Holding

Industrial units responsible for polluting the Noyyal River are liable to pay the fines and compensation assessed by the expert committee, as the principles of polluter‑pays, precautionary principle and sustainable development compel such liability.

Summary

The Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association filed a PIL alleging that dyeing and bleaching units in Tirupur were discharging effluents that polluted the Noyyal River, the Orthapalayam reservoir and surrounding water bodies, rendering the water unfit for irrigation and drinking. The Madras High Court, as an interim measure, imposed a pro‑rata fine of six, eight and ten paise per litre of effluent on the units and directed payment of compensation to affected farmers based on an expert committee’s report. The appellants challenged the fine, claiming it was arbitrary and unsupported by scientific data. The Supreme Court held that the fine was grounded in the expert committee’s award, affirmed the applicability of the polluter‑pays, precautionary and sustainable development principles, and ordered the units to comply with all directions, including payment of fines and compensation, within three months. The Court further directed the Pollution Control Board to ensure no further pollution and to monitor compliance. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The legality and basis of imposing a per‑litre fine on industrial units for water pollution.
Whether the expert committee’s award can be treated as a valid basis for the fine and compensation.
Application of the polluter‑pays, precautionary and sustainable development principles in environmental litigation.
Whether the High Court’s interim directions can be sustained.

Subjects

environmental lawpolluter pays principleprecautionary principlesustainable developmentpublic interest litigationwater pollutionindustrial effluentscompensationzero liquid dischargeenvironmental remediation

Judgment

[2009] 14 S.C.R. 1051

.,,,,.
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. A
v.
NOYYAL RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6776 of 2009)
OCTOBER 6, 2009
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND
)... DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
; '
Environmental Law - Pollution control - PIL - Alleging
industrial units responsible for pollution of river water and c
adversely affecting reservoirs, tanks and channels of water -
High Court as an interim measure imposing fine on the units
- On appeal, held: Industrial units being responsible for
pollution, cannot escape responsibility to meet out the
- )l. expenses of reversing the ecology - The principles of D
'polluters pay' and 'precautionary principle' have to be read
with, the doctrine of 'sustainable development' - The fine is
based on the survey of Committee Report - Farmers who,,
have suffered because of the pollution caused by them, -are
entitled to compensation - Direction to industrial units to pay E
the fine - Doctrines/Principles.

-\ Respondent No. 1-Association filed a Public Interest
Litigation before High Court alleging that a large number
of industries (appellants) had indulged in dyeing and
bleaching works at Tirupur area and discharging the F
industrial effluents into the Noyyal river which created
water pollution to the extent that the water was neither
fit for irrigation nor was potable. The pollution had also
adversely affected the Orthapalyam reservoir and other
- '(
tanks and channels of the said river. Respondent- G
Association stated that earlier a writ petition was filed
raising similar issues, which was disposed of by High
Court on the basis of Memo of Understanding on the
terms that pollution control measures would be
1051 H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A implemented and damages shall be pa.id~ The industries
were directed to contribute an amount to meet the I
expenses of cleaning of the dam within a particular I

period. The industrial unit sought for time for compliance
of the directions, which was denied by High Court. In SLP
B against the said order, Supreme Court issued certain
directions to some of the units. On compliance of the
directions, the petitions were dismissed. State
Government directed study on the restoration of the
ecology of river dam etc. As per the study report, there
c had been no improvement in the quality of water. Hence
the writ petition was filed before the High Court.

High Court as an interim measure directed payment
of fine on pro-rata basis @ six paise, eight paise, and ten
paise per litre. Hence the present appeal. Appellant
D contended that the liability of fine was fastened on the _;1 -

unit owners without any basis.

Disposing of the. appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, it is evident from the
E. record that the High Court issued directions from time to
time but the members of the appellant Association had
complied with such orders partly. The High Court
).
constituted an .Expert Committee and also the Monitoring
Committee to assess the damage caused to the dam and
F the river and to find out the modalities to re.move the effect
of pollution. It also got the assessment of the amount
required for removing~ttt.e sludge from the river and for
the treatment of the ~at~~' making it worth for irrigation
and· human consumptiorr.'i{Para 12] [1063-G-H; 1064-A-B]
G
1.2. There has been una·bated pollution by the
members of the appellant-Association: They cam;-ot
..., -
escape the responsit~!lity to meet out the expenses of
reversing the~ecolog~y. They are bound to meet the
H expenses of removing the sludge of the river and also for
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. 1053
NOYYAL RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN.

