[Industrial Discharge] When Remedy Against Order Passed Under Water Act Available Before NGT, HC Can't Interfere: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that when remedy against an order passed by Pollution Control Board under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974, against an industry discharging effluents, lies before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the High Court cannot interfere.
The impugned order against a Cold Storage was passed under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act) and also under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), 1981 (Air Act). Order passed under Air act was appealable before the High Court.
However, the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal noted from the pleadings of the petition as well as the tenor of the impugned order, that "it is obvious that the effluents discharged are essentially liquid in nature and, therefore, primarily relate to the Water Act, 1974."
"If the essentiality test is applied to the impugned order dated 03.06.2024, it is obvious and palpable that, considering the nature of effluents discharged by the cold-storage, it is essentially an order passed under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974," added the Court.
These observations were made while hearing the plea of M/s Sharanpal Cold Storage situated in Punjab's Kapurthala district, challenging the order of Pollution Control Board. The Pollution Control Board had issued an order under Water Act and Air Act to stop operating all outlets & stop forthwith discharging any effluent/emissions from its premises.
The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited was also directed to disconnect the supply of electricity available to industry and as a result food items stored in the cold storage was damaging, the plea stated.
Standing Counsel for Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) Abhilaksh Gaind orally submitted that the industry is discharging pollutants even without applying and obtaining the 'consent to operate', therefore being liable to be immediately closed. He added that this is, essentially, a violation of Water Act, and as per Section 33B of the Water Act, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere, in view of the statutory alternative remedy available before the National Green Tribunal.
After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the contention of the petitioner who relied on he decision of Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs Sterlite Industries (I) and others, 2019 AIR (SC) 1074, wherein it was, inter-alia, laid down that "if an order is conjointly passed by the Board under Section 33A of Water Act, 1974 as well as under Section 31A of Air Act, 1981, then no remedy against such an order is available except for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for the reason that the Air Act, 1981 does not prescribe any remedy against an order passed under Section 31A of Air Act, 1981."
The Court said, "there is no dispute as regards the law laid by the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board's case (supra). However, the very fact that the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 has already been held by this Court to be essentially an order passed under the Water Act, 1974, where the remedy under Section 33B(c) is available before the National Green Tribunal, the verdict of Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board's (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner."
In the light of the above, the plea was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 33B(c) of the Water Act, 1974 by approaching the National Green Tribunal.
Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Standing Counsel (PPCB),
Mr. Aman Kumar Sirswa, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Title: M/s Sharanpal Cold Storage v. Punjab Pollution Control Board, Jalandhar and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 226