Disposed

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

NGT7 Sept 2026Original Application No. 59/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Southern Zone disposed of an application alleging pollution by an oil industry causing groundwater contamination. While acknowledging past issues, the Tribunal noted the installation of a Zero Liquid Discharge system by the industry. It directed the closure order be lifted based on compliance reports and mandated connection to Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System.

What did the court decide?

The closure order by the District Collector was to be lifted based on TNPCB compliance report. The applicant directed the unit to connect to OCEMS immediately and remain compliant with all norms.

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.1:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Monday, the 07^th day of September, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.59 of 2026 (SZ) & I.A. No.86 of 2026 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

Tamilaga Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suttrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam, Erode, Represented by its Secretary, Mr. S. Vijayakumar, Having Office at No.25, Moolakkarai, Nasiyanur, Erode – 638 107.

¶8

…Applicant(s) Versus

¶9

1. M/s. Sunraja Oil Industries Private Limited Represented by its Managing Director 88/1, Puliyankadu, Moolakkarai, Nasiyanur Post, Erode – 638 107.

¶10

2. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Represented by its Chairman No.76, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶11

3. The District Collector Erode District 1^st Floor, Theeram Chinnamalai Maligai, Near Sampath Nagar & Teachers Colony, Opposite Court, Perundurai Road, Collectorate, Erode – 638 011.

¶12

4. The District Environmental Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.815, CMP Plot, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Chennimalai Road, Erode – 638 001.

¶13

…Respondent(s)

¶14

For Applicant(s): Mr. Ramanasubramanian G. represented M/s. C. Jaya Chithra.

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr. Abdul Saleem, Sr. Adv. a/w. M/s. K.Mukund Rao & A.S. Shanmuga Rajan for R1. Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith R2 & R4. Mr. J. Pradeep for R3.

¶16

Page 1 of 12

¶17

Judgement Reserved on: 25^th August, 2026.

¶18

CORAM :

¶19

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

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶22

1. The above-captioned Original Application is filed seeking a declaration that the acts and omissions of the 1^st Respondent (M/s. Sunraja Oil Industries Private Limited) are in violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and to direct the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board ( TNPCB ) to initiate appropriate proceedings.

¶23

2. The Applicant is a village-level association representing the residents, agriculturists and landowners of Moolakkarai and Koorapalayam Villages, Nasiyanur Post, Erode District. The members of the Applicant Association are predominantly agriculturists and rely on groundwater sources such as open wells, borewells and hand pumps for drinking, domestic use and irrigation.

¶24

3. The Applicant alleged that the 1^st Respondent – Oil Industry, which is close to the agricultural lands and residential buildings in and around the above-referred villages, is causing pollution resulting in irreversible damage to the groundwater, soil fertility, agricultural productivity and public health. The industry has been in operation since the year 2004 after obtaining appropriate consent from the TNPCB and was engaged in vegetable oil refining. The scale and intensity of the operation expanded substantially, resulting in increased extraction of groundwater, generation of large quantities of sewage, trade effluent and other solid waste, which directly affects the local environment.

¶25

Page 2 of 12

¶26

4. The Applicant also produced the effluent analysis report taken in the year 2009. The TNPCB had issued a showcause notice in the year 2010 and thereafter, several complaints were made to the TNPCB and also to the District Collector, alleging continuing violations by the 1^st Respondent. Even the analysis of the trade effluent sample taken on 31.10.2013 by the TNPCB revealed excessive pollution parameters, including TDS and sulphate levels on the higher side. Again, a detailed inspection done on 19.01.2016 revealed multiple violations of the consent conditions issued by the TNPCB. The report suggested that the Effluent Treatment Plant ( ETP ) was not operated properly, optimum MLSS was not maintained, motors in chemical dosing tanks were removed, sludge drying beds were not maintained and sludge was dumped in open land without impervious platforms, potentially resulting in contamination of groundwater due to leachate generation. However, renewal of the consent was granted under both the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981, which was valid till 31.03.2026.