cleaning the dam. The principles of "polluters-pay" and A
"precautionary principle" have to be read with the
doctrine of "sustainable development". It becomes the
responsibility of the members of the appellant
Association that they have to carry out their industrial
activities without polluting the water. A large number of B
farmers have suffered because of the pollution caused
by them. They could not cultivate any crop in their.
respective lands. The committee made a complete survey
and assessed the loss and identified the families which
are entitled to compensation. [Para 27] [1073-B-D] c
1.3. In case, in spite of stringent conditions,
degradation of environment continues and reaches a
stage of no return, the court may consider the closure of
industrial activities in an area where there is such a risk.
The authorities also have to take into consideration the D
macro effect of wide scale land and environmental
degradation caused by absence of remedial measures ..
The right to information and. community participation for
protection of environment and human health is also a
right which flows from Article 21. The Monitoring E
Committee vide its memo dated 19th July 2006, submitted
the Report before the High Court. It also appears from the
record that for the purpose of inspection of CETPs the
High Court vide order dated 1st August, 2005 constituted
a Committee consisting of three lawyers. [Paras 14 and F
19] [1069-G-H; 1070-A-B; 1067-D]

1.4. Imposition of fine @ 6 paise per litre and then
enhancing to 8 paise and subsequently to 10 paise per
litre periodically cannot be said to be without any basis. G
High Court imposed it on the basis of Award/Report dated
17.12.2004 by the Expert Committee under the heading
"Loss of Ecology (Prevention and payments of
compensation) by the Authority". The Expert Committee
H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADOL.) S.C.R.

A consisted of'a'··retired judge of Madras High Court, the
Secretary of the Department of Environment, Government
of Tamil Nadu and Member Secretary, Central Pollution
Control Board, as its Member and The Committee had
taken note of all previous developments and assessed
B the loss to ecology and environment in the affected area.
·it also identified the individuals and families who suffered
because of pollution and further determined the amount
of compensation to be paid to each affected individual or
family. It also fixed the liability for making the payment of
c compensation. [Paras 8 and 12) [1061-F; 1064-A-D] -

1.5. It is evident that the High Court constituted the
Monitoring Committee consisting of technocrats. It was,
in fact, the Monitoring Committee made various
suggestions before the High Court regardi.ng
D establishment of CETPs and gave costs for various .°A.
operations. [Para 13) [1065-C-D; 1066-F-G]

1.6. In view of the fact that this matter is pending
before this Court for more than two and a half years and
E the members of the appellant Association had been
permitted to continue their business, it is desirable that
the members of the appellant Association should ensure
the ~ompliance of all the directions including the payment
of dues etc. issued by the Court within a period of three
F months from the date of judgment. They shall ensure that
no pollution is caused to the river or dam and if cleaning
operation has not yet been completed, it shall be
completed within the said stipulated period. The Pollution
Control Board is directed _to ensure that no pollution is
caused, giving strict adherence, to the statutory
G provisions. [Paras 26 and 27) [1072-G-H; 1073-A-G]

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India
(1996) 3 SCC 212; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union
of India AIR 1996 SC 2715; People's Union for Civil Liberties
H
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. 1055
NOYYAL RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN.

vs. Union of India and Anr. (1997) 3 SCC 433; A.P. Pollution A
Control Board vs. Prof. M. V. Nayudu AIR 1999 SC 812; M.C.
Mehta vs. Union of India (2001) 9 SCC 142; M. C. Mehta vs.
Union ·of India (2004) 12 SCC 118; T.N. Godavaram
Thirumulpad (104) vs. U.0.1. and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 222;
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 142 B
relied on.

Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay
Environmental ActionGroup and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1489;
T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad vs.UOI and Ors. (2002) 10
SCC 606; Research Foundation for Science Technology C
Natural Resource Policy vs. UOI and Ors (2005) 10 SCC
510; N.D. Jayal and Anr. vs. UOI & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 867;
M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath AIR 2002 SC 1515; Mrs.
Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2893,
- )(..
referred to. D
Case Law Reference:
(1996) 3 sec 212 Relied on. Para 15
AIR 1996 SC 2715 Relied on. Para 16 E
(1997) 3 sec 433 Relied on. Para 17
AIR 1999 SC 812 Relied on. Para 17
c2001) 9 sec 142 Relied on. Para 17
F
(2004)12 sec 118 Relied on. Para 18
c2008) 2 sec 222 Relied on. Para 18 ·
c2oos) 6 sec 142 Relied on. Para 18
G
AIR 2006 SC 1489 Referred to. Para 19
c2002) 1o sec 606 Referred to. Para 19
\
c2oos) 10 sec 510 Referred to. Para 19
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A AIR 2004 SC 867 Referred to. Para 19
"
AIR 2002 SC 1515 Referred to. Para 19
AIR 2006 SC 2893 Referred to. Para 19

CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
B
6776 of 2009.
-
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2006 in W.P. No. A_
29791 of 2003 and order dated 27 .2.2007 in Review -::..,

Application No. 14 of 2007 of the High Court of Judicature at
c Madras.

