Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3750
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
For the Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta, Mr. Kaustav Dhar
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajib Ray, Mr. Ayush Kumar Dadhich, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Mr. Amritam Mandal, Ms. Shipra Naskar, Mr. Sanjay Sadhu
Gaushalas/dairy farms (Orange category) require CTE/CTO; violations of CPCB siting/waste guidelines attract Environmental Compensation under Polluter Pays Principle; ignorance of law no defence; waterbody filling illegal.
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 Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 - Operation without prior CTE/CTO constitutes violation - Siting criteria mandate location at least 100m from residential dwellings, schools, hospitals - Improper waste management (dung, wastewater) causing clogging of drains, odour, pollution - Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles applicable - Ignorance of law no defence - Environmental Compensation (EC) to be levied for violations. (Paras 5, 59, 60, 63-68)
(B) West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - Section 4
(C) - Filling up waterbodies (Doba/Pukur) without conversion violates land use norms - Restoration mandatory, no post-facto conversion for waterbodies. (Para 48)
(C) Ground Water Regulation - Extraction without permission from SWID/CGWA for large-scale operations illegal. (Paras 50, 57)
Facts of the case:
Applicant alleged illegal operation of large gaushala (1500+ bovines) without CTE/CTO, violating siting norms (within 60-80m of residences/schools), discharging untreated wastewater/dung into drains/agricultural fields causing pollution, clogging, odour. Joint Committee inspections (29.08.2023, 03.06.2024) confirmed violations including land use changes, inadequate ETP (40KLD vs required 150+KLD), groundwater extraction without permission, bio-medical waste mismanagement, direct effluent discharge. CTO granted post-OA filing (21.09.2023). Compliance affidavits disputed by applicant with photos showing persistent waste accumulation.
Findings of Court:
Gaushala in clear violation of CPCB Guidelines 2021, 2016 industry classification, environmental laws; operating without prior consents despite Orange category status; violating siting, waste management norms; causing ecological damage to adjacent lands. Directions issued for EC computation, fresh inspection, land restoration.
Issues: Whether gaushala operations without CTE/CTO, violating siting/waste management guidelines constitute environmental violations warranting EC; compliance with remedial measures; illegal land conversion of waterbodies; groundwater extraction permissions.
Ratio Decidendi: Operators of polluting activities (gaushalas/dairy farms) strictly liable under Precautionary/Polluter Pays Principles to obtain statutory consents, comply with siting/waste norms regardless of prior ignorance; SPCBs to enforce via EC for past/current violations; land authorities to restore illegally filled waterbodies.
Result: OA and Execution Application disposed directing SPCB to compute/levy EC within 2 months post show-cause; fresh inspection for compliance; DM to act on land violations within 2 months for waterbody restoration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. gaushala violates siting, consent, and waste norms (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 2. committee finds multiple environmental violations (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 25) |
| 3. cpcb guidelines detail waste management standards (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. project proponent claims partial compliance (Para 26 , 27 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 5. ignorance of law no defense (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. confirmed violations of cpcb guidelines persist (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 7. dairy farms require cte/cto consents (Para 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 8. precautionary and polluter pays principles apply (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 9. 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 Classification of Industrial Sectors under Red, Orange, Green and White Categories (February