¶27

5. As the agricultural lands exhibited signs of soil degradation, crop yields reduced drastically and water drawn from open wells and borewells became saline, turbid and foul-smelling, once again the 2^nd Respondent (TNPCB) conducted a detailed inspection on 24.11.2023, which also revealed stagnation of trade effluent and that the on-site TDS readings were beyond the permissible limit. There were several public protests, based on which, the District Collector, by exercising the powers through the District Coordination Committee ( DCC ), issued Proceedings dated 22.12.2023 directing TANGEDCO to disconnect the electricity supply to the 1^st Respondent unit. Subsequently, the District Collector was also requested to cancel the statutory permissions granted to the 1^st Respondent. A joint inspection was carried out by the District Coordination Committee, Erode, on 23.01.2024. The said Committee also recommended temporary restoration of electricity supply to the 1^st Respondent for a limited period, subject to conditions.

¶28

6. The said order was challenged by the 1^st Respondent before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 2389 of 2024 , wherein the Hon’ble High Court had directed the authorities to

¶29

Page 3 of 12

¶30

take action in accordance with law. The authorities, while acknowledging the deficiencies and the past violations, directed only conditional and temporary measures instead of closure. Therefore, the Applicant Association had given another representation setting out the entire history of violations, showcause notices issued, etc. Even thereafter, several complaints were given by the Applicant. However, the District Coordination Committee recommended extension of the consent order subject to certain conditions and safeguards. In the meanwhile, independent scientific studies were conducted by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, which conclusively established the contamination of soil and groundwater and adverse impact on agricultural productivity vide reports dated 06.01.2025 and 02.05.2025.

¶31

7. In view of the above-referred continuous protests, objections by the Applicant and the villagers and continuing violations by the 1^st Respondent industry, the above Original Application is filed to take appropriate action against the 1^st Respondent industry and direct the industry to cease all activities resulting in the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated trade effluent and emission of pollutants into the environment.

¶32

8. While the matter was pending, the District Collector, Erode District , filed the status report dated 19.08.2026 , stating that a Joint Committee was constituted on 19.06.2026 comprising (i) Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode; (ii) District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, Erode; (iii) Environmental Engineer, TNCPB; (iv) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode; (v) Tahsildar, Erode; (vi) Block Development Officer, Erode; (vii) Joint Director, Tamil Nadu Agriculture Department; and (viii) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Erode, to furnish a report on the safety aspects, safety and structural stability of the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) and whether the industry is operating in accordance with the rules and regulations.

¶33

9. Accordingly, the above-referred Joint Committee, on 22.06.2026, caused an inspection and found that the industry had not been in operation for the past one week. The industry authorities were instructed to operate the Zero Liquid Discharge

¶34

Page 4 of 12

¶35

( ZLD ) System at the time of inspection and 7 Nos. of effluent samples were collected by the Committee at various stages of the Reverse Osmosis ( RO ) System. The said Committee also collected water samples from 15 open/bore wells and soil samples from the agricultural lands on 23.06.2026 and furnished the analysis report of the soil and water samples to the RDO, Erode, on 08.07.2026.

¶36

10. In the meanwhile, the TNPCB had issued a showcause notice on 29.06.2026, based on the violations noticed at the time of inspection from 15.06.2026 and on various other dates. The TNPCB had stated that the TDS level in the open-well water collected on 15.06.2026 was found to be in excess at two places, which were situated approximately 120 meters on the northern side and also located on the southern side of the industry. The TDS levels in the open and bore wells were also found to be high. Therefore, the Joint Committee had recommended the disconnection of power supply to the industry through the District Coordination Committee, Erode, on 08.07.2026, based on the above joint inspection. Accordingly, the power supply was disconnected on 09.07.2026 by the orders of the Chairman, District Coordination Committee, on the ground that the TDS level in 5 Nos. of well-water samples collected from the agricultural lands exceeded 2000 mg/l, the sulphate concentration was also in exceedance and odour was sensed in the unit production area, cooling towers, ETP, etc.