WITH

C.A: No. 6777 of 2009.
D Soli J. Sorabjee, Mukul Rohtagi, Jaideep Gupta, P.V. >/. -
Yogeswaran, K.K. Mani, Ankit Swarup for the ~ppellants.

Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Dayan Krishnan, KM. Santhanagopalan,
Nikhil Nayyar, Gautam Narayan, Kaushik, Rohini Musa,
E Abhishek Gupta (for Binu Tamta), V.G. Pragasam (NP), R.
Nedumaran, S.S. Nehra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. These appeals have been filed against the Judgment
and Order dated 22.12.2006 of the Madras High Court in writ
petition no. 29791 of 2003 and order dated 27.2.2007
dismissing the Review Application No.14 of 2007 in the said
case.
G
y
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise ~o this case are
that a Public Interest Litigation was filed by the Noyyal River
Ayacutdars Protection .Association, a registered Association
(Respondent No. 1), for seeking directions for preservation of
H ecology and for keeping the Noyyal river in Tamil Nadu free from
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL1057
RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN. [DR B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
6(
pollution. According to the said Association, a large number of A
industries, some of them respondents before the writ court and
~
appellants herein had indulged in dyeing and bleaching works
at Tirupur area and discharging the industrial effluents into the
Noyyal river which created water pollution to the extent, that the
water of the river was neither fit for irrigation nor potable. The B
pollution also adversely affected the Orthapalayam reservoir
and other tanks and channels of the said river. A similar issue
> i.e. menace of pollution had also earlier been raised by another
)
association namely Karur Taluk Noyyal Canal Agriculturists
Association by filing writ petition(c) no. 1649 of 1996 before c
the Madras High Court. The High Court disposed of the said
petition vide judgment and order dated 26.2.1998 on the basis
of joint Memo of Understanding filed by all the contesting
parties, which contained the terms, to implement the pollution
control measures and to pay the damages etc. The High Court D
"' :w.:
directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (hereinafter
called as "Board") to implement the pollution control and
environmental laws and also granted liberty to decide the
amount for which dyeing units were liable to reimburse for the
loss caused by pollution. The dyeing and bleaching units were
directed to contribute an amount to meet the expenses of E
.. cleaning of the Orathapalayam dam. For compliance of the said
'wder, a period of three months was given.

4. The dyeing and bleaching units' Association filed an
application for extension of time for compliance of the aforesaid F
directions issued by the High Court but the said application was
rejected by the Court vide Order dated 29.4.1998. Being
aggrieved, the Association of the unit owners approached this
Court by filing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8601,
. "f" 8641, 8747 and 9150of1998. This Court issued some
directions in respect of 53 units in Tirupur and 97 units in Karur.
G

As these directions were complied with, the said petitions were
disposed of vide order dated 8.1.1999 as nothing survived.

5. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued order dated
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 14.12.2000 to carry out a study on the restoration of ')<
Orthapalayam Dam with the help of the department of
Environmental Sciences of Tamil Nadu, environmental NGOs,
entrepreneurs together with Department of Forests. The study
was completed and a report was prepared, according to which,
B there had been no improvement in the quality of water.
Thereafter, the present respondent no.1 (Noyyal River
Ayacutdars Protection Association) filed Writ Petition no. 29791
of 2003 before the Madras High Court and sought directions ~
that respondent nos. 1-3 therein, would clean the river water
c stored at Orathapalayam dam within a stipulated time with its
own expenses, or to recover the expenses which could be
recovered from the dyeing and bleaching Units Associations
and thereby preventing the pollution of the Noyyal river in future
by the said units i.e. members of the Association. An interim
relief was sought to restrain the private respondents from
D
discharging their industrial effluents into Noyyal river. ~

6. The case was contested by the present appellant as well
as by the State Government and other State instrumentalities.
It was pointed out to the High Court that recommendations
E made by various committees to prevent further pollution were
being given effect to and a huge amount of Rs. 1,95,00,000/-
(rupees one crore and ninety five lacs) would be required for
the project of cleaning and a sum of Rs.23 crores was required
for installation of treatment plants. The Association of Units
F owners had to establish R.O. (Reverse Osmosis) system and
to attain Zero Liquid Discharge (hereinafter called ZLD) of the
trade effluents. Thus, Jhe said Association was required to
deposit a sum equivalent of25% of the RO. cost and 50% of
the project cost etc. and it was also pointed out that 150 pre-
G treatment plants were also likely to be established. The Court
passed the order datea 26.12.2006, as an interim measure
)'
keeping the petition pending, issuing the following directions:

