as directed by the TNPCB, the detailed investigations are required from expert institutions/organisations based on which, the environmental compensation will be decided.

¶56

Page 6 of 17

¶57

However, no such investigations have been conducted by the expert institutions/organisations which is in violation of the said CPCB guidelines and therefore, the arbitrary imposition of environmental compensation by the Respondent Board is illegal and not sustainable and the same is liable to be set-aside.

¶58

16. Though the Respondent Board, vide their proceedings dated 10.11.2021 claiming that they have re-categorised the coir industry under the 'Orange Category' , whereas in their Minutes of Meeting held on 08.08.2023 with the Hon'ble Minister for Environment, concluded and affirmed that the Coir units are under 'White Category' and have requested the Coir industries to selfregulate their processing activity to avoid complaints. For the said facts, it is evident that the Respondent Board closed down the Appellant industry for want of consent under the 'Orange Category' and now have changed their stand by saying that the coir industries are under 'White Category' .

¶59

17. It is further submitted by the appellant that the said notice dated 01.12.2020, the Respondent Board had erroneously calculated the water pollution score at 25 (15+10) under W14 and W2. As per the CPCB, W14 would attract to the wastewater generated from the chemical processes and which is polluted due to the high presence of TDS of inorganic nature. Whereas in the present case, the Appellant is manufacturing eco-friendly products without any chemical processes and the waste generated is organic in nature. Therefore, the W14 having the index of 15 was not at all applicable to the Appellant Industry. Therefore, when the said alleged score of 15 is deducted from the remaining index of 35, it comes to 20.

¶60

18. It is also submitted by the appellant that the Respondent Board had purposely included the score of 10 for hazardous waste in the polluting index in order to bring the Appellant under the Orange category, without any averment or finding of hazardous waste handled by the Appellant industry in any of its previous proceedings. As stated above, when the Coir Board have categorically stated that the coir industries are manufacturing the eco-friendly products and the CPCB and the Respondent Board have also categorized the coir industries under

¶61

Page 7 of 17

¶62

the White category, the allegation of hazardous waste has to be substantiated with supporting evidences. However, without substantiating the same, the Respondent Board arbitrarily included the score of 10 for hazardous waste in the pollution index and the same is erroneous and is liable to be set-aside. When the said score of 10 is deducted from the remaining score of 20, the balance pollution index comes to 10.

¶63

19. The CPCB has categorically stated that its guidelines for assessing the environmental compensation is applicable to the Red, Orange and Green category industrues only and nowhere it was stated that it was applicable to the White category industry too. Therefore, the demand of environmental compensation by the TNPCB is erroneous and the same is liable to be set-aside.

¶64

20. The Appellant submits that if 372 days was excluded for the reasons stated above and considered it as „1‟, the alleged EC payable by the Appellant industry as per the said formula is Rs.1,250/- only and not beyond that.

¶65

21. It is further submitted by the appellant that this Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal No.72 of 2021 filed by the Appellant herein, has categorically directed the Board in paragraph 8(ii) that if the Appellant had operated the unit by using alternative method of providing electricity during the period of closure order, then they are directed to take appropriate action against them including the imposition of Environmental Compensation (EC) in accordance with law after complying with the principles of natural justice. However, in the present case, there was no such allegation against the Appellant industry for operating the unit during the closure period. Therefore, the impugned order directing the Appellant to pay the EC is arbitrary and unjust and the same is liable to be set-aside.

¶66

22. Upon notice, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board filed their response vide report dated 08.10.2024.

¶67

23. The report states that the CPCB by exercising their powers under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,

¶68

Page 8 of 17

¶69

1974 as amended and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended, vide letter dated 07.03.2016 has issued directions to all the State Pollution Control Boards to adopt the revised criteria of categorization of the industrial sectors under (Red/Orange/Green/White) category for uniform harmonization of industrial sectors. Based on the same, the TNPCB had passed an order vide B.P. No 06 dated 02.08.2016. In the said categorization by the TNPCB, the industries carrying out manufacturing of coir items from the coconut husks was classified under “ White category” under Type Code 4023. As per the CPCB classification and the categorization of the TNPCB vide B.P. No 06 dated 02.08.2016, the appellant unit falls under “White category”. Hence, the unit has not applied for the consent of the Board.