¶37

11. Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, Erode, the 1^st Respondent had preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.27195 of 2026 , in which the Hon’ble High Court had passed the following order on 13.07.2026:

¶38

“Upon consideration of the submissions made, we direct that the electricity supply to the residential units of the employees alone shall be restored till the next date of hearing. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes not to operate the factory till the next date of hearing.”

¶39

12. Pursuant to the above order, the electricity supply was restored only for the residential units of the employees on 20.07.2026. In the meanwhile, the present Original Application was filed before this Tribunal and notice was issued to the 1^st Respondent. Hence, the 1^st Respondent industry withdrew the writ

¶40

Page 5 of 12

¶41

petition with liberty to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, on 27.07.2026.

¶42

13. This Tribunal had directed the unit to be inspected jointly by the District Collector and the TNPCB and to file a report. Accordingly, on 12.08.2026, the members of the Joint Committee already constituted by the District Collector inspected the unit and observed as follows:

¶43

I. The unit was not in operation.

¶44

II. The Effluent Treatment Plant ( ETP ), Reverse Osmosis ( RO ), Multiple Effect Evaporator ( MEE ), followed by Elevated Solar Evaporation Pan ( SEP ), were found to be in operable condition.

¶45

III. The unit had completed the installation of an Agitated Thin Film Dryer ( ATFD ) for treatment of MEE reject.

¶46

IV. The unit had planted approximately 150 tree saplings of around five feet in height within the unit premises.

¶47

V. The unit had also provided piezometric wells inside the unit premises for monitoring the groundwater quality.

¶48

VI. Odour was not sensed during the time of inspection, as the unit was not in operation.

¶49

14. The result of the water sample analysis is also furnished, based on the report of the TNPCB. There was another inspection on 18.08.2026, during which time it was observed that the unit had stored around 7 lakh litres of packed refined edible oil within the unit premises and that the manufacturing date on the 1-litre oil pouches was 17.08.2026. Hence, it was observed that the unit had operated the filling and packing machinery for packing refined edible oil using either a Diesel Generator or the EB power supply that had been restored.

¶50

15. The next report is filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board , wherein the Board has repeated the statement of facts as found in the report of the District Collector. Therefore, the same is not repeated again. Pursuant to the direction issued in the above Original Application to the TNPCB to inspect the unit, the same was done on 12.08.2026 along with the members of the Committee already constituted by the District Collector, Erode.

¶51

Page 6 of 12

¶52

Subsequently, after receiving the message from the District Collector regarding the operation of the packing section, the unit was again inspected on 18.08.2026 by the officials of the TNPCB, who observed that the packing machinery was operated by the unit either using a Diesel Generator or using electricity power supply, which should be against the order of the Hon’ble High Court. The TNPCB had addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, recommending sealing of all the filling and packing machinery/facilities, etc., including the Diesel Generator used for filling and packing, through the District Coordination Committee, Erode. Hence, the unit, vide letter dated 19.08.2026, submitted that it had voluntarily stopped all the activities, including packing and despatching and was keeping the premises closed until the issue was resolved before this Tribunal and that no person was permitted inside the premises during that period.

¶53

16. In the meanwhile, the 1^st Respondent unit had filed an interlocutory application [I.A. No. 86 of 2026 (SZ)] seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith restore and reconnect the electricity supply to the unit. The affidavit filed in support of the above interlocutory application was permitted to be considered for the main application also.

¶54

17. The Project Proponent/1^st Respondent has stated that their unit is classified under the ‘Orange’ Category by the TNPCB and has been operating with valid consent orders, which have been periodically renewed from time to time, and the last of such orders is valid till 31.03.2027. According to the 1^st Respondent, they have been operating the unit in strict compliance with the conditions of the consent order. The TNPCB also inspects the unit at regular intervals of not less than once in four months and has never found any pollution so far. It is also stated that pursuant to the direction issued by the TNPCB, the 1^st Respondent had installed the ZLD system since the year 2024. The effluent treated and recovered through the ETP, a four-stage Reverse Osmosis Plant, and a Multiple Effect Evaporator as clean water (RO permeate and MEE condensate) is reused within the unit.

