ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with the grievance that M/s. Ferost Falcom Distilleries Limited -respondent No. 6 has set up distillery in the area without setting up any treatment plant for treating the pollutant discharged from the same, which adversely affect the environment in and around village Jahri Tehsil and District Sonepat. According to the petitioner the pollutant was being discharged in the open space around the distillery or in a drain. The village area has, thus, become a pond full of poisonous and hazardous liquid waste emitting pungent odour making the life of the entire population of the village and the live stock miserable. In the reply filed on behalf of Haryana State Pollution Control Board -respondent No. 3 (for brevity, 'the HSPCB') it has been pointed out that a Committee was constituted pursuant to an order dated 23.1.2001 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 725 of 1994. The Committee consists of Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India and a Senior Officer to be deputed by the Ministry along with the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board to monitor the functioning of the distilleries in the State of Haryana. A show cause notice under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) act, 1974 (for brevity, 'the Water Act') was issued to the Unit for up -gradation of the Effluent Treatment Plant (for brevity, 'the ETP') while refusing consent under the Water Act. The distillery was closed in the year 1996 by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and a leading environment agency, namely, 'NEERI' was directed to inspect the Unit and suggest recommendations. 'NEERI' had recommended certain modifications of ETP. 'Thereupon the Unit had filed an affidavit agreeing to comply with the recommendations of 'NEERI' and it was re -opened thereafter.

(2.) IT was further asserted by the HSPCB that it is implementing the directions/guidelines issued by the aforementioned Committee. It has also issued directions to the Unit for better treatment of effluents as per the latest technology. The Central Pollution Control Board (for brevity, 'the CPCB') in its letter dated 17.4.2002, issued certain guidelines directing the Unit to adopt bio -composting process i.e. utilisation of untreated effluent (spent wash) with press mud of sugar mills. On 18.5.2006, directions were issued to utilise 100% spent wash (trade effluent) for bio -composting process and not to discharge any trade effluent in the drain. Thereafter the Unit was permitted to operate at 25% production capacity i.e. 15 Kiloletres per day against its capacity of 60 Kiloletres per day, vide order dated 17.4.2007. The Unit was also directed to install Multiple Effect Evaporation System with spray drier/incinerator to effect zero discharge beside bio -methanation and bio -composting process on the recommendation of the High Power Committee. The HSPCB has also issued further directions on 12.3.2008 directing the Unit to install RO/Nano Filtration System within six months and submit a revised scheme immediately.

(3.) ON 29.8.2008, this court directed the Unit not to resume its fermentation/distillation process without strictly complying with the said directions issued by the HSPCB. On 31.10.2008, it was informed to this Court by the learned counsel for respondent No. 6, on the basis of the affidavit filed by Mr. J.K. Tyagi, General Manager, that the Unit has complied with the directions issued by the HSPCB and an intimation to that effect was sent vide letters dated 29.9.2008 and 17.10.2008. The HSPCB was directed to verify whether the measures directed to be taken by respondent No. 6 have in fact been taken and if so whether the said measures comply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules. In that regard a status report was called for from the HSPCB.