Huhtamaki PPL Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The proceedings under challenge in this Writ Petition is the closure order passed by the State Pollution Control Board on 8.4.2019 informing the petitioner that, at the time of inspection of the Effluent Treatment Plant, it was found that the treated effluent quality with respect to the Biochemical Oxygen demand was 65 mg per litre. The consent for operation, granted by the State Pollution Control Board on 2.8.2018, stipulated that the treated effluent shall be recycled to the maximum extent; and the quality of the treated effluent shall meet the general and specific standards, as prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 as applicable to the unit from time-to-time. In the table at serial no. 3 is Biochemical Oxygen demand (3 days 27ºC) which is required not to exceed 30 mg per litre.

Para (iii) of the order granting consent for operation, as noted hereinabove, records that the unit shall meet the general and specific standards as prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Sri Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place before us a copy of Schedule-VI to the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 where under the General Standards for Discharge of Environmental Pollutants Part-A : Effluents is prescribed. Serial no. 2 of the table below stipulates that BOD (3 days, 27ºC) shall not exceed 30 mg per litre for inland surface water, it is 350 mg per litre for public sewers, and 100 mg per litre for land for irrigation and marine coastal areas.

Sri Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Biochemical Oxygen demand generated from the Effluent Treatment Plant of the petitioner is used for the purpose of gardening within the premises of the petitioner's unit, and is not even discharged outside the premises, much less to any water body including a River. On the other hand, Sri Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Pollution Control Board, would submit that a River flows nearby the petitioner's unit; the order of closure was passed only after a detailed inspection was conducted of the petitioner's unit, and on the basis of the inspection report submitted by the officials concerned; and all the relevant facts would be placed on record by way of counter affidavit.

Sri Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the State Pollution Control Board on 9.4.2019. Since the petitioner's claim of having complied with the standards, as prescribed in the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, necessitates examination by the State Pollution Control Board itself, and this Court lacks expertise to delve into such matters, we direct the State Pollution Control Board to consider the petitioner's representation dated 9.4.2019, pass orders thereupon in accordance with law, and communicate the same to them within one week from today. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the learned Counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.