Compliance with statutory procedures, specifically Rule 4 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, is essential before issuing closure notices for violation of conditions under Hazardous Wastes Rules and the Environment Protection Act.

Headnote:
State Pollution Control Board - Industrial Establishments - Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, framed under Sec. 6,8 and 25 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 - The court discussed the violation of conditions contained in the authorization issued under the Hazardous Wastes Rules and the Environment Protection Act. It emphasized the importance of following the statutory procedures before issuing closure notices and highlighted the need for compliance with Rule 4 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986.
Fact of the Case:

Certain Industrial Establishments in Ernakulam District faced with closure directions from State Pollution Control Board for violation of conditions contained in authorization issued under Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, framed under Sec. 6,8 and 25 of Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Finding of the Court:

The court directed the Pollution Control Board to treat the impugned directions as proposed directions under Rule 4(3)(a) of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and allowed the petitioners to file objections within fifteen days. It also imposed specific obligations on the petitioners to avert environmental contamination and directed the Pollution Control Board to ensure compliance with the statutory procedures for similar notices in the future.
Issues: Violation of conditions under Hazardous Wastes Rules and Environment Protection Act, compliance with statutory procedures before closure notices, and environmental contamination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with Rule 4 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 before issuing closure notices and directed the Pollution Control Board to follow the statutory procedures for similar notices in the future.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to treat the impugned directions as proposed directions, allowing the petitioners to file objections, imposing specific obligations on the petitioners to avert environmental contamination, and directing the Pollution Control Board to ensure compliance with statutory procedures for similar notices in the future.

Judgment :-

These writ petitions are filed by certain Industrial Establishments in Ernakulam District. They are faced with a direction from State Pollution Control Board, Ext.P8 in W.P.(c) 25829/2004. Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) 25830/2004, Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)25831/2004, Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)25832 of 2004, Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)25845/2004, Ext.P4 in WP(C) 24849 of 2004 and Ext.P14 in WP(C)25866/2004. These directions have been issued by the State Pollution Control Board. It is stated therein that it is in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court of India that these direction were issued. These directions call upon concerned factories to close down the functioning forthwith as it has been noticed that there was violation of the conditions contained authorization issued in terms of Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, framed under Sec. 6,8 and 25 of Environment Protection Act, 1986. It is submitted that all these factories have been given authorization by State Pollution Control Board, after due enquiry and after complying with the conditions as required by Pollution Control Board. If any violation is noticed, before issuing closure notice, it is incumbent on the Pollution Control Board to issue draft proposals regarding closure, obtain explanation of the persons concerned, hear them and pass appropriate orders if the necessary protections have not been taken by the factories concerned. The procedure is as provided in Rule 4 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986. Such procedure had not been followed before the impugned directions have been issued.

2. It is further submitted that the order of the Supreme Court dated 14.10.2003 does not have direct application to the petitioners who have been already issued with the authorizations and in their case, the procedure under Rule 4 as mentioned above, shall be followed. Direction from the Supreme Court is in respect of the factories covered by the report of the High Power Committee. The petitioners are not included in the said report. Even if the petitioners are covered by the Supreme Court directions, the Supreme Court has not dispensed with the statutory procedures. Therefore the impugned direction is invalid and liable to be set aside, it is submitted.

3. The Standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board submitted that the impugned directions issued to the petitioners can be treated as the notice envisaged under Rule 4 of the Environment Protection Rules and the procedure in terms of the said Rule shall be followed scrupulously. This submission is recorded.

Accordingly, the original petitions are disposed of as follows:-

1. The respective impugned direction, Ext.P8 in W.P(C) 25829/2004, Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)25830/-2004, Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)25831,/2004, Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) 25832 of 2004, Ext.P9 in W.P. (C)25845/2004, Ext.P4 in WP(C) 24849 of 2004 and Ext.P14 in WP(C)25866/2004, shall be taken as proposed direction in terms of Rule 4(3) (a) of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.

2. The petitioners will have fifteen days time from the date of service of the respective directions, to file their objections. Those who have already filed objection, can very well supplement it within the aforesaid time frame. Thereupon the Pollution Control Board shall, after hearing the respective petitioners, pass appropriate orders, in terms of Sub Rule 4 of Rule 4 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.Such order shall be passed within the time frame provided in the said provision.

3. But, at the same time, the petitioner in W.P.(C)25829 of 2004 shall see that the leakage from closed ponds as well as from the new one causing ground water contamination, if any, because of the alleged improper handling of hazardous wastes shall be averted forthwith, if not already done. The Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board shall pay weekly visits to that petitioner’s premises and inspect whether such contamination is subsisting or recurring. In case it is so, certainly an independen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document