REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6776 OF 2009  @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6963 OF 2007

Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners …. Appellants Association

Versus

Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection …. Respondents Association and others

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6777 OF 2009  @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28296 OF 2008

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.  

1.       Leave granted.

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.   

3.  The facts and circumstances giving rise to 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  

ecology and for keeping the Noyyal river in Tamil Nadu free from  

pollution.  According to the said Association, a large number of  

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  

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 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 directed  

the  Tamil  Nadu Pollution  Control  Board  (hereinafter  called  as  

2

“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 cleaning of the  

Orathapalayam dam.  For compliance of the said order, 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  

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, 8641,  

8747 and 9150 of 1998.  This Court issued some directions in  

respect of 53 units in Tirupur and 97 units in Karur.  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  

14.12.2000  to  carry  out  a  study  on  the  restoration  of  

Orthapalayam   Dam  with  the  help  of  the  department  of  

3

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,  

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 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 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 made  

by various  committees to  prevent further  pollution were being  

4

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  owners had to  

establish  R.O.  (Reverse  Osmosis)  system  and  to  attain  Zero  

Liquid Discharge (hereinafter called ZLD) of the trade effluents.  

Thus,  the  said  Association  was  required  to  deposit  a  sum  

equivalent of 25% of  the R.O. cost  and 50% of the project cost  

etc. and it was also pointed out that 150 pre-treatment plants  

were also likely to be established. The Court passed the order  

dated 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  effluents  subject to the following conditions :

(i) The  concerned CETPs are directed to pay a fine on  pro rata basis at the rate of six paise per litre from  Ist January, 2007 to 31st March, 2007; at the rate of   eight paise per litre from Ist April, 2007 to 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 CETP as per the  consent certificate  or as the quantity  found in the  

5

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.  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 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  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  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   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 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  of  Rs.22,99,98,548/-  being  the  remaining  of  the  total   compensation of Rs.24,79,98,548/- awarded by the Loss 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  

6

of February, 2007 and the second instalment to be paid on  or before the 30th of April, 2007.

(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 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. ………….. (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, Coimbatore   is directed to release a sum of Rs.25 lakhs directly to the   petitioner-Agriculturists Association towards 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.

(r) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to finalise the site   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   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.

(t) The  Monitoring  Committee  shall  be  paid  a  sum  of   Rs.15,000/- per day/per visit as charges.”

7

7. The  present  appellant  filed  a  Review  Petition  which  

was  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  

passed the impugned order imposing a very heavy fine on the  

basis of pro rata @ 6 paise, 8 paise and 10 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 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  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  

8

dam.  In view of the fact that the industrial units had undertaken  

to fix the R.O. plant and to achieve  ZLD and it had set up 17  

CETPs   investing  a  huge  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 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 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.

9. On the other hand, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior  

counsel  appearing for respondent no. 1 has submitted that in  

9

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  

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 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 Committee.  In spite of the fact that the  

High Court had passed several orders and extended the period  

from time to time to 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 pollution free atmosphere, they do not have any right  

to  continue  with  their  industrial  activities.   The  appeals  lack  

merit and are liable to be dismissed.

10

10. Shri  Abhishek  Gupta,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  Pollution  Control  Board  has  submitted  that  

Pollution Control Board had taken all measures to prevent the  

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  

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  

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 means of  

livelihood to a large number of persons indulged in transport  of  

11

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 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  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 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  10  paise  per  litre  periodically  is  

concerned, High Court imposed it on the basis of Award/Report  

12

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  consisted of Hon’ble Mr.  

Justice P. Bhaskaran, 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,  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 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 :  

(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  irrigation as 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  

13

villages  comprised  in  Seven  Taluks  or   Coimbatore, Erode and Karur Districts.

(b) The  Authority  identifies  28,596  individuals,   affected because of the pollution as eligible for  compensation.

(c) The  authority assesses the compensation to be  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.

..................

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.  

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 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.

ii) To inspect and quantify the polluted water stored at the  Orathapalayam  dam  with  details  as  to  the  present  condition of the sluices.