¶70

24. It is further stated that several complaints were received against the appellant unit from the local public. In this regard, an inspection was conducted on 18.09.2020 and SCN vide proceedings dated 01.12.2020 under the Water & Air Acts, was issued to the Appellant unit for storing the untreated effluent in an open lagoon for open percolation and for other violations stated therein under both the Water and Air Acts.

¶71

25. The report of analysis of the effluent samples collected from the unit on 22.10.2020 , received from Advanced Environmental Laboratory, Coimbatore reveals that the parameters such as TSS (194 & 234 mg/l), TDS (4710 & 5856 mg/l), Chlorides (1237 & 1435 mg/l), BOD (255 & 248 mg/l), COD (960 & 1056 mg/l), Total Hardness (1500 & 1720 mg/l), Calcium (529 & 641.3 mg/l), Colour (150 & 350 Hazen), Nitrate Nitrogen (60.9 & 75.9 mg/l), Turbidity (212 & 220 NTU), Zinc (1.0311 & 2.3411 mg/l) exceed the standards prescribed by the Board.

¶72

26. The unit was inspected by the officials of the 2^nd Respondent office on 13.07.2021 and the following were observed;

¶73

(a) The unit was in operation without obtaining consent of the Board.

¶74

(b) The unit is storing the coir piths in a total of ten bays which can accommodate approximately 150 tons of pith in this area. Five bays were in operation.

¶75

Page 9 of 17

¶76

¶77

(d) The wastewater generated from the process is collected in the nearby gutter and is directly disposed in a storage lagoon for open percolation within the unit's premises and also outside the premises, without treatment. Untreated trade effluent is discharged into adjacent agricultural land for irrigation.

¶78

(e) From the color inference and higher concentration of the effluent values of the RoA dated 22.10.2020, it is ascertained that Total Hardness, Calcium, Nitrate Nitrogen, Turbidity, Zinc are at very high levels.

¶79

(f) The processed pith is dried in the open concrete area and the particles are easily carried away by wind and were creating nuisance and dust pollution.

¶80

(g) The unit has installed coal fired boiler of 2.0 Tons/hr capacity for drying wet pith and has also installed tray drier for the coir pith.

¶81

(h) The unit has installed another boiler of 2.0 Tons/hr capacity and drier system in the same premises.

¶82

(i) The unit has not provided adequate air pollution control measures for open drying area.

¶83

(j) The unit has not complied with the Hon'ble High Court order dated 11.02.2016 in W.P No. 21327 of 2015 and the Hon'ble NGT order dated 03.02.2016 in Application No. 114 of 2015 and TNPCB guidelines regarding Coir & Coir Pith industries.

¶84

27. It is stated that in the meantime, based on the various court cases and in view of the repeated complaints received against the coir industries, the TNPCB constituted a Committee and the Committee worked out the Pollution Index Score for the coir industries, and the TNPCB vide Proceeding dated 10.11.2021 categorized the 'Coconut husk retting/de-fibreing/pith processing industry' under Orange Category as follows:

¶85

Type Code	Category	Industry Sector
2100	Orange	Coconut husk retting/ de- fibreing/pith processing

¶86

28. Further, it was stated that the said industrial sector shall obtain consent of the TNPCB under the Water (P&CP) Act, 1974 and the Air (P&CP) Act, 1981 and also to comply with certain conditions.

¶87

29. Based on the orders of the Hon'ble Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2021 the Respondent has issued Consent to Operate - Direct vide proceeding dated 16.11.2021 under the Water and

¶88

Page 10 of 17

¶89

Air Acts to the Appellant unit, for manufacturing 24 TPD of Coir Fibre (Dry process) and 33 TPD of Coir Pith Block (Dry process).

¶90

30. It is further stated that as per the "Report of the CPCB In-house Committee on Methodology for Assessing Environmental Compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund" alia, the following cases are considered for levying Environmental Compensation:

¶91

(a) Discharges in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards /consent limits.

