SUO MOTU Vs. BHAVNA TEXTILE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that under Sec. 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, the State Government passed an order of closure as Unit was not meeting with the norms prescribed by the Gujarat Pollution Control, Board ("GPCB" for short). The said order of closure was implemented by disconnecting the electric supply on 11th September, 1995. The Unit thereafter gave undertaking on 13th October, 1995 for dismantling the carbonizing Unit. Cabonizing process in a textile processing house puts such Units in the category of highly polluting industries and were ordered to be closed down forthwith as per paragraph 135-A-I of the judgment dated 5th August, 1995 in case of Pravinbhai J. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 (2) GLR p. 1210. The inspection report prepared by officer of the GPCB on a visit on 21st November 1995 indicates that carbonizing plant was dismantled. It appears that thereafter electricity supply to the Unit was restored. On 22.11.1995 sample of the trade effluent was collected by the officers of the GPCB and the trade effluent as per analysis report was no as per the norms laid down by the GPCB. It appears that on 5.2.1995 consent application of the Unit under the Water (Prevention & Control of Polution) Act, 1974 came to be rejected. There is nothing to show that after the consent was rejected, the Unit preferred an appeal or applied for a fresh consent but record indicates that Unit continuted production activities. On 8th March, 1996 and 26th April, 1996, the samples of trade effluent were collected and analyzed and the report of analysis clearly reveals that on both the occasions, the Unit was not in a position to meet with the norms laid down by the GPCB. The Unit however continued the manufacturing process polluting the environment.

(2.) It appears that on 1.6.1996 there was inspection by the GPCB and surprisingly officers of the GPCB found that carbonizing process was being carried out and the effluent treatment plant was not operational. It also reveals that the acidic content for the effluent was very high (2.29) as against the prescribed permissible limit of (6.5-8.5). It also appears that various parameters such as COD, oil and grease, sulphates and per cent sodium were also beyond the norms prescribed by the GPCB. It also indicates that Unit was by passing untreated effluent through an underground pipe and thereafter discharging the same as if this effluent was being discharged after necessary treatment. It appears that in view of this report on 6.6.1996, the Court (Coram : R.A. Mehta, Acting C.J. & M.S. Shah, J.) issued notice to the Unit Bhavna Textile Pvt. Ltd., State Government, GPCB and Ahmedabad Electricity Company (for short "AEC"). The Court directed AEC to disconnect the electric supply to the above Unit and Court also directed the Unit to stop the manufacturing activity. Looking to the grave effect, the Unit was also directed to desist from using diesel generating sets with a futher direction that if the Unit is found to be in possession of any diesel generating set at any time, the same shall he sealed by AEC. The Court directed the State Government and the GPCB to ensure immediate compliance of the directions mentioned above.

(3.) It appears that on 15.6.1996 electric supply came to be disconnected, however, diesel generating sets were not sealed but were sealed on 23.7.1996 and AEC submitted its report dated 23.7.1996 in this behalf. Prior thereto on 17.6.1996, the GPCB visited the Unit and reported that the production plant was in swing using diesel generating sets. However, in view of less quantity of trade effluent being discharged no sample was taken. Though consent was rejected much earlier it is a matter of surprise that the Unit was found discharging acidic trade effluent and neither the GPCB nor the State Government has thought it fit to take immediate action in the matter. It is required to be noted that the acidic effluent was being discharged in open nala taking the same to river Sabarmati. The Unit after closure should have been under constant supervision by the GPCB. Consent came to be rejected as the Unit was not able to treat the effluent in accordance with the norms laid down by the GPCB. Prior thereto officers of the GPCB found that the carbonizing process was going on the ultimately undertaking was given by the Unit to dismantle. On.1.6.1996, it was reported that carbonizing process is being carried on by the Unit and the Court passed an order on 6.6.1996 which we have referred earlier. Board officers were aware of these aspects and though on 17.6.1996 they found that in spite of an order of closure Unit has continued its operation using generating sets discharging highly acidic waste water yet the board has remained quiet. Apart from other norms not being met with these serious lapses committed by the Unit including that of bypassing untreated industrial effluent should have alerted the GPCB and the GPCB ought to have taken immediate action.