Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 605

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member
Prasad M. Mulye – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, M/s. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd – Respondent
Original Application No.31/2023(WZ)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Asim Sarode, Advocate along-with Ms. Sughanshi Ropia, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Bhash H. Mankad, Advocate for R-1/PP, Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-2/MPCB, Mr. Prashant Chavan, Advocate along-with Mr. Navdeep Vora, Advocate & Associates for R-3/MIDC, Mr. Vilas Ghogare, Director, DISH, for R-5, Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-6/CPCB, Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-7/MoEF&CC

Burden on applicant to prove environmental pollution claims with evidence; regulatory inspections and tests confirming compliance with consents, zero liquid discharge, and correct industry categorization rebut unsubstantiated allegations.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 18(2) - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 18(1)(b); Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 18(1)(b); Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 2(k)(i), 4 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Pharmaceutical industry operations - Applicant alleged hazardous waste generation near dam causing leachate pollution to groundwater and drinking water; illegal operations without consents, wrong categorization from red to orange, proximity violations to dam, and effluent reuse for gardening breaching zero liquid discharge - Tribunal held no evidence of water pollution proved by applicant; plant outside dam catchment area per official letter; independent tests and inspections showed compliance with effluent recycling, zero discharge, and safe waste disposal; initial red categorization for R&D unit corrected to orange as per CPCB guidelines for pharmaceutical formulation and non-commercial R&D (Pollution Index 41-59); manufacturing process at unregistered R&D unit led to prosecution but Ambernath plant licensed; no locus standi or limitation issues addressed substantively; no environmental clearance needed for formulation activities. (Paras 47-63)

(B) Burden of Proof - Environmental claims - Onus on applicant alleging pollution to adduce evidence of contamination; mere proximity or apprehension insufficient without scientific proof like contaminated water reports; regulatory inspections and test reports rebutting claims hold primacy over unsubstantiated allegations. (Paras 47, 50-51)

Facts of the case:
Applicant filed application seeking permanent closure of pharmaceutical plants at two locations for alleged environmental violations including water pollution near dam, invalid consents, category misclassification, illegal manufacturing in non-conforming zones, effluent misuse, and hazardous waste disposal. Respondents denied violations, submitted compliance affidavits, test reports, MPCB inspections confirming zero liquid discharge, effluent recycling, safe waste disposal, and correct orange categorization; prior closure rectified post-compliance; R&D unit involved non-commercial activities only.

Findings of Court:
No water pollution caused to dam; plants compliant with consents under orange category; initial red consent erroneous and rectified; operations limited to formulation and R&D, not bulk manufacturing requiring red status or prior environmental clearance; applicant failed to prove allegations.

Issues: (i) Whether plant caused dam water pollution? (ii) Whether R&D unit involved manufacturing? (iii) Error in changing consent category from red to orange? (iv) Relief entitlement?

Ratio Decidendi: Applicant bears burden to prove pollution claims with evidence; regulatory categorization per CPCB pollution index guidelines prevails; correction of initial consent error valid; absence of contamination evidence and positive compliance reports defeat allegations; no substantial environmental question raised justifying intervention.

Result: Original Application dismissed. No costs.

Table of Content
1. applicant's claims of environmental violations by pharmaceutical plants (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. regulatory findings on factory licensing non-compliance at airoli (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. respondent's defense on locus standi, limitation, and compliance (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. compliance with consents, zld, and waste management (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. mpcb's categorization and past enforcement actions (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
6. applicant's rejoinders on category errors and violations (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
7. midc's position on land use and permissions (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
8. framing of issues for adjudication (Para 46)
9. no evidence of water pollution at ambernath plant (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
10. airoli unit correctly categorized as orange for r&d (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
11. application dismissed; no relief granted (Para 62 , 63 , 64)

JUDGMENT

1. This Original Application has been preferred with the prayers that respondent No.1- Managing Director, M/s. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. be permanently directed to be shut down due to the violations of environmental laws at its end; respondent No.2- Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board; respondent No.3- Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation; respondent No.4- Superintendent Engineer, Thane Irrigation Circle; and respondent No.5- Director, Directorate of Industrial Safety & Health be directed to cancel all the permissions related to respondent No.1 to run the activities in its plants at Ambernath and Airoli; respondent No.2- Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board be directed to review/set aside ‘Consent to Operate’ granted to the respondent No.1; and cost be imposed upon the respondent No.1’s Industry.

2. In the body of this application, it is submitted that the applicant has observed hazardous waste being generated by the respondent No.1’s plant in a close proximity to the Chikhloli Dam, resulting in leachate being generated, which is having capacity to pollute the ground water table. This act is putting the population of Ambernath in jeopardy as the dam provides drinking water supply to the city.

3. It is further mentioned in this application that the respondent No.1- M/s. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company dealing in the business of manufacturing bio-pharmaceutical products, having its Plant at Plot No.K-27, K27/part, K27/1 Additional MIDC, Anand Nagar, Ambernath (East), Thane (hereinafter to be referred in short as "Ambernath Plant") and a research and development unit at Plot No.K-10, Kalwa Industrial Area, Airoli, Navi Mumbai (hereinafter to be referred in short as “R&D unit”). The Respondent No.1’s industry falls under the "Red" Category as per the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) directions dated 07^th March, 2016. These are the modified directions, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, regarding harmonization of classification of industrial sectors. As per the CPCB’s directions, pharmaceuticals are mentioned at Sr. No.58, under the "Red" Category. But somehow the Respondent No.1’s industry is operating in Orange Category instead of “Red” Category.

4. It is further mentioned in this application that the "Consent to Operate" issued to the respondent No.1 is not valid and it is also violating various conditions stipulated in the Consent to Operate. It is further mentioned that respondent No.1 operated its Ambernath Plant illegally without "Consent to Operate" for about 6.5 months as the "Consent to Operate" was issued on 28/01/2022, which expired on 30/06/2022. The said Consent was renewed only in January 2023, for which the respondent No.1 had applied on 25/06/2022, i.e., 5 days prior to its expiry. It is further mentioned that given nature of the opera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 605

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Vijay Kulkarni, Expert MemberPrasad M. Mulye – AppellantVersusManaging Director, M/s. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd – RespondentOriginal Application No.31/2023(WZ)

Burden on applicant to prove environmental pollution claims with evidence; regulatory inspections and tests confirming compliance with consents, zero liquid discharge, and correct industry categorization rebut unsubstantiated allegations.

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member
Prasad M. Mulye – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, M/s. Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd – Respondent
Original Application No.31/2023(WZ)