Dismissed

Ms. Sns Starch Limited v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Nov 2021WP/5023/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner company challenged an order demanding environmental compensation of Rs. 66,36,000 under the National Green Tribunal directive. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition, holding the remedy lies with the National Green Tribunal for interpretation of the corpus fund order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; remedy lies with National Green Tribunal for interpretation of corpus fund order; miscellaneous applications closed.

Ms. Sns Starch Limited Vs State of Telangana — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A. RAJASHEKER REODY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5023^{OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ms.SNSStarchLimited,Block-ll,Floor2,31'1/A'RoadNo12'MLAColony' iii'"iiij Hirril^{gvoeiuu'ii'-so-o og+. Represented bv Saniav Jalan, S/o Late s.N.} Jalan, Ased ss v"ats]t1in;s'iig^{Diie"to'ortne Petiiioneiuhlt' RJo} l#r?i?P"l%-

¶9

AND

¶10

E F S and r^{Dept' Secretary'}

¶11

'^{El?13 ::ff} 'f^{B3i3i$3Hf 3?t"?tu'ilti&i:'f#'}

¶12

Telangana^{stateporru[iolr 6'o"ntiJ tq+Paryavaran Bhavan'A-3' lndustrial} Estate, Sanathn,'gt',iylJ[bid"^{-t a Aepres'entedby its Secreta?r.ro"*t'}

¶13

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleased to issue^{a writ more particularlyin the nature of mandamus' declaring the impugned} Order^{No. MHB-40/TSPCB/U-VITF/2020-1341 dlOSl12l2O2Oissued by the} Respondent^{No. 2 Board under Section33(A) of water (Preventionand control of} Pollution^{Act' 1988) and under Section31 (A) of Air (Preventions and Controlof} Pollution^{Acct, 1987)' onlyto the extentof demanding environmentalcompensation} of rNR^{66,36,000, as illegar, whimsical, arbitrary and irrational, and infringing} fundamentalrightsasenuisageaunderoftheConstitutionoflndia'andviolathe^{principles of naturaliustice and consequentially direct the Respondents o follow} t iveof due^{processof law contemplated underWater (Prevention and Controlof Pollution} Act,^{1988) and Air (Preventions and Control of Pollution Acct' 1987)'}

¶14

IA NO:^10F2021 Petttion^{under Section 151 CPC Prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the High^{Court maybe pleasedto restrain} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'} an coercive^{actions against the} d their^{authorisedPerson taking} ResPondents^an HB-4o/TSPcB^{I U -V fi F I 2020 -1 341} Petitioner^ComP any Pursuant^{to the Order No' M} /demand^{of the Environmental} particularlY^{in resPectrecovery} dt: 05.12.2020, ComPensation

¶15

A NO: oF2021 on^{'151 CPCPraYingthat in the circumstancesstated in} Petition^{under Secti} he High^{Court may be Pleasedto} the^{affidavit filed in supportof thepetition ' t} suspe^{nd the Order No' MHB-40/TSPC13/U-V/T Ft2O2O'1341Dt'15-12'2020 only to}

¶16

the extent of demanding environmental compensation of INR 66,30'1 0 issued by the Respondent No. 2 Board

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. S. ASSOCIATES

¶18

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR ENVIRONMENT

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SMT. pADMAJA R. N.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

TI{E HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISII CHANDRA AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.5023 of 2O21

¶24

ORDER: Per the Hon'ble the Chlef Justice Satish Chandra Shanna)

¶25

The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2O2O issued by respondent No.2 directing the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.66,36,000/- as environmenta.l compensation towards alleged environment damages.

¶26

The petitioners' contention is that the petitioner/ company is in the business of producing Maize Starch and power through its wet milling plant and biomass power general unit situated at Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner further stated that the National Green Tribuna-l has passed an order in O.A.No.107 of 2017, dated 16.10.2020 directing the Pollution Control Board to carryout phl,sical inspection in the matter. The Pollution Control Board has carried out physrcal inspection and finally after issuing proper shor,r, cause notice to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order.

¶27

When the matter was argued before this Court, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board has stated that in similar circumstances this Court has granted liberty to another industry to approach the National Green Tribunal. A

¶28

Division Bench of this^{Court in W.P No 6105 of 202 thas}

¶29

passed the follou'ing order:

¶30

"ln :he High Court^{of Telalgana, physicalhearing} has resumed. However,^{at the insistenceof learned counsel} appearing lor the^{petitioner-company,the matterwas heard} with the ionsent of^{the partiesthrough video conferencing} and a-fter hearing^{the learned counsel for the parties, the} matter is being disposed^{of at motion hearing stage itself'}

¶31

The petitioner before this^{court, acompany} registered under the Companies^{Act, 2013,has hled the} present writ petition being aggrieved^{by t1-re show cause} notice dated 28.09.2O2O as^{well as the orderdated} O1.O2.2O21 issued by the^{Tela,ngana State PollutionConrol} Board.

