Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1672
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J, Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM
Uttam Manohar Mokal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2024 (WZ)
For the Appellants: Mr. Maitreya Ghorpade
For the Respondents: Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Ms. Manasi Joshi, Ms. Pooja Natu, Mr. Sachin Gore
The court held that even without direct naming, corporate entities can be held accountable for environmental violations impacting public health and agricultural lands.
Headnote:(A) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 33A - Environmental Compensation for violations relating to the discharge of effluent on agricultural land - Project Proponent did not dismantle Kaccha Lagoon; EDC of Rs.39.30 Lakhs directed to be deposited for restoration of contaminated area - Joint Committee observed groundwater contamination from effluent. (Para 21)
(B) Corporate Veil - Joint ownership of Distillery and Sugar Unit merits consideration for accountability of the Project Proponent in environmental violations, though only the Distillery Unit is named in proceedings. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant alleges discharge of effluent on agricultural land by the Distillery Unit leading to contamination, supported by Joint Committee findings acknowledging pollution risks from non-compliance with environmental regulations.
Findings of Court:
The Distillery has achieved zero liquid discharge since 2018 and has been directed to pay Environmental Compensation for past violations of consent terms, affirming its responsibility for contamination issues.
Issues: Central question addresses the environmental implications of contamination from treated effluent and corporate accountability for violations, despite challenges over specific unit jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal emphasized accountability of the Distillery for pollution despite the imposition of regulations pertaining especially to agricultural impacts from effluent methods, affecting local groundwater and agricultural practices.
Result: Application disposed with directives for EDC payment and evaluation of groundwater impacts on agriculture.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint committee findings on effluent violations and ownership accountability. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. reliance on supreme court precedent to lift corporate veil in environmental disputes. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. interim remedies directed for environmental compensation approval and agricultural assessments. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER
1. We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 14.11.2024, 20.01.2025, 07.03.2025 and 16.06.2025.
2. Today, learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit dated 14.07.2025 to the Joint Committee Report dated 01.03.2025 and Affidavits-in-Reply filed by Respondents Nos.2 & 4.
3. As regards the reply affidavit of Respondent No.4- M/s Karamveer Shankarrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (Distillery Division), it is submitted in the rejoinder affidavit by the applicant that Respondent No.4- Project Proponent has admitted discharging the effluent on the land in question. Even the Joint Committee has observed that effluent, generated by the Project Proponent, has been discharged on the land and that no conclusive rebuttal of such observations and findings of the Joint Committee Report has been submitted on record by the Project Proponent. The Joint Committee in para no.2.21 of its report has clearly observed that “the sugar unit found violating conditions of the consent and discharging highly concentrated wastewater on the land which can be one of the potential source for the ground water pollution of the area.” In response thereto, the Project Proponent has stated that “The incidents highlighted in the report are isolated cases”.
4. It is further mentioned in this rejoinder affidavit by the applicant that the Joint Committee has clearly observed in its report in para 2.11.6 that out of the total land of 144 acres, only 26 acres of land, which belong to the Project Proponent, are being used for cultivation. Therefore, the Project Proponent cannot claim that the effluent is being discharged for the purpose of agricultural irrigation, as there is no cultivation being done on the vast majority of the lands owned by the Project Proponent. In response thereto, Respondent No.4- Project Proponent has stated that “relevant entries in the revenue records (7/12 extract) of the land should also be considered”. However, no such revenue records or any other document evidencing cultivation by it on any area exceeding, what has been identified by the Joint Committee, has been placed on record. Thus, the said submission of Respondent No.4 is liable to be rejected. The Corporate Veil must be lifted in the present case, as the Distillery Unit and the Sugar Unit are governed by the same Governing Body.
5. In regard to the above, learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the Judgment dated 06.05.1996 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. and Anr. [1996 SCC (4) 622], wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “Company defrauding others in deliberate disobedience of Supreme Court’s orders, Supreme Court has power to make appropriate orders in the contempt proceedings to grant relief to the persons aggrieved in order to do complete justice. For this purpose, Court can lift the corporate veil of the company. Directions can be issued against the real contemners behind the veil, in addition to order of punishment for the contempt, to restore the illegally derived benefit to the persons defrauded so that the contemners may not be able to retain the fruits of the contempt”.
6. Having relied on the above ruling, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that in the case in hand, since the owner of the Distillery Unit and the Sugar Unit is one and the same i.e. Respondent No.4 and that the Sugar Unit of Respondent No.4 is not impleaded in the present Original Application, no benefit can be allowed to the said Respondent and if any violation is found to have been caused by the Sugar Unit,
