Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1852
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J, Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, ACJ
Uttam Manohar Mokal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2024 (WZ)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Maitreya Ghorpade
For the Respondents: Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Ms. Manasi Joshi, Ms. Pooja Natu, Mr. Sachin Gore
The court emphasized liability for pollution despite corporate separateness and accountability in environmental management practices.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Sections relevant to effluent management - Pollution concerns regarding effluent discharge from a distillery and its impact on land use. The Joint Committee found that the distillery unit achieved Zero Liquid Discharge but noted improper management of effluent from the sugar unit. Directions are ordered regarding environmental compensation and studies for evaluating groundwater impact. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
(B) Corporate Veil - The court addressed the issue of corporate identity in pollution liability, emphasizing accountability despite separate operational units under shared ownership. The applicant's contentions for lifting the corporate veil were discussed but not upheld due to procedural matters. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant claims pollution caused by effluent from the distillery unit of Respondent No.4 affecting agricultural land. The case includes a dispute about the nature and management of land used by the project proponent. Joint Committee reports highlight compliance failures.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the achievement of ZLD by the distillery unit and imposed an environmental compensation amount of Rs.39.30 Lakhs for non-compliance with pollution controls. The need for further study on groundwater contamination was mandated.
Issues: The principal issue addressed was the accountability of Respondent No.4 for effluent discharge and whether the applicant could seek relief against the sugar unit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while the distillery had met regulatory standards, the sugar unit's discharge practices posed contamination risks, meriting actions for compliance and remediation. The distinct legal status of operational units was reinforced for liability determinations.
Result: The court directed that Respondent No.4 deposit the environmental compensation and mandated a study on groundwater impact.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. continuations of hearings reflecting regulatory scrutiny. (Para 1 , 2 , 12) |
| 2. effluent discharge and admission of contamination by project proponent. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. accountability for both distillery and sugar unit operations under shared ownership. (Para 6) |
| 4. zld achievement by the distillery and environmental compensation directive. (Para 21) |
| 5. final decision to dispose of the application with directives. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
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