"(a) The CETPs are given time upto the 31st of July, 2007
to achieve the Zero Liquid Discharge(ZLD) of trade
H
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL1059
RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN. [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
effluents subject to the following conditions : A
(i) The concerned CETPs are directed to pay a fine
on pro rata basis at the rate of six paise per litre
from 1st January, 2007 to 31st March, 2007; at the
rate of eight paise per litre from 1st April, 2007 to B
31st May, 2007; and at the rate of ten paise per litre
from 1st June, 2007 to 31st July, 2007. The fine
> amount payable by the respective CETPs shall be
;; arrived at by multiplying the fine amount i.e. six,
eight or ten paise, as the case may be, by the total
quantity of discharge of each Member Units of
c
CETP as per the consent certificate or as the
quantity found in the application for consent and
also by the total number of working days in a month.
The fine amount thus calculated shall be paid by the
- '#._ respective CETPs on the last date of every month. D

-
In case the CETPs or any of them commit any
default in payment of fine, the Pollution Control
Board shall direct closure of such defaulting CETP
and the Member Units and also disconnect the
power supply to such defaulting CETP and the E
Member Units.
(ii) The CETPs or any of them on achieving Zero
Liquid Discharge shall satisfy the Pollution Control
Board about their ZLD status and the Pollution F
Control Board upon verification shall issue
appropriate certificate from which date, such CETP
shall not be liable to pay the fine. In any event, if the

-
.........._ CETPs or any of them fail to achieve the ZLD on
or before 31st July, 2007, the Pollution Control
G
' '(
Board shall forthwith direct closure of such CETPs
and the Member Units and also disconnect the
power supply to such defaulting CETP and the
Member Units.
(b) The respondents 4 to 7 herein are directed to deposit H
1060 SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS {2009] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R.

A the balance sum of Rs.8.50 Crores out of Rs.12.50 Crores ~

estimated by the P.W.D. towards the cleaning and desilting
operations of the Orathapalayam dam to be carried out by
the Public Works Department in two equal instalments, the
first of such instalments being payable on or before 28th
B of February, 2007 and the second instalment to be paid
on or before the 30th April, 2007.

(c) The respondents 4 to 7 are directed"to deposit a sum A.
of Rs.22,99,98,548/- being the remaining of the total -/
'-

compensation of Rs.24,79,98,548/- awarded by the Loss
c of Ecology Authority in its Award dated 17.12.2004. This
amount shall also be payable in two equal instalments, the
first of such instalments being· payable on or before the
28th of February, 2007 and the second instalment to be
paid on or before the 30th of April, 2007.
D
(d) The respondents 4 to 7 are further directed to deposit
,)/
-
a sum of ·Rs.12 crores as an ad-hoc compensation
towards the estimated loss for the years 2005, 2006 and
2007. This amount shall be payable in two equal
E instalments, the first of such instalments being payable on
or before 15th June, 2007, and the second instalment to
be paid on or before 31st July, 2007 .

..............
F (q) The Public Works Department is directed to continue
with the cleaning and desilting operations of the
Orathapalayam Dam and the cleaning of the Noyyal river
shall be carried out through the petitioner association as
.per the orders of this Court. The District Collector, --
/

G Coimbatore is directed to release a sum of Rs.25 lakhs
directly ts> the petitioner-Agriculturists Association towards 'y
.
the charges for cleaning of the Noyyal river and the works
to be carried out upto the confluence point of the river with
river Cauvery.
H
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL 1061
RIVER A PROTECTION ASSN. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
...:,- (r) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to finalise the site A
for dumping the solid waste from the Orathapalayam dam
as well as from the Noyyal river which has been kept in
bags and in open spaces. The Pollution Control Board is
directed to provide the infrastructure and technical
expertise for removal of the solid waste from the units as B
well as the dam to the notified site. The above exercise
shall be done within a period of three months.

(s) Both the Expert Committee as well as the Monitoring
Committee shall submit periodical reports before this Court
every two months.
c
(t) The Monitoring Committee shall be paid a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per day/per visit as charges."

7. The present appellant filed a Review Petition which was D
dismissed vide Order dated 27.12.2007. Hence, these
appeals.

8. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee & Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant have submitted that
the High Court while entertaining the Public Interest Litigation E
passed the impugned order imposing a very heavy fine on the
basis of pro rata @ 6 paise, 8 paise and 1O paise per litre for
.(.
the period of two months, as mentioned therein, for water
discharge from each unit amounting to several crores of rupees
without any report of the expert committee. There was no F
material on record on the basis of which such a liability could
be fastened on the unit owners. The calculation of fine/
compensatory expenses at such a higher rate was not based
on any scientific data and, therefore, such imposition of fines
etc. cannot be held justifiable. More so, the High Court ought G
to have allowed the Review Petition filed by the appellant. The
appellant has always been willing to safeguard the environment
and to prevent pollution and discharge of effluents into Noyyal
river or Orathapalayam dam. In view of the fact that the
industrial units had undertaken to fix the R.O. plant and to H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A achieve ZLD and it had set up 17 CETPs investing a huge 'f-.-
amount of about 700 crores, such- onerous liability should not
have been imposed. The industrial units have already installed
,_
' .....
~~

a pre-treatment plant to prevent the untreated effluents-to be
discharged either into the river or dam. The High Court failed
B to appreciate that there are more than 40 thousand families to
earn their livelihood on dyeing and bleaching industry. Several
lakh persons are employed in its ancillary industries who
directly depend on this business and most of them are basically
the erstwhile agriculturists who could not earn their livelihood
.(
..
c because of the barren nature of their land and for want of proper
rain over several years. A large number of people have
indulged in transport activities because of such heavy industries
in Tirupur area. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be
set aside and appeals deserved to be allowed.
D 9. On the other hand, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior ;,.
--

-
counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has submitted that in
spite of several orders passed by the High Court, there could
have been no improvement in the ecological set up of the area.
The "precautionary principle" and principle of "polluter-pays" are
E the integral part and parcel of national environmental law. The
appellant is bound to compensate the persons who have
suffered the loss because of the activity of its members, as ,_
water of the river is neither worth for irrigation purpose nor
potable. The members of the appellant association being
F responsible for the pollution, cannot escape the responsibility
of not meeting the expenses of removing the sludge from the
river and cleaning the dam and treating the water to make it
pollution free. The cost so imposed by the High Court by the
impugned order, is based on the report of the Expert
G Committee. In spite of the fact that the High Court had ·passed
-
'

several orders and extended the period from time to time to y
take all possible measures to establish the RO system and
achieve ZLD, no improvement could be made. In case the said
members of the Association are not willing to achieve the
H pollution free atmosphere, they do not have any right to continue
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL1063
RIVER A PROTECTION ASSN. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Jll\
with their industrial activities. The appeals lack merit and are A
liable to be dismissed.

10. Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned senior counsel
-
I appearing for the Pollution Control Board has submitted that
Pollution Control Board had taken all measures to prevent the B
pollution and also inspected CETPs established by the appellant
~ and found that there is much improvement but has not been
cured fully. Certain steps are still required to be taken by the
Association to prevent the menace of pollution.

11. We have considered the rival contentions made by C
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As per
the pleadings of the case, Tirupur is the place- exporting the
finest garments like T-shirts, inner wears to all foreign countries.
The competitors are Bangladesh and China. Tirupur is an
'>- industrial hub providing employment to 5 lakh persons. The D
State Government has granted Sales Tax exemption to the units
indulged in bleaching and dyeing units, considering the
importance of the place and taking into account the nature of
the industries. The country earns about 10,000/- crores in
foreign exchange annually. The industries have provided the E
means of livelihood to a large number of persons indulged in
transport of passengers and goods in the area to the extent of
.+ 80 kilometers radius for the purpose of fetching labourers
residing away from the city and to deal with the export business.

12. Undoubtedly, in the earlier writ petition filed by another F
association for similar relief, the High Court as well as this Court
dealt with the case and disposed of the same after compliance
of directions issued by the courts. In the instant case, it is
evident from the record that the High Court issued directions
from time to time but the members of the appellant Association G
had complied with such orders partly. The High Court
constituted an Expert Committee and also the Monitoring
Committee to assess the damage caused to the dam and the
river and to find out the modalities to remove the effect of
pollution. It also got the assessment of the amount required for H
'
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009]
I
14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A removing the sludge from the river and for the treatment of the
water, making it worth for irrigation and human consumption.
)
So far as imposition of fine @ 6 paise per litre and then
enhancing to 8 paise and subsequently to 1O paise per litre
periodically is concerned, High Court imposed it on the basis
B of Award/Report dated 17.12.2004 by t~e Expert ,Committee
under the heading "Loss of Ecology .(Prevention and payments
of compensation) by the Authority". The Expert Committee
consisted of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Bhaskaran, a 'retired judge
of Madras High Court, the Secretary of the Department of
c Environment, Government of Tamil Nadu and Member
Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi as its
Member and Dr. K.R. Ranganathan, former Member Secretary
of the Central Pollution Control Board. The Committee had
taken note of all previous developments and assessed the loss
to ecology and environment in the affected area. It also
D identified the individuals and families who suffered because of
pollution and further determined the amount of compensation
to be paid to each affected individual or family. It also fixed tHe
liability for making the payment of compensation. The award
mainly provided as under :
E
(a) The Authority assessed loss to the ecology and
environment in terms of use value of the
groundwater resources polluted with excessive total
dissolved solids (inorganic) utilized for i~rigation as
F a result of the pollutional impact of effluents
discharged by textile industries located in and
around Tirupur and its vicinity falling in the Noyyal
river basin. Extent of the so irrigated land is arrived
at 28,449.816 hectares in 68 villages comprised in
G Seven Taluks or Coimbatore, Erode and Karur
Districts.