¶32

The facts of the case reveal that^{the NationalGreen} Tribunal, Southem Zone Bench, Chennar,^{vide judgment} dated 24. lO.2O17 in Application^{No.90of 20 l3 zrnd batch,} issued directrons for^payment of corpus^{fund of lo'b of the} annua.l turnover for expansion of industries^{and 0.5% oI the} annua.l turnover by the industries^{for restorationof the} entire affected area and creation^{of Corpus Fund in the} name of "Patancheru ald Bollaram^{Environment Relief} Fund".^'l'he petitioner-company^rvas one of the respondents before tlrc National Green Tribunal and^{after hearing the} pe titioner'compzury. the^judgment r,r'as del.ivered b1' the Tnbunal. ln compliance of the^judgmerlt delivercd b)^the National Green Tribunal, the^{petitioner-companl'made} contributions in the^year 2018-19 by^paying a^sumof Rs.4,22,00,000/-. The undisputed facts of the^casealso reveal that the petitioner-company is supplyrng^drinking water to various^{villages keepingin view the variousorders} passed by this High Court from time to time.

¶33

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-compaly, has vehemently argued before this court that the unit of the^petitioner- company is not situated in Patancheru ald Bollaram Industnal Areas and therefore, the^judgment of the^Nationa-1 Green Tribuna] does not cover the unit of the^petitroner- company.

¶34

A similar controversy arose in respect of M/s. Chromo Laboratories India Limited and M / s. Suven Pharmzrceuticals Limited, having their units at Sangareddy Districl.. Telangana. M / s. Chromo Laboratories India Limitecl and M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited were a.lso issued show cause notices and orders were passed on 01 .02.;2021 directing them to contribute towards Corpus Funcl and the companies, stating that the)'are having units in Sangareddy District and the^judgment is not applicable to thern, carne up before this court bt- filing rvnt petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.4118 and 4143 ot 2O2L. A Division Bench of this court has passed an order dated 26.03.202 1 in W.P.Nos.4118 and 4143 of 2021, which is reproduced as under:-

¶35

'1. The present^petitions haue^been filed^{bg the} petitioners praying inter alia for declaing^{the actionof the} 'respondenl Noi,.2/ Tetangana State Pot\ution Control^Board in demanding contibution^{to the corpus} Iund^{created by it,} in terms of the orders dated^{24.10.2017 passed ba the} Nattonal Green Tribunal,^{Southem Benclt" Chennai in a} batch of matters, as^{illegat and arbitrary.}

¶36

At th.e outset, we^{have reEtestedleamedcounsel} for the petitioners to ad'd.ress^{this court on the maintainabilitV} of tie present^{petitionswhen,euen as per the impugned} ird.er^{'dated'01.02.2021 passedbytheresporudent} No.2/ Telangana^{State PollutionControl Board, pagment in} the corpus futtd^{is beiqcalledupon to be nade--bAthe.} ,oncern"d,nrJ,.,stnes^{,, ie.rn" of the order of the Natronal-} Greert Triburtol.^{SoulhemBerrch' Clerrnai.In ott optnton U} tlp pelirctprs^{a'e oggne|ed bg lheaJorcsad^aclionof ll:€} respotlLlc,tt .\o.)^{Teltu'ganoSlalc Pollultott ControllJoard} ils'remedg^{liesbefore tlie National Green Tibunalhtstead'} the petttriners^{aie calhngupon thts courtto iftterpretthe} orrlir of tlrc^{National GrebnTribunat one LUOyor lhe other'} ruhlch is^not Pennissible.

¶37

We decline to^{efttertain the present petitionsT.he} lo^" or"^{ttccordinglg closedalong uith the pending} -op,ptr"otion". { anA tl is Ior lhe petircners to-alproa:! ni Nationat^{Greerr Tnbunal} for^{clanficatton oJ tsorder} doted. 24.10.2017^{and/ or to seekappropriateorclers.to tne} )ii.i i", theu are not^{under ang obligationto contnbute10} i;; ;o;us \ui,a^{,s d.ircctedto be ueatedba the National} CL.i iiui""t^{in tenns of theord'er d'ated24' 10 '2017 ''}

¶38

In the considered^{opinion of this court' as the} imousned orders^{have beenpassed by the TelanganaState} poilui'iot Control Board in respect^{of pa)T n€nt ol-Ygtp""} 'r""Jl"- -t" of the otd"r of tire Nauonal Creen Tribunal the petitioners^{are aggrieved'the. remedy iies} "rrJl., il.i"*',fr" ".".^{N.,iorrul G,""tt Tribunal and admission has been} declined in^{identicalcaseby this court'}

¶39

We also decline^{to entertain the present petition'} tir" saml "tut^{a" ai"po""d of with liberty to the petitioner-} ;;;; to-upp-ul'}l^{the National Green Tribunalfor} "irrl?r".ii""^{of ihe order dated 24 lo'2017 arrd to seek} orders to the^{effect that it is not underanv} ;;;;;;t;; obligation to contnbute^{to the Corpus Fund'as directed to} ;;;i; ;;,rl" ll,tlotta.t^{Green Tribunalin termsof the} 24 lo.2ol7 The interim^{order dated} ".a".--ar"i ii.oi.zoz i ",""ds r.'acated Resultantly'^{I A No 2 of 2021 is} allowed.

¶40

The miscellaneous^{applications pending in this writ} petition, if arly,^{shall stand closed "}

¶41

-l

¶42

¶43

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner^'i does have a remedy to approach the Nationai Green Tribunal. Therefore, the admission is declined.

¶44

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' To, SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 ate of Telangana. 4 A MBC^{i;itr;g;fii"#iltrlffi "*!,:?Jlfty,ua;i}

¶47

X.u-

¶48

HIGH COURT

¶49

DATED: 2311'112021