¶92

(b) Intentional discharges to the environment - land, water and air resulting into acute injury or damage to the environment.

¶93

¶94

31. The Environmental Compensation has been calculated for causing damage to the environment for discharging untreated effluent onto land and for not providing APC measures, for the period from the date of violation observed on 18.09.2020 (date of inspection for Show Cause Notice) and power supply disconnected on 24.09.2021 . So, the number of days of violation that took place is considered as 372 days.

¶95

32. Subsequently, the unit has submitted an application for CTO-Direct in the name of M/s. Remmy Substrates India Pvt Ltd. Unit-I, for coir pith washing in addition to the existing consented activities and the same was issued to the unit vide proceeding dated 28.04.2022 wherein consent was issued to the unit inter alia to discharge trade effluent of 750 KLD and the Appellant unit has provided the effluent treatment plant followed by Zero Liquid Discharge System, which reveals the quantum of trade effluent generated and disposed on land without any treatment till the closure direction was issued to the unit.

¶96

33. It is further stated that the appellant unit has submitted their application for consent to operate for the following:

¶97

Page 11 of 17

¶98

Effluent Generation:

¶99

S. No.	Nature of the Effluent	Quantity in KLD	Mode of Disposal
1.	Trade Effluent-I (RO-I&II Permeate and MEE Condensate)	727.5	Recycling to Process
2.	Trade Effluent-II (MEE Concentrate)	22.5	ATFD (Salt)

¶100

Emission Sources:

¶101

Sl. No.	Source	Control Measures
1.	^{Boiler -I (20 Lakhs KCAL)-} (Fibre Section)	Cyclone Separator followed by Dust Collector with Stack
2.	Boiler -II (20 Lakhs KCAL)- (Pith Section)	Cyclone Separator followed by Dust Collector with common Stack
3.	Boiler -III (4Tons/Hr)- (MEE & ATFD)	Cyclone Separator followed by Dust Collector with common Stack
4.	^{Coal System Handling (Coir} Fibre Section)	Dust Collector with stack
5.	^{Coal Handling System (Coir} Pith Section)	Dust Collector with stack
6.	^{Mechanical Drier (Coir Fibre} Section)	Hot Air Exhauster - 3 Nos (Each)
7.	^{Mechanical Drier (Coir Pith} Section)	Hot Air Exhauster - 2 Nos (Each)
8.	DG -Set 125 KVA 2Nos.,	Acoustic Enclosures with Stack
9.	DG-Set 180 KVA	Acoustic enclosures with stack
10.	DG-Set 250 KVAV	Acoustic enclosures with stack
11.	DG-Set 320 KVA	Acoustic enclosures with stack
12.	^{Coir Fibre Bale Reopener} Machine 150 Kg-2 Nos.	Cyclone Separator with Dust Collector
13.	^{Conveyors (Decorticating} Section)	Closed Conveyor System
14.	Conveyors(Coir Fibre Section)	Closed Conveyor System
15.	Conveyors(Coir Pith Section)	Closed Conveyor System

¶102

34. The above details show that the appellant unit was generating effluent and letting out emission which led to environmental degradation.

¶103

35. The environmental compensation was imposed for the period from the date of violation observed on 18.09.2020 (date of inspection of Show Cause Notice) and power supply disconnected on 24.09.2021. Hence, the period of environmental compensation calculated is based on the said violations and the period cannot be reduced. As per the application, it is evident that the unit falls under large scale hence, the scale of operation score could not be considered as "1".

¶104

Page 12 of 17

¶105

36. It is further submitted by the TNPCB that the environmental compensation was levied as the Appellant unit did not rectify the defects even after the issue of SCN and as the Appellant unit damaged the environment by discharging untreated trade effluent and air emissions.