¶55

Page 7 of 12

¶56

18. It is further stated that the Project Proponent has now installed the closed Agitated Thin Film Dryer (ATFD) to replace the said open solar evaporation, to be commissioned upon resumption of operation. Upon installation of the ZLD system by the 1^st Respondent, there is no discharge of trade effluent from the unit and the said discharge parameters were therefore no longer relevant or required. The Project Proponent voluntarily invested in an RO plant, Multiple Effect Evaporator, Ultra Filtration Plant, Agitated Thin Film Dryer, Solar Evaporation Pans, Effluent Treatment Plant, air pollution control equipment and greenbelt development. The above measures were taken up by the unit, which comes under the ‘Orange’ Category and the ZLD system was installed even though it is not mandatory.

¶57

19. The reply of the 1^st Respondent/Project Proponent further states that the oil-refining process neither uses nor generates sulphate and that the sulphate tracking the TDS confirms that the elevated readings are of mineral hardness and not of effluent. The allegation of odour is subjective and unmeasurable. However, the Project Proponent had installed the closed reactor in the acid plant and a closed Agitated Thin Film Dryer replacing open-pan evaporation to address the odour complaint. Additionally, pursuant to the direction of the TNPCB, the Project Proponent had developed the greenbelt within the premises, which is being maintained by them, and sunk four piezometers at separate locations to enable independent and periodic sampling and monitoring of the groundwater.

¶58

20. It was submitted further that the continued disconnection and closure of the 1^st Respondent unit, which has also invested heavily in pollution control measures, including the ZLD system, is causing grave and irreversible hardship not only to the unit but also to the 1500 families and 3000 workers directly and indirectly depending on the company.

¶59

21. From the above pleadings of the Applicant and the respondents, there have been serious allegations regarding the pollution caused by the 1^st Respondent unit and several showcause notices have been issued by the TNPCB, with the District Authorities also taking cognizance of the same.

¶60

Page 8 of 12

¶61

22. Admittedly, there had been complaints, time and again, by the local people and action was immediately taken by the authorities. Despite the complaints and the interference by the authorities, the unit has been issued consent orders by the TNPCB. Though it is alleged that the continuous cause of action in the application arose from the year 2009, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal only by filing the above Original Application and not earlier.

¶62

23. The reports of the District Authority as well as the Regulatory Authority go to show that, to avoid the law-and-order situation, the unit was issued with the stop-work order by disconnecting the power supply. The above Original Application was filed on 09.03.2026, whereas the unit was issued with the renewal of the consent order on 02.04.2026, which is valid till 31.03.2027 under the ‘Orange’ Category. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the same. The condition under the consent order is that the unit shall maintain the ZLD system comprising ETP, fourstage RO and MEE, followed by an elevated solar evaporation pan for the treatment quantity of 60 KLD of trade effluent. Further, the unit shall operate and maintain the EMFMs provided for the ZLD system at various locations continuously and efficiently. The unit shall also provide surveillance cameras with CCTV in and around the ZLD plant area and shall be connected to the internet and have recordings for a minimum period of three months so as to verify the operation or any event that happened in the ZLD plant area.

¶63

24. The learned counsel appearing for the TNPCB pointed out that the 1^st Respondent unit has not been connected with the OCEMS. Otherwise, it is stated that the TDS, BOD and COD are all within the prescribed parameters. Above all, the unit has already installed the ZLD system in the year 2024 and also a four-stage Reverse Osmosis system and Multiple Effect Evaporator, with the clean water being reused within the unit and other systems, including the closed Agitated Thin Film Dryer, to replace open-pan evaporation.

¶64

25. As there is no outlet, there is no discharge of effluent whatsoever outside the premises. The TNPCB seems to have renewed the consent after filing of the above Original Application.

¶65

Page 9 of 12

¶66

Therefore, based on the reports of the District Collector as well as the TNPCB, the unit is deemed to be operating within the prescribed norms and the allegations cannot be attributed to the unit at least after the ZLD system was installed in the year 2024. If there are any past violations and if the members of the Applicant Association suffered any damages, it is open to them to take appropriate steps to recover compensation before the appropriate forum, after establishing the damages caused.

