1. Non-compliance with directions under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, resulting in river pollution through effluent seepage from unlined lagoons. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 134
Supreme Court Of India
Decided On : (January 29, 1998)
BHAVANI RIVER SAKTHI SUGARS
Versus
TAMIL NADU Pollution Control Board
An industry that fails to comply with the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board and continues to pollute the environment can be ordered to close down.
Headnote:
WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974 - SECTION 33-A - DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - NON-COMPLIANCE - CLOSURE OF INDUSTRY - DIRECTIONS TO NEERI FOR INSPECTION AND REPORT.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board issued directions to an industry under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, to ensure proper storage and treatment of effluent. The industry failed to comply with some of the directions, resulting in pollution of a river.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the industry had not complied with the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board and that pollution was continuing due to the actions of the industry. The court also found that the industry had failed to take remedial steps to prevent pollution and contamination of the river water.
Issues: Whether the industry had complied with the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the industry had failed to comply with the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board and that pollution was continuing due to the actions of the industry. The court also held that the industry had failed to take remedial steps to prevent pollution and contamination of the river water. Therefore, the court directed the closure of the industry.
Final Decision: The court directed the closure of the industry on or before 2/02/1998 and directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to submit a report regarding compliance of this direction by the Industry within ten days.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Industry claims compliance through reporting and production reduction, while the regulatory board alleges continued pollution and failure to adhere to specific statutory directions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Continued effluent seepage from unlined lagoons into the river constitutes a serious health hazard and environmental threat, reflecting a failure to implement remedial measures. (Para 7 )
4. Failure to arrest unabated pollution and non-compliance with statutory directions to prevent environmental contamination justifies the closure of industrial operations. (Para 7 )
5. Industry ordered closed; use of unlined transit tanks prohibited; NEERI directed to inspect pollution control and assess environmental damage and restitution costs. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. When is the closure of an industry justified in environmental pollution cases?
Closure is justified when an industry fails to comply with statutory directions to prevent pollution, and continued seepage of effluents creates a serious health hazard and environmental threat. (Para 7 )
7. What conditions must be met for an industry ordered closed for pollution to seek restart of operations?
The industry must remove effluent from unlined lagoons, ensure all lagoons and intermediary transit tanks are properly lined, and may then approach the court for orders to restart. (Para 10 )
8. What is the role of expert bodies like NEERI in assessing industrial pollution?
Expert bodies are tasked with inspecting pollution control devices, verifying compliance with the Act, assessing environmental damage caused by effluent discharge, and determining the cost of restitution. (Para 11 )
( 1 ) AN additional affidavit of Undertaking has been filed in Court today by Mr. P. Natarajan on behalf of the Industry, respondent No. 6.
( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for respondent No. 6, the learned Amicus Curiae as also the learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
( 3 ) FROM a perusal of the affidavit filed by the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 12-1-1998, it transpires that certain directions were issued by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended in 1988 to respondent No. 6. These directions were inter alia aimed at ensuring proper storage of effluent in lagoons and for proper treatment and disposal of the treated effluent. As many as 11 directions, as detailed in the affidavit, were given. Para 5 of the said affidavit discloses that the Industry (respondent No. 6) has not complied with directions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. It is also stated that during the inspection of the Industry on 23rd of November, 1997, it was noticed that the seepage of effluent from lagoon c joined the drain and ultimately reached river Bhavani thereby contravening the conditions imposed in the directions by the Board. The affidavit goes on to say that show cause notice was also issued by the Board to the Industry calling upon it to State why penal action for offences punishable under Section 44 read with Section 45 (a) of the Act should not be initiated for violating the conditions imposed by the Board.
( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 6 in its affidavit filed on 27th of January, 1998 has not denied that 11 directions had been issued to it by the Board and that some of those directions have not been complied with. It is stated in para (d) as follows:"in respect of the direction of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board at Para (viii) that the Company shall give progress report on disposal of accumulated effluent in lagoons every fortnight and also fortnightly progress report on the actions taken to comply with the conditions stipulated in the Consent Order issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, it is submitted that the Company has furnished daily statements giving complete particulars of the effluent generated, effluent utilised for composting and for concentration, inflow into lagoons, outflow from the lagoons and other detailed particulars. The receipt of these daily statements by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is acknowledge in their Affidavit filed before this Honourable Court. Apart from the daily statements, the Company has also furnished consolidated and fortnightly reports to the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. "
( 5 ) IN the affidavit of Undertaking filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 today it is stated that since 16th of January, 1998, the production capacity of the Industry has been reduced and ferti-irrigation has been completely stopped. It is also stated that the entire effluent is being utilised within the premises for bio-composting and that there is no discharge of water or effluent on land or in water.
( 6 ) WITH regard to the two unlined lagoons, it is stated in para 7 (a) of the affidavit of undertaking filed today that effluent has been stored in the two unlined lagoons and it is reiterated that no further discharge of effluent is being made into the unlined lagoons.
( 7 ) AS already noticed, according to the Board, the seepage from the unlined lagoons in which effluent has been stored joins the drain and ultimately reaches river Bhivani thereby polluting the river water. This is a serious matter and shows that pollution is continuing because of actions of respondent No. 6 and remedial steps have not been taken to prevent pollution and contamination of the river water. Respondent No. 6, has obviously failed to arrest the unabated pollution, which has become a health hazard and environmental enemy. Enough time has been given to t
