Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 719

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member
Santoshpur Mitali Sangha – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Original Application No.82/2023/EZ|Execution Application No.03/2024/EZ

Advocates:
For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta, Mr. Kaustav Dhar
For Respondent(s): Mr. Rajib Ray, Mr. Ayush Kumar Dadhich, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Mr. Amritam Mandal, Ms. Shipra Naskar, Mr. Sanjay Sadhu

Gaushalas classified as Orange category industries require consents; violations of CPCB guidelines on siting, waste management attract Polluter Pays Principle mandating environmental compensation and remediation, ignorance of law no defence.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Guidelines for Environmental Management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas, 2021 (CPCB) - Dairy farms listed under 'Orange' category per CPCB Notification dated 07.03.2016 requiring Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Gaushala operating without prior consents, violating siting criteria (within 100m of residential areas/schools), discharging untreated wastewater and solid wastes causing drain clogging, odour, and agricultural land damage - Extraction of groundwater without permission - Filling of waterbodies ('Doba'/'Pukur') violating land laws - Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles applicable mandating remedial measures and compensation - Ignorance of law no defence (Paras 28-32, 60-67).

(B) Siting Policy - Gaushalas must be at least 100m from residential dwellings, schools, hospitals; away from waterbodies, floodplains - Existing units to adopt environmental practices (Paras 17-19).

(C) Waste Management - Mandatory composting/vermicomposting/biogas for dung; treatment of wastewater to prescribed standards; proper biomedical waste disposal; groundwater extraction permission required (Paras 13-20).

(D) Regulatory Mechanism - State PCBs to enforce consents, monitor compliance, impose environmental compensation for violations (Para 20).

Facts of the case:
Resident society filed application alleging large gaushala (~1500 bovines) operating illegally without consents, violating CPCB guidelines on siting, waste management; causing pollution via untreated effluents, solid wastes into drains/agricultural lands; confirmed by joint inspection reports noting deficiencies in ETP, biogas plant, boundary walls, land use violations.

Findings of Court:
Violations established per inspection reports; CTO granted post-filing but inadequate (40KLD vs. required capacity); partial compliances noted but persistent issues like groundwater extraction, ETP capacity, waste clearance pending; land restoration required; environmental compensation to be computed.

Issues: Whether gaushala violates environmental guidelines, consent requirements, siting/waste norms; liability for past/present pollution; remedial actions including compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Orange category units mandatorily require consents; operators liable under Precautionary/Polluter Pays Principles for remediation irrespective of care; ignorance no excuse; PCBs to compute/levy compensation post show-cause; authorities to enforce land restoration, compliances.

Result: Original and Execution Applications disposed directing State PCB to compute/levy Environmental Compensation within 2 months post show-cause; inspect for remedial compliance; District Magistrate to restore filled waterbodies within 2 months.

Table of Content
1. gaushala operating without consents and violating siting guidelines (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. committee inspection reveals environmental violations and remedial needs (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. cpcb 2021 guidelines detail waste management and siting for gaushalas (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

ORDER

1. Ms. Shipra Naskar, learned Counsel files Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7 & 8; the same is taken on record.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in part.

3. Considering the Report of the Committee of an Inspection/Enquiry conducted on 29.08.2023, we are of the view that in the interregnum a boundary wall to the Gaushala needs to be constructed on an urgent basis to ensure that there is no outflow of cow dung, bovine urine, sewage, waste water into the adjoining areas.

I.A. No.12/2024/EZ:-

4. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by Respondent No.8 with the prayer that he may be provided police assistance in the erection of the boundary wall along the periphery of the Suravi Sadan Gaushala in Mouza-Santoshpur, P.S.-Barasat, District North

24 Parganas.

5. The allegation in his Interlocutory Application is that the local persons are preventing him from construction of the boundary wall with the result that some of the findings noted in the Committee Report are being rendered unimplementable.

6. Mr. Ritwick Dutta, learned Counsel for the Applicant of the Original Application states that the Applicant has no objection if boundary wall is permitted to be constructed in the interregnum. Learned Counsel also suggested that construction of boundary wall would not suffice unless a proper drainage/garland drain is also constructed to contain the flow of sewage/slush/bovine urine and bovine waste etc.

7. We, therefore, allow the I.A. No.12/2024/EZ and direct the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 to construct a boundary wall of adequate height ensuring impermeability of sewage/slush/bovine urine/bovine waste from flowing to the outside. The said respondents shall also construct a garland drain to contain the outflow of bovine sewage, urine, cow dung etc. 8. Let the said construction of boundary wall and garland drain be constructed within two months i.e. by 31.05.2024

9. I.A. No.12/2024/EZ is accordingly disposed of.

10. We also find that the Enquiry Committee had conducted enquiry on 29.08.2023 and thereafter, Consent to Operate (CTO) was granted to the Respondent Nos.7 & 8, Gaushala, on 21.09.2023. The Report clearly mentions that 150 KLD of water is being utilized by the Gaushala whereas the Consent to Operate (CTO) has been granted only for 40 KLD. We wonder whether the West Bengal Pollution Control Board had taken the Committee Report into consideration before granting Consent to Operate (CTO).

11. We are also of the view that since the Consent to Operate (CTO) was granted on 21.09.2023, a fresh Inspection Report is required from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board with regard to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in the Consent to Operate (CTO) particularly with reference to the findings of the Enquiry Committee of the enquiry dated 29.08.2023.

12. We, therefore, direct the West Bengal Pollution Control Board to carry out its fresh inspection by 07.06.2024 particularly bearing in mind the compliances of the conditions given in the Consent to Operate with reference to the CPCB guidelines dated July, 2021 and the Report should be submitted by the first week of July, 2024.

13. Mr. Suman Dutt, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 further submitted that since the Gaushala is located in a rural area there is no adequate drainage system and, therefore, disposal of the slush, slurry and bovine urine after treatment would still remain a problem for which suggestions have to be given by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

14. The submission Mr. Suman Dutt, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.7 & 8 has been disputed by Mr. Ritwick Dutta, learned Counsel for the Applicant. Considering the s