S. Venkatesh Reddy vs The Director, A.P. Pollution Control Board and Others

S.B. Sinha, C.J.—In this writ application the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to take steps to prevent Pyderu River and Alluru Irrigation Canal from being polluted by the third respondent and made the prayer as under.

I submit that I have purchased an extent of Acs.9.95 of land in R.S. No. 506/1 and another extent of Acs.0.69 of land in R.S. No. 506/1 and Acs.3.40 of land in R.S. No. 500/2 of Regadichelika Village in the year 1994-95 and I am living an agriculture. The principal source of irrigation and drinking water for cattle is Pyderu River and Alluru Irrigation Canal. The cattle of the entire village and the ryots of the entire village are dependent of Pyderu River and Alluru Irrigation Canal for the purpose of irrigation and drinking water for the cattle. The 3rd respondent herein is a company manufacturing several chemical compounds and emitting liquid effluents into the Pyderu River and Alluru Irrigation Canal as a result of which the entire water of Pyderu River and Alluru Irrigation Canal has become poisonous. Several milch cattle have died in Regadichelika village and in the villages of Thalamanchi, Mopur, Igakapalli also. The same was published in various newspapers including "EENADU" Telugudaily, Nellore edition, dt.9.6.1999. I submit that my lands are situated next to the plant of the 3rd respondent herein and as a result of the effluents that are being discharged by the 3rd respondent, it has become impossible for me to eke out my livelihood through pisciculture which is my principal occupation.

The fact that the third respondent has been discharging industrial effluents into the aforementioned River and canal is not in dispute. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fist respondent affirmed by Sri T. Chatterjee wherein it is inter alia contended that the industry was directed to scrupulously avoid discharge of effluents into Pyderu canal and continuously monitor the same. A closure notice was issued on 2.1.1996 for non-compliance of the directions of the A.P. Pollution Control Board. An order of temporary revocation of closure was issued on 23.1.1996 so as to enable the third respondent herein to take appropriate measures as advised by the Board. The Board later on extended the time upto 10.6.1998. A show cause notice was issued in terms of Section 33(A) of the Water Pollution (Prevention & Control) Amendment Act, 1988. However, the matter was reviewed and it was observed that the industry has not been operating effluent treatment system properly and the effluent does not conform to the stipulated standards. The industry allegedly has taken recourse to certain remedial measures. However, the Board has issued order dt. 29.7.1999 and extended the revocation of closure order from 7.5.1999 to 30.9.1999 prescribing the following conditions.

a) The industry shall produce pseudoephedrine HCL at reduced production level as committed by the industry at the rate of 5 batches/day and to regulate the inflow to ETP, in such a manner to improve the efficiency of treatment plant so as to bring down the effluent characteristics nearer the standards prescribed by the Board.

b) The industry shall submit details of production, raw materials consumption and ETP status to the Board by 1st and 15th of every month and the industry shall not discharge any effluent outside the factory and to utilise for gardening and irrigation in their own premises.

c) The industry shall obtain consent of the Board under the Acts and shall furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs to prove commitment to the action plan dates.

Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a copy of the letter dt.28.4.2001 from a perusal whereof it is seen that the State Pollution Control Board has taken a decision to issue consent for operation for one year i.e., upto 31.3.2002.

Having regard to the fact that the concerned respondent has already taken action in the matter and as it is submitted before us that the third respondent has complied all the conditions, we dispose of this application directing the first respondent to inspect the premises from time to time and monitor discharge of industrial effluents by the third respondent into the aforesaid River and canal at regular intervals with a view to find out as to whether any pollution in the said water bodies is caused or not.

With the above directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.