(b) The Authority identifies 28~596 individuals, affected
because of the pollution as eligible for
compensation.
H
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL1065
RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

... (c) The authority assesses the compensation to be A
paid to the aforesaid individuals as in (b) supra, at
a total sum of Rs.24, 79,98,548 for the period from
28.8.1996 to 31.12.2004.

.................. B
It is pertinent to point out that thrust of the work for
reversal is preventing further pollution of the ground
~
_. water which requires a number of cleaning
technology and treatment measures to be
undertaken by the industries with their own funds. c
13. It is evident that the High Court constituted the
Monitoring Committee consisting of technocrats and the terms
of Reference had been as under :

- .,. (i) To inspect the cluster of industrial units in and
D
around Tirupur discharging trade effluents either
... directly and indirectly into the Noyyal river and verify
the volume of the polluted water discharged into the
river every day.
E
(ii) To inspect and quantify the polluted water stored at
the Orathapalayam dam with details as to the
... present condition of the sluices .

(iii) To suggest ways and means for desilting or
F
removing the sludge that has formed in the dam
--{ area without delay, taking advantage of the summer
months.

(iv) To explore and suggest ways and means to clean
the stored water and then release the treated water G
' 'f in the river, by adopting any technical industrial
process, its estimated cost and the likely time, the
process might take its feasibility.

(v) To suggest an immediate action plan for H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A remediation of Noyyal river and in particular the ""-
Orathapalayam dam and the canals.

(vi) To suggest ways and means for preventing the
discharge of polluted trade effluents either directly
or indirectly into the Noyyal river by the cluster of ~
B
industrial units in and around Tirupur during the
process of cleaning the dam area and later.
'
~
(vii) To hold discussions with the agriculturists in the
"--
area, farmers association, Industrialists, PWD and
c PCB officials and the Loss of Ecology Authority,
Chennai to arrive at a solution relating to the
problem as a whole.

(viii) To submit interim and final reports within the
D stipulated time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
-~·

(ix) To direct the Collectors of Coimbatore and Erode
Districts the Pollution Control Board and PWD .'~
officials to coordinate with the Committee and
provide them necessary transport and other
E logistic requirements for carrying out their work.

(x) To meet specialists having knowledge on public
health relating to pollution, their cause and effect t-
and possible preventive measures.
F
It was, in fact, the Monitoring Committee in its memo dated 12th
July, 2005 made various suggestions before the High Court •
regarding establishment of CETPs and gave costs for various
operations and one of the recommendations read as under:
)

G "Apart from the earlier recommendation of the
..,.,
Committee that no CETP which had not achieved financial
closure and deposited monies should be permitted to
reopen till financial closure is achieved and monies
deposited, the Committee further recommends that all
H CETPs deposit the entire project cost within a period of 2
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL1067
RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN. [DR S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Jo,
weeks (after adjusting the money spent by them towards A
the works in progress). If the units do not so deposit, the
Committee recommends that they be shut down. The
Committee reiterates the fact that all CETPs ought to have
commissioned their RO system by today, if not much
earlier, if their earlier undertakings were taken into account. B

Apart from the condition on deposit of the entire

-
~
project cost (minus the monies actually spent}, the member
units of all CETPs should be subject to a fine of at least
10 paise per litre of effluent generated (subjected to a
minimum of Rs.10,000 per lakh litres of effluent as
c
reflected in the consent) at least from the 1st of August,
2006." (emphasis added)

14. The Monitoring Committee vide its memo dated 19th
·~
July 2006, submitted the Report before the High Court. It also D
appears from the record that for the purpose of inspection of
; CETPs the High Court vide order dated 1st August, 2005
constituted a Committee consisting of three lawyers namely Mr.
T. Mohan, Mr. S. Thangavel and Mr. M.M. Sundaresh, making
the terms of reference as under : E
(1) To arrive at time frame within which R.O. plants are
commenced and completed in consultation with
industries, their consultants and suppliers.

(2) To consult with the expert committee constituted by F
this court earlier or any member thereof on what
measurable required to achieve zero discharge
and eliminate pollutants in the effluent through
adoption of clean production measures.
G
(3) To monitor the implementation of reverse osmosis
plants and related facilities to deal with R.O.
rejects.

(4) To inspect the industries, IETPs and CETPs at
periodic intervals with or without prior notice and H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

),.
A report to this court on the progress made.