¶106

37. In summary, the contentions of the Appellant unit are that during the period i.e. 18.09.2020 to 24.09.2021 in respect of which the impugned order levying Environmental Compensation was issued,

¶107

(i) the Appellant's coir manufacturing unit was classified as a White Category industry by both the CPCB and the TNPCB, and, consequently, was exempt from obtaining Consent to Establish/Operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act;

¶108

(ii) the CPCB guidelines governing the levy of EC are applicable only to industries falling under the Red, Orange, and Green categories, and do not extend to White category industries;

¶109

(iii) in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 72 of 2021, EC could have been levied only upon establishing that the Appellant had operated the unit during the closure period by using an alternative source of power. However, the impugned order contains no such allegation; and

¶110

(iv) none of the six instances specified in the CPCB guidelines for the levy of EC is applicable to the facts of the present case, and even assuming that EC was otherwise leviable, the same could have been imposed only after conducting a study to assess the actual environmental damage caused by the unit.

¶111

38. The question that arises for consideration is whether, in light of the aforesaid contentions, the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the First Respondent, namely, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), in Proceedings No. TNPCB/T1/F.019388/CBS/2023, is liable to be set aside.

¶112

Page 13 of 17

¶113

39. The response filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, namely, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the counter statement filed by the Appellant, and the reply filed by Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant's rejoinder have been taken on record. We have perused the pleadings and the material placed before us and have also heard the learned counsels appearing for the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. We now proceed to consider the matter as follows:

¶114

40. The CPCB, by its directions dated 07.06.2016 issued under the Water and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Acts, re-categorized industrial sectors, pursuant to which the TNPCB, by B.P. No. 6 dated 02.08.2016, classified Coir industry under the “White category”. Subsequently, based on the Pollution Index Score determined by a Committee constituted for the purpose, the TNPCB reclassified the Coconut husk retting/defibreing/pith processing industry as an “ Orange category” industry by proceedings dated 10.11.2021 . It is, therefore, evident that coir industries continued to remain under the “White category” from 07.06.2016 until 10.11.2021. Consequently, the Appellant's unit was a “White category” industry during the relevant period from 18.09.2020 to 24.09.2021, in respect of which the impugned order levying Environmental Compensation was issued .

¶115

41. It is pertinent to note that, subsequent to the recategorization of the Coconut Husk Retting/De-fibreing/Pith Processing Industry as an “Orange category” industry by the Respondent Board vide proceedings dated 10.11.2021, the Respondent Board, in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 08.08.2023 with the Hon'ble Minister for Environment, is reported to have concluded and affirmed that coir units fall under the “White category”. Such inconsistent and arbitrary changes in categorization, without adherence to the prescribed procedure, are liable to be set aside. The categorization of industrial sectors can be undertaken only in accordance with the statutory directions and guidelines issued by the CPCB, either by adopting the categorization prescribed therein or by following the methodology laid down by the CPCB for the determination of the

¶116

Page 14 of 17

¶117

Pollution Index Score and the consequent classification of industries.

¶118

42. It is also noted that the guidelines issued by the CPCB for the assessment and levy of Environmental Compensation are applicable only to industries classified under the Red, Orange, and Green categories, and do not extend to industries classified under the White category. Consequently, the said guidelines could not have been invoked or applied to the Appellant's unit in respect of the alleged period of violation, during which the unit continued to be classified under the “White category”.

¶119

43. Further, during the relevant period from 18.09.2020 to 24.09.2021, the Appellant's unit was neither required to obtain, nor was it granted, Consent to Establish or Consent to Operate under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by the Respondent TNPCB, as the unit was classified under the “White category”. Consequently, the category of violation relating to "discharges in violation of consent conditions, including prescribed standards/consent limits" is inapplicable to the Appellant's unit. Also, none of the other five categories of violations referred to in Para 12 above are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶120

44. The analysis report of the effluent samples collected on 22.10.2020 from the Appellant's unit, issued by Advanced Environmental Laboratory, Coimbatore, disclose the presence of several pollutants, including Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (194 & 234 mg/L), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (4710 & 5856 mg/L), Chlorides (1237 & 1435 mg/L), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (255 & 248 mg/L), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (960 & 1056 mg/L), etc. Although these analytical results cannot be construed as violation of prescribed discharge standards, since no effluent standards had been stipulated for the Appellant's unit by the TNPCB through Consent to Operate, nevertheless, these establish that the activities carried on by the Appellant unit are polluting in nature.

¶121

Page 15 of 17

¶122

45. The fact that the Appellant unit submitted an application seeking Consent to Operate for the generation of 750 KLD of effluent, along with the installation and operation of boilers, coal handling systems, DG sets, etc. further corroborates that the unit is engaged in industrial activities having pollution potential and is, therefore, a polluting industry. It is also pertinent to note that the effluent samples were collected on 22.10.2020, whereas the CTO was issued only subsequently on 28.04.2022. Thus, the absence of a CTO on the date of sampling does not detract from the fact that the unit was already undertaking polluting industrial activities .

¶123

46. The following observations recorded by the officials of the 2^nd Respondent during their inspection of the Appellant's unit on 13.07.2021 further confirm that the unit is polluting:

¶124

(d) The wastewater generated from the process is collected in the nearby gutter and is directly disposed in a storage lagoon for open percolation within the unit's premises and also outside the premises, without treatment. Untreated trade effluent is discharged into adjacent agricultural land for irrigation.

¶125

(f) The processed pith is dried in the open concrete area and the particles are easily carried away by wind and were creating nuisance and dust pollution.

¶126

(g) The unit has installed coal fired boiler of 2.0 Tons/hr capacity for drying wet pith and has also installed tray drier for the coir pith.

¶127

(h) The unit has installed another boiler of 2.0 Tons/hr capacity and drier system in the same premises.

¶128

(i) The unit has not provided adequate air pollution control measures for open drying area. ……….

¶129

47. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Tribunal concludes that, during the relevant period from 18.09.2020 to 24.09.2021, the Appellant's unit was classified as a White Category industry and, consequently, did not require a Consent to Operate (CTO). In such circumstances, the levy of Environmental Compensation by applying the CPCB formula is

¶130

Page 16 of 17

¶131

unsustainable and cannot be justified. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the 1^st Respondent, the Chairman, TNPCB, in Proceedings No. TNPCB/T1/F.019388/CBS/2023, insofar as it levies Environmental Compensation on the Appellant unit, is set aside.

¶132

48. At the same time, the inspection conducted by the officials of the TNPCB revealed that the Appellant unit was engaged in polluting activities. The TNPCB is, therefore, at liberty to assess whether such activities resulted in any environmental damage and, if so, to determine and levy Environmental Compensation in accordance with law, after following the prescribed procedure.

¶133

49. In view of the foregoing observations and direction, the Appeal [Appeal No.28 of 2023(SZ)] is allowed.

¶134

50. The pending Interlocutory Application [I.A. No.16 of 2024(SZ)] is closed.

¶135

Sd/-

¶136

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶137

Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶138

Internet – Yes/No

¶139

All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶140

Appeal No.28/2023(SZ) & I.A. No.16/2024(SZ) 06^th August, 2026. AD.

¶141

Page 17 of 17

Remmy Substrates India P Ltd. v. the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remmy Substrates India P Ltd. v. the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Odisha Jana Adhikari Parisada Thr. Its Managing Trustee Bijay Kumar Parida vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Rajendra Tiwari vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

Dusmant Kumar Bal S/O Golakh Chandra Bal Aged About 45 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Ram Wati Soni vs NCT of Delhi

Sourabh Kumar vs State of Bihar

Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life vs State of Bihar

Sohail Gulmohommad Shaikh vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

In Re Sinking B Deshi Vessel Dumps Toxic Fly Ash in River Near Ghoramara Shows Video Shared by Panchayat Member News Item Published in the Times of India Kolkata Section Dt 17 02 2025 vs State of West Bengal

Devarajan N vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

V Subramaniam Son of Valliyappagounder vs the President Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode Represented by Vijayakumar vs Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Rdc Concrete India Private Limited Rep by Its Managing Director vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

Rdc Concrete India Private Limited Rep by Its Managing Director vs the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Remmy Substrates India P Ltd. vs the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board