Holding

The Court held that continued pollution due to the industry's non‑compliance justified ordering its closure under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the non‑compliance of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. with directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Board had ordered proper storage, treatment and disposal of effluent, but the company failed to implement several directions, leading to seepage from unlined lagoons into a drain and the Bhavani River. Despite the company's affidavits claiming reduced production and use of effluent for bio‑compositing, the Court found that pollution continued and remedial steps were inadequate. Consequently, the Court ordered the closure of the industry's operations by 2 February 1998, subject to compliance with further remedial measures such as lining lagoons and transit tanks. The Court also directed an inspection by NEERI to assess pollution control devices and any environmental damage, and allowed the industry to approach the Court for reopening once compliance was verified.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can order the closure of an industrial unit for failure to comply with directions under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Whether the directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board are enforceable as a condition for continued operation of the industry.
Whether the partial compliance claimed by the industry suffices to avert further pollution and avoid closure.

Legislation cited

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s. 33A, s. 44, s. 45(a)

Subjects

water pollutionindustrial effluentenvironmental lawclosure ordercomplianceWater (Prevention and Control of Pollution) ActTamil Nadu Pollution Control BoardNEERI inspectionriver pollution

Judgment

IN RE: BHAYANI RIVER - SAKTHJ SUGARS LTD. A

~- JANUARY 29, 1998

[DR. A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]

B
Environmental Law :
~
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 1974 S. 33 A-River
pollution-Industrial effluent polluting river water-Storage of effluent in
lagoons for treatment, and disposal of treated effluent-Directions given to
'lndust1y' by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board-Non-compliance of- c
Held, pollution is continuing because of actions of Industry-No remedial
steps taken to prevent pollution and contemination of river water-Factory
failed to arrest unabated pollution which has become a health hazard and
environmental enemy-Closure of operation of Industry ordered-Afler the
directions are complied with, it would be open to the Industry to approach
the Court for restarting its operations.
D
_....;
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No.
22597 of 1997

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.97 of the Madras High Court
E
in W.P. No. 17333of1995.

H.N. Salve, R.Mohan, B.Divan, Raju Ramachandran, S. Muralidhar, M.A.
Chinnasamy, V.A. Pragasam, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. V. Mohana,
C. Paramasivam, Rakesh K. Sharma and A. Mariarputham, for the apperaing
parties. F
i:
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
~
•.:•
' An additional affidavit of Undertaking has been filed in Court today by
Mr. P Natarajan on behalf of the Industry, respondent No. 6.
G
We have heard learned counsel for respondent No. 6, the learned
Amicas Curiae as also the learned counsel apperaing for Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board.
·- r-
From a perusal of the affidavit filed by the Member Secretary, Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control Board on 12-1-1998, it transpires that certain directions H
431
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A were issued by the Borad in exercise of the powers conferred under Section
33A of the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended
in 1988 to respondent No. 6. These directions were inter alia aimed at
ensuring proper storage of effluent in lagoons and for ensuring proper storage
of effluent in lagoons and for proper treatment and disposal of the treated
B effluent. As many as 11 directions, as detailed in the affidavit, were given.
Para 5 of the said affidavit discloses that the Industry (respondent No. 6) has
not complied with direction Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. It is also stated that during
the inspection of the Industry on 23rd of November, 1997, it was noticed that
the seepage of effluent from lagoon 'C' joined the drain and ultimately
reached river Bhavani thereby contravening the conditions imposed in the
C directions by the Board. The affidavit goes on to say that show cause notice
was also issued by the Board to the Industry calling upon it to state why
penal action for offences punishable under Section 44 read with Section 45
(a) of the Act should not be initiated for violating the conditions imposed by
the Board.

D Respondent No. 6 in its affidavit filed on 27th of January, 1998 has not
denied that 11 directions had, been issued to it by the Board and that some
of those directions have not been complied with. It is stated in para (d) as
follows :

"In respect of the direction of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
E at Para (viii) that the Company shall give progress report on disposal
of accumulated effluent in lagoons eve:-y fortnight and also fortnightly
progress report on the action§ taken to comply with the conditions
stipulated in the Consent Order issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution
Control Board, it is submitted that the Company has furnished daily
statements giving complete particulars of the effluent generated, effluent
F utilised for compositing and for concentration, inflow into lagoons,
outflow from the lagoons and other detailed particulars. The receipt
of these daily statements by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
is acknowledge in their Affidavit filed before this Honourable Court.
Apart from the daily statements, the Company has also furnished
G consolidated and fortnightly reports to the Joint Chief Environmental
Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board."

In the affidavit of Undertaking filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 today
it is stated that since 16th of January, 1998, the production capacity of the
Industry has been reduced and ferti-irrigation has been completely stopped.
H It is also stated that the entire effluent is being untilised within the premises
IN RE: BHAYANI RIVER - SAK THI SUGARS LTD. 433
for bio-compositing and that there is no discharge of water of effluent on land A
or water.
''\--
With regard to the two unlined lagoons, it is stated if para 7 (a) of the
affidavit of undertaking filed today that effluent has been stored in the two
unlined lagoon and it is reiterated that no further discharge of effluent is
being made into the unlined lagoons. B
t>~
As already noticed, according to the Board, the seepage from the
unlined lagoons in which effiuent had been stored joins the drain and ultimately
reaches river Bhivani thereby polluting the river water. This is a serious matter
and shows that pollution is continuing because of actions of respondent No.
6 and remedial steps have not been taken to prevent pollution and c
con!amination of the river water. Respondent No. 6, had obviously failed to
arrest the unabated pollution, which has become a health hazard and
environmental enemy. Enough time has been given to the Industry (respondent
No. 6) to take the remedial steps. It has failed to do so. We are, therefore, left
with no other option but to direct the closure of the operation of the Industry D
~ (respondent No. 6) on or before 2nd February, 1998 and we direct accordingly.
~

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Borad still submit a report regarding
compliance of this direction to the Indt: >try within ten days.

We clarify that the direction herein above given by us to close the
Industry (respondent No. 6) will not come in the way of the Indus!!)' to empty E
the two unlined lagoons, otherwise than through ferti-irrigation or discharge
on land or in river, or to do composit work.

From the affidavit of Undertaking of respondent No. 6 filed today, we
also find on admission that there are eleven small inter-mediary transit tanks
·used for transferring the effluent from the concentration plant to the lagoons, F
-..{,
~
which are also unlined at the bottom. Respondent No. 6 shall not be put to
use those transit tanks unless the lining is complete in all respects.

After the effluent from the two unlrned lagoons have been removed and
those lagoons lined and the eleven small inter-mediary transit tanks are also
G
lined it shall be open to the Industry (respondent No. 6) to approach the
Court for appropriate orders regarding restarting the operations of the Industry.
·-*-
In the mean time we also consider it aupropriate to direct inspection of
the Industry and the site adjoining it. We request NEERI to conduct an
inspection of the Industry and to submit a report to this Court disclosing H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A whether the pollution control devices have been fixed by the Industry and
proper steps taken to control pollution in accordance with the provisions of
the Act or not. NEERI shall also inspect the surrounding area with a view to
assess damage, if any caused due to discharge of effluent by the Industry
and to indicate the cost of restitution. NEERI shall submit its report to this
B Court within six weeks. The directions with regard to payment ofNEERI shall
be made on receipt of the bill from NEERI. The directions be conveyed to
NEERI together with the necessary details forthwith.

List the special leave petition after seven weeks.

C R.P. SLP granted and Appeal disposed of.