The said Committee also submitted the reports from time to
time. The High Court has passed the impugned order after
considering the aforesaid reports also.
B 15. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union
of India (1996) 3 sec 212, this Court ruled that once the
industrial activities carried out are found to be hazardous or -J
inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activities are ........
liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by
c his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable
care while carrying out his industrial or commercial activities.
Therefore, the polluting industries are absolutely liable to
compensate for the harm caused by it to villagers or other
affected persons of the area, to the soil and to the underground
,_,.
D water and hence, the industry is bound to take all necessary ~·

measures to prevent degradation of environment and also to
remove sludge and other pollutants tying in the affected area.
r"
As the liability of the polluter is absolute for harm to the
environment it extends not only to the victims of pollution but
E also to meet the cost of restoring the pollution free environment.
16. In Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India
AIR 1996 SC 2715; this Court considered various constitutional t
provisions including Articles 47, 48-A, 51-A(g) and came to the
conclusion that it is the duty of the State to protect and preserve
F the ecology, as Article 21 of the Constitution guaran.tees
protection of life and personal liberty and every person has a
right to pollution free atmosphere. Therefore, the "precautionary
principle" and the "polluter-pays" principle have been accepted
as a part of the law of the land being the part of environmental
.G law of the country.
)'

17. Similar view has been reiterated in People's Union for
Civil Liberlies vs. Union of India and Another (1997) 3 SCC
433; AP Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M. V. Nayudu AIR
H 1999 SC 812; and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2001) 9
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL1069
RIVER A. PROTECTION-ASSN. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.)

:l sec 142, observing that environment and ecology are national A
assets. They are subject to inter-generational equity. The
sustainable development principle is a part of Articles 21, 48-
A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India.

18. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of/ndia (2004)12 SCC 118, B
this Court explained the scope of "precautionary principle"
observing that it requires anticipatory action to be taken to
~ prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a
reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there
should be direct evidence of harm to the environment. The C
concept of "sustainable development" has been explained that
it covers the development that meets the needs of the person
without compromising the ability of the future generation to
meet their own needs. It means the development, that can take
place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or
J.- without mitigation. Therefore, in such matters, the required D
standard is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human
health is to be decided in public interest, according to a
"reasonable person's" test. The development of the industries,
irrigation resources and power projects are necessary to
improve employment opportunities and generations of revenue; E
therefore, cannot be ignored. In such eventuality, a balance has
to be struck, for the reason that if the activity is allowed to go,
_. there may be irreparable damage to the environment and there
may be irreparable damage to the economic interest.
F
A Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in T.N.
Godavaram Thirumulpad (104) vs. U.0.1. & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC
222; and M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC
142.

19. In case in spite of stringent conditions, degradation of G
--r- environment continues and reaches a stage of no return, the
court may consider the closure of industrial activities in areas
where there is such a risk. The authorities also have to take
into consideration the macro effect of wide scale land and
environmental degradation caused by absence of remedial H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A measures. The right to information and community participation lot
for protection of environment and human health is also a right
which flows from Article 21 (vide Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co.
Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others; AIR
2006 SC 1489; T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad vs. UOI and
B Others (2002) 10 SCC 606; Research Foundation for Science
Technology Natural Resource Policy vs. UOI & Ors (2005) 10
SCC 510; N.D. Jayal & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 867;
M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath AIR 2002 SC 1515; Mrs. Susetha ~
vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2893). <;:

c 20. The correctness of the impugned order is to be tested
on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. This
Court vide order dated 18.5.2007 stayed the impugned order
of the High Court only to the extent that the directions to close
down the industries would not be given effect to from 31.7.2007.
D This Order has been extended from time to time. On 10th
.~
August, 2007, this Court directed the members of the
petitioners' association to deposit a sum of Rs.25 crores within
a period of six weeks before the High Court and further to file ...
' '
an affidavit as what progress has been made in respect of the
E CETPs and treatment plants. This Court vide order dated
12.5.09, directed the Board to inspect the Noyyal River and find
out whether any pollution is caused by the factories owned by
the members of the appellant Association and file a report on
or before 27.7.09.
F
21. The Inspection Committee constituted by the Board
made following observations during inspections on 8.7.2009
and 9.7.. 2009:

(A) There is no flow of surface water in the upstream
G side of Agrahara Puthur road bridge (S1) across
the Noyyal River and it was found dry during y
inspection on 8. 7.2009 and 9. 7.2009 with isolated
ponding of small quantity of water.

H (8) Flow of water was observed in Noyyal River at the
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL1071
RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

) stretch of Tiruppur Town where Bleaching and A
Dyeing units are located and downstream at
Orathupalayam Dam.