¶67

26. Does the closure order by the District Collector and the consent issued pending proceedings create a conflict of jurisdiction?

¶68

27. The role of the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and the District Administration is designed to be co-operative and complementary. While the SPCB focuses on technical compliances, environmental standards and issuing consent orders, the District Collector focuses on law and order, public health and general administration under delegated Environment (Protection) Act powers. The SPCB, as a regulatory body, has to request the District Administration to physically enforce closures, which has command over the local police and revenue. In the instant case, the SPCB and the District Collector have exercised concurrent and overlapping powers to shut down the polluting unit.

¶69

28. The report of the District Collector also makes it clear that a Joint Committee was constituted, including the Revenue, Police and SPCB. Only based on the recommendation of the committee, the District Collector had recommended disconnection of the power supply to the unit. While the SPCB has technical authority to withdraw a Consent to Operate or closure notice, it has to be implemented only through the District Authority. The Joint Committee constituted on 19.06.2026 explicitly binds both the District Collector and the SPCB to act together. As violations were confirmed, the District Collector, using the statutory power as head of the District Administration, issued the closure order. However, the report of the SPCB has stated that since the unit had installed a ZLD system, the TDS, BOD and COD are all within the parameters.

¶70

Page 10 of 12

¶71

29. In such circumstances, based on the report of the SPCB, it is open to the District Collector to withdraw the closure order. However, the withdrawal is not automatic, and the District Collector has to pass a specific order. As the TNPCB in its report has reported compliance, the District Collector shall lift the closure order and restore the utilities.

¶72

30. Though in the Original Application it is alleged that the soil degradation and contamination of groundwater had an adverse impact on agricultural productivity, there is no evidence to show that there was a decline in agricultural produce and the quantity of loss suffered due to the same has been furnished. Unless the Applicant had filed a comparative statement, which is obtained from the Department of Agriculture, regarding the crop yield originally and the decline thereafter, and quantified the damage, mere allegation is not sufficient for granting any compensation for the damages.

¶73

31. In the result, the Original Application [O.A. No.59 of 2026 (SZ)] is disposed of with the following directions:

¶74

I. The 1^st Respondent (M/s. Sunraja Oil Industries Private Limited) is directed to connect with the Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System (OCEMS) immediately and report to the TNPCB.

¶75

II. The TNPCB is directed to ensure the said compliance and monitor the unit for any violation in future.

¶76

III. The unit shall at all times be compliant with all the norms.

¶77

IV. The District Collector, Erode, is directed to pass an order lifting the closure of the unit based on the compliance report filed by the TNPCB.

¶78

Page 11 of 12

¶79

32. The pending interlocutory application [I.A. No.86 of 2026 (SZ)] shall stands closed.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶82

Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶83

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶84

O.A. No.59/2026 (SZ) & I.A. No.86/2026 (SZ) 07^th September, 2026. Mn.

¶85

Page 12 of 12

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Ms.S. Mahesh vs Prakash Rao

Devanshu Bose vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Babu Lal Jajoo vs Union of India

Arvind Rathod vs Municipal Council Palsud

Habib Mohammad vs State of Rajasthan through Its Chief Secretary

Tribunal on Its Own Motion Based on the News Item Published in Eenadu Newspaper Edition Dated 12TH June 2021 Under the Caption Dredging Along the Embankments of Krishna River to Be Stopped vs the Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh

Simla E S vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

In Re News Item Titled Pvt. Buses Turn Miyawaki Forest Into Parking Bay Appearing in the Times of India Chennai Edition Dated 18TH July 2025 vs National Highways Authority Represented by Its Regional Officer

C Kandasamy vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Puducherry Rep by Its Member Secretary

Ms.S. Mahesh vs Prakash Rao

Prakash Foods and Feeds Mills Private Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

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

Mr Ahmed Riyas vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its Principal Secretary Environment Forest and Climate Change Department Secretariant Complex Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority