Park CETP (P) Limited vs The Government of India and Others

Prabha Sridevan, J.—Originally the petitioner Combined ETP (Co ETP in short) had three units. Seven more units are proposed to be

included as its members. It appears that they initially decide to install R.O. Plants individually. Thereafter, they dropped the idea and decided to

form a Common ETP(CETP in short). According to them, they have installed an ETP and the R.O. plant in common and it is ready for

commissioning. According to them, the existing three units and proposed seven units are situated 5 kms away from Noyyal River. According to the

petitioner, there are 19 more CETPs in Tiruppur and they all have given consents to install R.O. plants and the Central Governments and the State

Governments have given subsidy to those CETPs. The petitioner CoETP also decided that they would avail of these benefits of subsidy and

according to them, the Anna University had also approved of the project report on 15-07-2008. However, the impugned order dated 14-11-

2006 stands in their way of establishing the CETP and therefore, they have filed this writ petition for a certiorari to quash the said order directing

the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to give consent to establish and operate the ETP R.O plant in common to the petitioner CoETP and also

for a direction to recommend the case of the petitioner CoETP for subsidy from the 1st and 2nd respondent.

2.While making his submissions, the learned Counsel for the respondent said that the directions for the grant of subsidy is not pressing the prayer

and submitted that he will take steps to avail of the benefit that is granted by the Government.

3.According to the learned Counsel, there are no legal hurdles and the Pollution Control Board has rejected his application and insists they will

only give them permission to establish a combined ETP and not a common ETP and he would also submit that for the grant of subsidy they should

establish a common ETP and if they establish a combined ETP they will not be entitled to the said benefit. According to the learned counsel, they

have fulfilled all the conditions of the establishment of a common ETP.

4.The Pollution Control Board has filed a detailed counter. According to them, the three units viz., M/s. Anburam Knit Process, M/s. Karthikai

Textile Mills and M/s. PKP Processors, which are the three original units, were previously the members of M/s Angeripalayam CETP (P) Ltd.

Subsequently they wanted to be relieved from the membership of the said CETP and put up an individual ETP and therefore, the Board issued an

order of closure. On 02-11-2006, the Board issued a no objection for installation and operation of the R.O. plant to the unit of the petitioners

combined ETP.

5.According to the Pollution Control Board, the petitioner''s CoETP does not fall under the common effluent treatment plant category and the

Board relies on the order dated 22-12-2006 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29719 of 2003 which reads as follows:

Subsequently, the Pollution Control Board issued orders directing all the units in Tiruppur clusters to set up ''Reverse Osmosis Plants'' (R.O.

plants) so as to achieve ''Zero Liquid Discharge'' (ZLD). This direction was necessitated by the fact that conventional primary treatment was not

adequate to inter alia remove the ''Total Dissolved Salts'' (TDS) from the effluents generated from these units. It was noticed that huge inflow of

upwards of 90 million litres a day from the dyeing and bleaching units in cluster has resulted in the siltation of the Orathapalayam Dam constructed

across the Noyyal river, generating enormous pollution load on the receiving water body and consequently the river water used for irrigation of

down stream agricultural lands as also ground water drawn from wells alongside the Noyyal river has been rendered saline. Consequently eight

CETPs were initially set up which received effluents from 271 units, subjected these effluents to primary treatment and later released them to the

river Noyyal or which ultimately reached the river Noyyal. Thereafter a proposal was mooted to establish additional 11 CETPs and many units

filed affidavits before this Court stating that they intend to join one or the other of the eleven additional proposed CETPs. These eleven CETPs

were to cater to 236 units. The remaining 173 units filed affidavits before this Court or communicated to the Pollution Control Board that they

intend to set up R.O. Plants individually. Of these individual units (hereinafter referred to as IETPs), 6 units have filed affidavits before this Court

seeking permission to abandon their plans of setting up of individual R.O. Plants and to join the proposed CETPs. This Court permitted these units

to do so, subject to the condition that the CETPs would not take in any further members. It appears that written undertakings were given by the

Tirupur Dyeing Factories Owners'' Association as well as the Tiruppur Bleaching Units/Industries Owners'' Association to the Pollution Control

Board to comply with the conditions on or before 08-06-2005.

Therefore, the Board does not accept that the petitioner unit is among the eight existing CETPs or 11 proposed CETPs as allowed by this Court.

6.The learned Counsel for the Pollution Control Board would submit that they fall under the individual ETP status which have decided to provide a

combined ETP. The learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner also had decided to add 7 proposed units to the number of units that was

originally existing. He also submitted that the petitioner''s unit had been considered along with the others in W.P. No. 29791 of 2003 and the

petitioner unit was categorized as ''F'' which falls under units which had obtained time till 30-11-2006 to continue discharge to CETPs. According

to the learned counsel, this unit has been established only as a combined ETP and not as a common ETP.

7.Paragraph No.5 of the counter is also relevant and it reads as follows:

5.It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner unit of M/s. PARK CETP (P) Limited has applied for the consent of the Board on 14-08-2008 and

the District Environmental Engineer, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Tiruppur in letter No. DEE/TNPCB/TPR/F.2259/RL/2006 dated 14-11-

2006 has returned the applications to the unit of M/s. PARK CETP (P) Limited with a request to submit the fresh applications without any

proposed members. As of now the unit of M/s. PARK CETP(P) Limited has not filed applications as requested in letter No.

DEE/TNPCB/TPR/F.2259/RL/2006 dated 14-11-2006, which is mandatory to obtain Consent To Establish under the Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution)Act, 1974 as amended and under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1981 as amended. Further show cause

notice was issued to the unit of M/s. PARK CETP (P) Limited, as the unit is carrying out construction activity at S.F.No.327, Thottipalayam

village, Tirupur Taluk, Coimbatore District.

8.The learned Counsel appearing for the Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association also had objection but we do no see how he could have

any objection to our considering the writ petition prayer especially when the Pollution Control Board has only directed the petitioner unit to apply

again and the counter also says that unless consent under Water Act and Air Act are obtained, there is no question of the Board processing the

application. Therefore, their apprehension or objection is premature. In fact, we are of the opinion that the writ petition itself is premature. The

order which is impugned herein reads as follows:

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

From

To

A. Thangapandian M. E. The Managing Director

District Environmental Engineer, i/e M/s. Park Combined ETP(P) Ltd.,

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardSF.No.327, Poyampalayam

II Floor, Kumaran Commercial Pirivu (West)

Complex, Kumaran Road Pitchampalayam Post, PN Road

Tiruppur - 641 601Tiruppur - 641 603

Letter No: DEE/TNPCB/TPR/F.2259/RL/2006/Dated 14.11.2006

Sir,

Sub: TNPC Board - Industries - M/s. PARK Combined ETP (P)

Ltd., as SF.No.327 - Application for Consent of the Board submitted by you is returned - reg. Ref: Unit''s application for Consent under the

Water and Air Act received on 14.08.2006. This is to inform that the Honourable High Court of Madras in Noyyal Batch Matter in

W.P.No.29791/2003 etc., has ordered to install RO Plant with Reject Management System so as to ensure Zero discharge system of effluent in

which 3 units namely 1. M/s. Anburam Knit Process (Collector''s Booklet No. 495), 2. M/s. P.K.P. Processors (Collector''s Booklet No. 181)

and M/s. Karthikai Textile Mills (Collector''s Booklet No. 480) are respondents. These 3 units have proposed to provide a combined ETP to treat

the Dyeing effluent arising from 3 units in the name of M/s. PARK Combined ETP (P) Ltd., at SR. No. 327, Thottipalayam Village, Tiruppur

Taluk, Coimbatore District. However, the application forms submitted by you was not duly filled in. Also, it is to inform that there shall not be any

addition of existing or proposed units in the combined ETP and there shall not be any deviation from the directions of the Honourable High Court

of Madras. Hence, the applications filed by the unit are returned and requested to file a fresh applications under both Acts in the name of M/s.

PARK Combined ETP without any new members with other details. The receipt of this letter along with the applications as submitted by you shall

be acknowledged.

Sd/-

District Environmental Engineer

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Tiruppur

Encl.

Application-2 sets

Received by sd/-

9.Till date no application has been filed by the petitioner-unit. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Board is insistent on treating

them only as combined ETP and not as a common ETP without any reasonable basis. There is no such averment in the petition. It is only a

statement made across the Bar. The learned Counsel would submit that a mere perusal of the impugned order itself would show that the Board

itself would treat the petitioner as a combined ETP. If the petitioner is entitled to apply either as a combined or a common ETP, it is open to him to

make a representation as in the order dated 14-11-2006. As and when the petitioner files an application, it is for the Pollution Control Board to

satisfy itself whether all the statutory requirements and all the provisions of various Environmental Laws are complied with and thereafter pass an

order.

10.The writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.