(C) Along with the primary treated effluent from existing
bleaching and dyeing units, domestic effluent from B
Tiruppur Corporation [Formerly Tiruppur
Municipality], Nallur Municipality and other villages
located along the banks of Noyyal River is
discharged into Noyyal River, which also
contributes to the flow in the River and organic C
pollution load.

(D) In the entire stretch of Noyyal River falling in the
jurisdiction of Tiruppur Corporation and Nallur
Municipality, Municipal Solid wastes are being
dumped along the River itself, which also D
contributes to the pollution load in Noyyal.

The impact of industrial pollution on river is revealed by the
presence of high pH (alkalinity), very high Total Dissolved solids
(TDS), excess chloride (C1 ) and percent sodium (%Na). Also E
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) are not at an acceptable level. Moreover, the
dark red colour of the water in the River Noyyal, was seen during
inspection.

22. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 27.07.09,- F
the said Inspection Committee again inspected the 17 CETPs
in Tirupur during 3.8.2009 and 4.8.2009 and submitted the
Report. The 17 CETPs had paid only Rs. 17,22,46,031/-
(Rupees seventeen crores twenty two lacs forty six thousands
and thirty one only) as against Rs.55,60,96,848/- (Rupees fifty G
five crores sixty lacs ninty six thousands eight hundred and forty
eight only). This total sum has been arrived at on the basis of
number of working days multiplied by the daily consented
quantity/applied quantity of effluent of member units, leaving a
balance to be remitted as Rs.38,38,50,817/- (Rupees thirty H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A eight crores thirty eight lacs fifty thousands eight hundred and
seventeen only). The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.25
crores in the High Court of Madras as per the direction of this
Court dated 10.8.2007.

23. Some of the member units of the CETPs have obtained
B
the consent of the Board in accordance with law. Some of them
have applied to the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board for
consent, but consent was not issued to them in view of the -4
provisions of the G.0.Ms.No.213 Environment and Forests
(EC-1) Department dated 30.3.1989 and G.O.Ms. No.127.
c
24. With regard to the technical aspect, lnsp·ection
Committee submitted that among the 17 CETPs, 11 CETPs
have completed 90% to 97% works relating to the ZLD system.
The remaining minor works to be completed related to the
D establishment of an adequate Solar Evaporation Pan area, ~
\

considering the evaporation rate as 4.5 mm per sq,m. per day.
The other 3 CETPs have completed above 90% of the works
relating to the ZLD system. The remaining works to be ..
completed related to the establishment of adequate Solar
E Evaporation Pan area and loading of the membranes into the
RO module, etc.

25. The remaining 3 CETPs have completed below 80%
t
of work relating to the ZLD systems. The remaining percentage
of works to be completed relates to the establishment of
F adequate Solar Evaporation Pan area, Boiler, Crystallizer,
loading of the membranes into the RO module, etc.

26. In view of the above fact that this matter is pending
before this Court for ·more than two and a half years and the
G members of the appellant Association had been permitted to
continue their business, it is desirable that the members of the y
appellant Association should ensure the compliance of all the
directions including the payment of dues etc. issued by the
Court within a period of three months from today. They shall
H
TIRPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSN. v. NOYYAL1073
RIVER A. PROTECTION ASSN. [DR B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
}
ensure that no pollution is caused to the river or dam and if A
cleaning operation has not yet been completed, it shall be
completed within the said stipulated period.

27. Undoubtedly, there has been unabated pollution by the
members of the appellant Association. They cannot escape the B
responsibility to meet out the expenses of reversing the
ecology. They are bound to meet the expenses of removing the
~ sludge of the river and also for cleaning the dam. The principles
of "polluters-pay" and "precautionary principle" have to be read
with the doctrine of "sustainable development". It becomes the
responsibility of the members of the appellant Association that
c
they have to carry out their industrial activities without polluting
the water. A large number of farmers have suffered because
of the pollution caused by them. They could not cultivate any
crop in the said land. The committee had made a complete
).-
survey and assessed the loss and identified the families which D
are entitled to compensation. This Court only stayed the
operation of the direction of the High Court to the extent that
the units of the members of the appellant Association would be
closed on 31st July, 2007. The said interim order has been
extended from time to time. None of the other directions have E
been interfered with. A period of more than two and a half year
has been passed. Many steps have been taken but the
-t
Association has to ensure the compliance of the orders passed
by the High Court fully and in order to do, it is desirable that
the Association be giving three months time to ensure F
compliance of directions to make the CETPs functional and
pay the balance amount for cleaning the dam and river and
meet the compensation to the adversely affected persons within
a period of three months from today. The Pollution Control
Board is directed to ensure that no pollution is caused, giving G
strict adherence, to the statutory provisions.

28. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.
H