TARUNBEN SUKLAL GAMIT Vs. CENTRAL PULP MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Taruben Suklal Gamit of Songadh Taluka, Dist. Surat, made a grievance before this Court about the breach of Pollution Laws committed by the Central Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. and Thermal Power Station. The Court issued notice to the erring Units. The Central Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of papers. It is pointed out to us that the said Unit was declared a sick Unit earlier and the present management took over the said Unit in the month of May 1992. The Unit commenced production in 1993. The Gujarat Pollution Control Board ("GPCB" for short) has produced on record the report of analysis of the sample for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 under the Water Act and Air Act. The Company had a turnover of Rs. 8 crores for November, 1993 to March, 1994. The turnover for the period 1994-95 was Rs. 72 crores, for the period 1995-96 the turnover was Rs. 111 crores. So far as the profit and ioss is concerned there was loss in the year 1993-94 to the tune of Rs. 85 lacs; in the year 1994-95 there was profit of Rs. 2 crores 23lacs. In the year 1995-96 for 15 months there was profit of Rs. 24 crores 24 lacs and for period of 12 months there was profit of Rs. 19 crores 40 lacs.

(2.) Mr. Nanavaty learned Counsel appearing for the Unit submitted that neither the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 nor the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provide for imposition of pollution fine or pollution related damages at 1 % of the annual turnover and therefore no order can be passed by this Court imposing such fine or damages. He further submitted that the order for payment of damages is essential for a tortious liability. In absence of pleadings and proof that such damage has occurred and has been caused by the respondent- Company, no order for payment of pollution fine or damages at the rate of 1 % can be made. He also submitted without admitting that an order can be passed for payment of pollution related damages or pollution fine, the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot pass the order. His submission is that the Court cannot examine the disputed questions of facts, i.e. whether there has been any pollution related damage and whether such damage has been caused exclusively by the alleged polluter. His submission is that "polluters must pay" principle cannot be invoked in a case where the Unit has adequate effluent treatment facilities and is meeting with the norms. His submission is that because of the minor and occasional alleged deviations from the prescribed parameters, the respondent-Company cannot be saddled with the pollution related damages or fine of 1 % of the annual turnover.

(3.) Learned Counsel submitted that the Company is willing to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lacs or Rs. 30 lacs of its own and would not like to be described as a polluter so as to pay 1%. We are not referring the period for which the present management was not in charge, nonetheless, the Unit Central Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. since 1979 is found committing breach of Pollution Laws. The GPCB has produced a tabular statement* of the reports which indicates that for samples collected from 4-9-1979 to 9-9-1988 in number of reports the Unit was not meeting with the parameters laid down by the GPCB. We are not referring those reports in detail because as per the say of the learned Counsel, the present management was not in charge at that time. We are only indicating that the present Unit commenced manufacturing activities with the plant which was in existence at the time when it took over and from results it is clear that the same was not efficacious to treat the trade effluent. The tabular statement of analysis of trade effluent on different Figures underlined indicates the breach committed by the Unit. Thus, it is not so simple as submitted by the learned Advocate during his submissions that because of minor and occasional alleged deviations from the prescribed parameters, the respondent-Company cannot be saddled with the pollution related damages or fine of 1 % of the annual turnover. It is required to be noted that in May 1992, Unit was taken over by the present management and it commenced with the production in the month of November 1993. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that Company spent Rs. 8 crores for treatment plant and therefore we put a question as to when this Dates are produced by GPCB for the period from 3-12-1993 to 5-3-1997. The parameters, permissible limits and results of effluent sample analyzed are as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1007_GLH2_1997Html1.htm</FRM> Figures underlined indicates the breach of the parameters. So far as the sample collected from the stake is concerned, samples were collected on several dates and on several occassions, it is found that the Unit has failed to meet with the norms. The GPCB has placed on record, the details of analysis which are as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1007_GLH2_1997Html2.htm</FRM> amount was spent and we are told by the learned Counsel that the Primary Treatment Plant was stabilized in July, 1995 and the Secondary Treatment Plant came in existence in July, 1996 and was stabilized in September or October, 1996. Thus, it is crystal clear that this Unit commenced manufacturing process without bothering about the pollution norms or the laws. If it would have been aware about the duty cast on the management of discharging the trade effluent in accordance with the norms laid down by the GPCB, the Unit would not have commenced the manufacturing process without establishing the Secondary Treatment Plant. Jit is required to be noted that the Primary Treatment Plant and the Secondary Treatment Plant which is to be provided should be of such a nature that it can adequately and efficaciously treat the trade effluent so as to bring the trade effluent within the norms prescribed by the GPCB. In October, 1996 the Secondary Treatment Plant came to be stabilized, meaning thereby from 1993 to 1996 October, the Unit continued its manufacturing process without bothering about the pollution laws or pollution norms.