SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3572

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

Gaushalas operating without pollution consents, violating CPCB waste management/siting guidelines, and causing environmental degradation strictly liable under Polluter Pays Principle for compensation and remediation regardless of ignorance of law.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Guidelines for Environmental Management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas, 2021 (CPCB) - Dairy farms and gaushalas categorized as Orange category industries requiring Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) under Air and Water Acts - Operation without prior consents constitutes violation - Siting criteria mandate minimum 100m distance from residential dwellings, schools, hospitals - Non-compliance with waste management norms (dung disposal, wastewater treatment, biogas, composting) leads to environmental degradation - Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles apply mandating remedial measures and compensation (Paras 5, 58-62, 63-67).

(B) Ignorance of law - No defence against regulatory violations - Entities expected to anticipate environmental impacts of large-scale operations involving 1500+ livestock generating substantial solid/liquid wastes (Paras 28-33, 60).

(C) Land Use Regulations - Filling waterbodies (doba/pukur) violates land reform laws requiring restoration - No post-facto conversion permitted for waterbodies (Para 48).

Facts of the case:
Resident association challenged gaushala operations alleging absence of pollution consents, violation of siting criteria (within 60-80m of residences/schools), untreated wastewater/dung discharge clogging drains/polluting fields, exceeding effluent standards. Tribunal constituted inspection committee finding violations including illegal groundwater extraction, inadequate ETP (40KLD vs required 150+KLD), boundary leaks, biomedical waste mismanagement, land use changes. Operator obtained CTO post-litigation claiming ignorance; partial compliances disputed by fresh evidence of waste accumulation.

Findings of Court:
Gaushala in clear violation of CPCB Guidelines 2021, 2016 industry classification, environmental laws; liable for Environmental Compensation computation; land restoration ordered; fresh inspection mandated for compliance verification.

Issues: Whether gaushala operations without consents/violating siting/waste norms constitute environmental violations warranting compensation; adequacy of remedial measures; land use legality.

Ratio Decidendi: Large gaushalas qualify as polluting industries mandating consents and CPCB guidelines compliance; ignorance no excuse; precautionary/polluter pays principles impose strict liability for remediation/compensation; partial post-facto measures insufficient without full regulatory adherence.

Result: OA and Execution Application disposed directing Pollution Control Board to compute/levy Environmental Compensation within 2 months post show-cause; fresh inspection for compliances; District Magistrate to restore illegally filled waterbodies within 2 months.

Table of Content
1. gaushala violates pollution consents and siting norms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
2. tribunal appoints committee for site inspection. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 25)
3. cpcb guidelines mandate waste management and consents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. project proponent claims partial compliance. (Para 26 , 27 , 33 , 34)
5. ignorance of law is no defense. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. ongoing non-compliance with remedial orders. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
7. inspection confirms multiple environmental violations. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
8. dairy farms require mandatory pollution consents. (Para 59 , 60 , 61)
9. precautionary and polluter pays principles apply. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
10. impose environmental compensation and compliance. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)

ORDER

1. The allegation of the Applicant in the present Original Application is that the Respondent No.7 is illegally operating a ‘Gaushala’ in the name and style of ‘Suravi Sadan Gaushala’ under the Rajasthan Gokalyan Trust, Respondent No.8.

2. It is alleged that the said Gaushala Unit of Respondent No.7 operated by Respondent No.8, both hereinafter referred to as the Project Proponent, is operating for several years without a valid Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

3. It is also alleged that the Respondent No.7 Unit is operating in violation of the provisions of ‘Guidelines for Environmental Management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas’ published by the Central Pollution Control Board in July, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines, 2021).

4. It is further alleged that the Respondent No.7 Gaushala is located within 60 meters and 80 meters from residential dwellings and schools instead of being located beyond 100 meters from the residential areas and, therefore, its siting is in violation of the Guidelines, 2021.

5. The allegation of the Applicant further is that dung and fodder residue are washed into the drains leading to clogging of the drains. It is stated that as per the Central Pollution Control Board Notification dated 07.03.2016, ‘Dairy Farm’ is listed under ‘Orange’ category and the requirement of obtaining Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, are mandatory for Red, Orange and Green category industries.

6. It is further stated that the Applicant had moved a RTI application before the West Bengal Pollution Control Board vide his letter dated 12.05.2023, seeking information regarding Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate granted to the Respondent No.7, Suravi Sadan Goshala, but the reply in response thereto dated 23.06.2023 merely states that ‘no information is available regarding the matter’.

7. At the time of admission, this Tribunal constituted a fact finding Committee comprising of the following Members:-

(i) Senior Scientist, West Bengal Pollution Control Board,

(ii) Senior Scientist, Central Pollution Control Board, and 

(iii) District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, or his nominee not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate, 

8. The Committee was required to visit the site in question and submit its report with regard to the allegations made in the Original Application and in case violations were found, the Committee was also required to suggest remedial measures as well as determine Environmental Compensation.

9. Along with the Original Application, the Applicant has filed photographs (Annexure-A/2), showing extremely filthy and unhygienic condition existing in the Suravi Sadan Gaushala, Respondent No.7, and the waste discharged therefrom.

10. Along with the Original Application, copy of the Central Pollution Control Board directions dated 07.03.2016 (Annexure-A/3) in the nature of ‘Final Document on Revised Classi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top