Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2286

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

Applicant must prove pollution claims; industry categorization follows CPCB guidelines; locus standi requires direct aggrievement; initial consent errors rectifiable by regulator.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 18(2) - Locus standi and limitation - Applicant lacking direct injury or property damage, residing distant from sites, held not aggrieved person; cause of action not continuous, application barred by 6-month limitation without condonation (Paras 16-18).

(B) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 18(1)(b); Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 18(1)(b) - Industry categorization - Pharmaceutical formulation and R&D (non-commercial) correctly classified Orange (Pollution Index 41-59), not Red (60+), per CPCB 2016 directions; initial Red consent error rectified (Paras 23, 29, 59).

(C) Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 2(k)(i), prosecution initiated for unlicensed manufacturing in non-factory registered premises (Para 13).

(D) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification 2006 - No prior clearance needed for formulation/R&D activities under threshold (Paras 57-59). (E) Burden of proof - Applicant failed to prove pollution; independent tests, inspections showed zero liquid discharge, no effluent discharge, safe waste disposal (Paras 47, 50-52).

Facts of the case:
Applicant alleged pharmaceutical plants caused water pollution near dam via hazardous waste leachate, effluent gardening, illegal operations in non-permitted zones, wrong Orange categorization instead of Red, lacking licenses/clearances. Sought shutdown, consent cancellations. Respondents denied, provided compliance proofs, tests showing no pollution.

Findings of Court:
No evidence of dam pollution; plants outside catchment; valid Orange consents post-rectification; R&D unit non-manufacturing; licensed where required; zero liquid discharge achieved.

Issues: (i) Whether plant caused dam water pollution? (ii) Whether unit was only R&D, non-manufacturing? (iii) Error in changing category from Red to Orange? (iv) Relief entitlement? (Para 46)

Ratio Decidendi: Pollution allegations unsubstantiated absent proof; regulatory categorization by PCB binding if per guidelines; initial errors rectifiable; distant applicant lacks locus, time-barred without cause shown; appellate scrutiny limited to perversity (Paras 47-62).

Result: Original Application dismissed. No costs. (Para 63)

Table of Content
1. alleged environmental violations by pharmaceutical plants near dam. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. non-registration under factories act at airoli unit. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. compliance with consents, locus standi, and limitation defenses. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. mpcb justifies orange category and compliance inspections. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. rejoinders contest categorization, zld, and illegal operations. (Para 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 44)
6. midc confirms plot permissions for it/ites activities. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
7. framing issues for no pollution and categorization. (Para 46)
8. no evidence of water pollution at ambernath plant. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
9. airoli unit correctly orange for r&d, not manufacturing. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
10. 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 operations being carried ou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2286

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)

Applicant must prove pollution claims; industry categorization follows CPCB guidelines; locus standi requires direct aggrievement; initial consent errors rectifiable by regulator.

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)