LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-115

CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Decided On September 18, 2008
CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED Appellant
V/S
APPELLATE AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed challenging the common order of the first respondent dated 07. 05. 2008, passed in Appeal Nos. 26 and 27 of 2008.

(2.) THE petitioner is stated to be engaged in the manufacture of PVC in Plant-II and Caustic Soda / Chlorochemicals in Plant-III. It is also stated to have Captive Power Generation capacity consisting of 7 Nos. of LSHS (Low Sulphur Heavy Stock) fired oil engines which has got combined generating capacity of 48. 5 MW and those power generation units are stated to supply power and steam to the petitioners complex in Mettur Dam with which the plants at Mettur are being operated. The second respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ?pollution Control Board?) is stated to have granted consent to the petitioner under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'air Act'), in its proceedings dated 16. 11. 1998, for operating the industrial plant (Plant-III) and similar consent has also been issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as the ?water Act?) to the said plants.

(3.) IT is stated that such consent was being extended from time to time and was renewed upto 31. 03. 2008. It is also stated that the said consent also covered the power generating units with LSHS viz. , diesel operated generating units. According to the petitioner, in its caustic soda plant it had employed the Mercury Cell Technology and that there was an obligation in India for switching over to Membrane Cell Technology by 2012, as part of environmental protection measures which was notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India in the year 2003. The petitioner is stated to have responded to the said obligation well in advance and has converted its operations 5 years ahead of the upper limit fixed viz. , 2012. While effecting such a conversion, the petitioner claims that it had to necessarily switch over to other austerity measures and as part of it wanted to switch over to coal based generation of its captive power generation unit from the present set up of LSHS i. e. diesel oil based.