Court Ruling on Environmental Compensation Imposed on CETP.
03 September 2024
Environment Protection >> Environmental Law
On September 9, 2024, the court delivered a significant ruling in the matter of G.T. Karnal Road Industrial Estate Cetp Society (Regd.) v/s The Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Others regarding the imposition of Environmental Compensation on a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) operated by a petitioner. This decision arose from a dispute involving the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) and the petitioner over alleged non-compliance with prescribed effluent standards.
Background:
CETPs play a crucial role in managing effluent from small-scale industries by treating and disposing of industrial wastewater and domestic sewage. Established under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, CETPs must obtain "Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate" from the DPCC to ensure adherence to environmental standards.
In a landmark judgment dated January 13, 2015, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) mandated the operationalization of CETPs in Delhi and directed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to monitor compliance. CPCB was also tasked with developing an environmental compensation regime for plants failing to meet prescribed standards. From January 2019 to October 2020, DPCC conducted sample analyses of the CETP's effluent, revealing that the petitioner’s CETP failed to meet the required standards. Consequently, DPCC issued multiple communications urging corrective actions. Despite these warnings, the CPCB's directions on November 26, 2020, emphasized immediate compliance and the potential for levying environmental compensation on non-compliant CETPs.
The Dispute:
On December 15, 2020, DPCC directed the petitioner to rectify the CETP’s performance and submit a compliance report. Following the petitioner’s response, a show cause notice was issued on April 5, 2021, proposing an environmental compensation of INR 90,00,000 for failing to meet the prescribed standards.
The petitioner contested this notice, arguing that the CETP, owned by the Commissioner of Industries, Delhi, was designed with limitations, and that any failures in meeting the standards were due to factors beyond their control. They also pointed out that the agreement governing the CETP's maintenance had expired, leaving them no longer responsible.
The Impugned Order:
On July 7, 2021, DPCC issued an order imposing the environmental compensation. The petitioner challenged this decision, claiming it lacked detailed reasoning and failed to address their contentions adequately. Key issues included the age of the CETP, the expired maintenance agreement, and the absence of a clear basis for the calculated compensation amount. The petitioner also highlighted that the office bearers of their society, who served voluntarily, were not compensated and had not been involved in the CETP’s operational failures.
Court's Decision:
The court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning and addressed the petitioner’s concerns. It observed that DPCC had not adequately considered the petitioner’s arguments or provided a detailed rationale for the compensation amount. Furthermore, the court noted that the issues regarding the CETP’s operational lifespan and the expired maintenance agreement needed to be examined more thoroughly. The court thus quashed the order dated July 7, 2021, and the subsequent communication of October 27, 2021. The case was remitted to DPCC for a fresh review. DPCC was instructed to restart the proceedings from the petitioner’s response dated April 8, 2021, allowing the petitioner to submit additional materials and documents. DPCC was also directed to address the concerns regarding the CETP’s age and agreement status.
Conclusion:
The court's ruling underscores the need for environmental regulatory bodies to provide reasoned decisions and adequately consider the complexities involved in compliance cases. It highlights the importance of fair procedural practices and ensures that the petitioner’s rights and contentions are respected in the review process. The case serves as a reminder of the intricate balance between environmental compliance and operational realities, and the need for transparent and well-reasoned administrative actions.