14

iii) To suggest ways and means for desilting or 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 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 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   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  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 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 logistic requirements for  carrying out their work.

x) To meet specialists having knowledge on public health   relating to pollution, their cause and effect and possible  preventive measures.  

15

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:

“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  CETPs deposit  the  entire  project  cost  within  a period of  2 weeks (after  adjusting  the  money spent  by them towards 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.

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 reflected in the consent) at least from the Ist   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  

appears from the record that for the purpose  of inspection of  

CETPs  the  High  Court  vide  order  dated  1st August,  2005  

16

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 :

(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  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.

(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  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.

15. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of  

India (1996) 3 SCC 212, this Court ruled that once the industrial  

activities carried out  are found to be hazardous or inherently  

dangerous, the person carrying on such activities are liable to  

make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity  

17

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 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  lying  in  the  affected  area.   As  the  liability  of  the  

polluter is absolute for harm to the environment it extends not  

only  to  the  victims  of  pollution  but  also  to  meet  the  cost  of  

restoring the pollution free environment.  

16. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR  

1996  SC  2715;  this  Court  considered  various  constitutional  

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  

the  ecology,  as  Article  21  of  the  Constitution  guarantees  

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  

18

as a part of the law of the land being the part of environmental  

law of the country.  

17. Similar view has been reiterated in People’s Union for Civil  

Liberties vs. Union of India and Another (1997) 3 SCC 433; AP  

Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu AIR 1999 SC 812;  

and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2001) 9 SCC 142, observing  

that  environment  and  ecology  are  national  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 India (2004)12 SCC 118,  

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  concept  of  

“sustainable development” has been explained that it covers the  

development  that  meets  the  needs  of  the  person  without  

19

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  without  

mitigation.  Therefore, in such matters, the required 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; 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.   

A  Similar  view has been reiterated by this  Court  in T.N.  

Godavaram Thirumulpad (104) vs. U.O.I.  & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC  

222; and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC  

142.

20

19. 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 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  

measures.  The right to information and community participation  

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  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).

20. The correctness of the impugned order is to be tested  

on  the  basis  of  the  aforesaid  settled  legal  propositions.   This  

21

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.  

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  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.  

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  side of Agrahara Puthur road bridge (S1) across the   Noyyal River and it was found dry during inspection   on 8.7.2009 and 9.7.2009 with isolated ponding of  small quantity of water.

22

(B) Flow of water was observed in Noyyal River at the  stretch  of  Tiruppur  Town  where  Bleaching  and  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  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 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  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  

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.     

23

22.       In pursuance of  the order of this Court dated 27.07.09,  

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 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 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 the  

consent of the Board in accordance with law. Some of them have  

applied to the Tamilnadu Pollution Control  Board for  consent,  

24

but consent was not issued to them in view of the provisions of  

the G.O.Ms.No.213 Environment and Forests (EC-1) Department  

dated 30.3.1989 and G.O.Ms. No.127.

24.      With  regard  to  the  technical  aspect,  Inspection  

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  

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  

Evaporation Pan area and loading of the membranes into the RO  

module, etc.

25. The remaining 3 CETPs have completed below 80% of work  

relating to the ZLD systems. The remaining percentage of works  

25

to be completed relates to the establishment of 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  

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  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 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.   

27. Undoubtedly,  there  has  been  unabated  pollution  by  the  

members of the appellant Association.  They cannot escape the  

responsibility to meet out the expenses of reversing the ecology.  

They are bound to meet the expenses of removing the sludge of  

26

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  

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 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 been interfered with.  

A  period of  more  than two and a  half  year  has been passed.  

Many steps have been taken but the 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  compliance  of  directions  to  make  the  

CETPs functional and pay the balance amount for cleaning the  

27

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 strict adherence, to the statutory provisions.

28. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

……………………………….CJI. (K.G. Balakrishnan)

                       …….………………………… ….J.

(Dr. B.S. Chauhan) New Delhi; October 6, 2009.

28

29