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) 5225

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

Gaushalas/dairy farms require CTE/CTO as Orange category; violations of CPCB guidelines on siting/waste management trigger Polluter Pays liability for compensation/remediation; ignorance of law no defence.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Laws - Guidelines for Environmental Management of Dairy Farms and Gaushalas, 2021 (CPCB) - Dairy farms categorized as Orange category requiring Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) under Air and Water Acts - Gaushala operating without valid CTE/CTO until post-litigation grant - Violation of siting criteria (within 100m of residential areas/schools), wastewater/dung disposal into drains causing clogging/odour/pollution, groundwater extraction without permission, land use conversion of waterbodies, inadequate ETP/biogas capacity - Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles apply mandating remedial measures and compensation for violations. (Paras 5, 9-20, 58-62, 63-67)

(B) Ignorance of Law - No excuse/defence - Operator of polluting activity expected to know consent requirements and environmental norms from inception; post-facto compliance insufficient to evade liability. (Paras 28-32)

(C) Polluter Pays Principle - Liability for environmental damage independent of care taken; responsibility to repair rests with offender; compensation computed per prescribed methodology. (Paras 63-67)

Facts of the case:
Resident society filed application alleging Gaushala (1500+ bovines) operating illegally without consents, violating CPCB guidelines on siting (60-80m from dwellings/schools), discharging untreated wastewater/dung into drains/agricultural fields causing pollution/odour, lacking proper waste management, extracting groundwater without permission, filling waterbodies. Tribunal constituted committee confirming violations; partial remedial steps post-directions but ongoing non-compliance alleged via execution application.

Findings of Court:
Violations established per inspection reports; operator liable for environmental compensation; directed computation/show cause; fresh inspection for compliance; restoration of filled waterbodies.

Issues: Whether Gaushala violated environmental guidelines/consent requirements; adequacy of remedial measures; liability for compensation and land restoration.

Ratio Decidendi: Operators of polluting activities like large Gaushalas must obtain prior consents, adhere to siting/waste management norms; ignorance no defence; precautionary/polluter pays principles impose strict liability for remediation/compensation.

Result: Original and Execution Applications disposed directing Pollution Control Board to compute/levy Environmental Compensation within 2 months post-show cause; fresh inspection; District Magistrate to restore waterbodies within 2 months.

Table of Content
1. alleged illegal gaushala operation without consents and violating siting guidelines (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. tribunal constitutes fact-finding committee and applicant submits evidence (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
3. cpcb 2021 guidelines on categorization, environmental issues, waste management, siting (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

“ORDER

1. Ms. Shipra Naskar, learned Counsel files Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7 & 8; the same is taken on record.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in part.

3. Considering the Report of the Committee of an Inspection/Enquiry conducted on 29.08.2023, we are of the view that in the interregnum a boundary wall to the Gaushala needs to be constructed on an urgent basis to ensure that there is no outflow of cow dung, bovine urine, sewage, waste water into the adjoining areas.

I.A. No.12/2024/EZ:-

4. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by Respondent No.8 with the prayer that he may be provided police assistance in the erection of the boundary wall along the periphery of the Suravi Sadan Gaushala in Mouza-Santoshpur, P.S.-Barasat, District North 24 Parganas.

5. The allegation in his Interlocutory Application is that the local persons are preventing him from construction of the boundary wall with the result that some of the findings noted in the Committee Report are being rendered unimplementable.

6. Mr. Ritwick Dutta, learned Counsel for the Applicant of the Original Application states that the Applicant has no objection if boundary wall is permitted to be constructed in the interregnum. Learned Counsel also suggested that construction of boundary wall would not suffice unless a proper drainage/garland drain is also constructed to contain the flow of sewage/slush/bovine urine and bovine waste etc.

7. We, therefore, allow the I.A. No.12/2024/EZ and direct the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 to construct a boundary wall of adequate height ensuring impermeability of sewage/slush/bovine urine/bovine waste from flowing to the outside. The said respondents shall also construct a garland drain to contain the outflow of bovine sewage, urine, cow dung etc.

8. Let the said construction of boundary wall and garland drain be constructed within two months i.e. by 31.05.2024

9. I.A. No.12/2024/EZ is accordingly disposed of.

10. We also find that the Enquiry Committee had conducted enquiry on 29.08.2023 and thereafter, Consent to Operate (CTO) was granted to the Respondent Nos.7 & 8, Gaushala, on 21.09.2023. The Report clearly mentions that 150 KLD of water is being utilized by the Gaushala whereas the Consent to Operate (CTO) has been granted only for 40 KLD. We wonder whether the West Bengal Pollution Control Board had taken the Committee Report into consideration before granting Consent to Operate (CTO).

11. We are also of the view that since the Consent to Operate (CTO) was granted on 21.09.2023, a fresh Inspection Report is required from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board with regard to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in the Consent to Operate (CTO) particularly with reference to the findings of the Enquiry Committee of the enquiry dated 29.08.2023.

12. We, therefore, direct the West Bengal Pollution Control Board to carry out its fresh inspection by 07.06.2024 particularly bearing in mind the compliances of the conditions given in the Consent to Operate with reference to the CPCB guidelines dated July, 2021 and the Report should be submitted by the first week of July, 2024.

13. Mr. Suman Dutt, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 further submitted that since the Gaushala is located in a rural area there is no adequate drainage system and, therefore, disposal of the slush, slurry and bovine urine after treatment would still remain a problem for which suggestions have to be given by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

14. The submission Mr. Suman Dutt, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.7 & 8 has been disputed by Mr. Ritwick Dutta, learned Counsel for t

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