Industries Have No Legal Right To Discharge Industrial Effluent Into Sewer Lines: Gujarat HC Comes Down Heavily On Textile Industries For Sabarmati River Pollution
Emphasising that the major source of environmental pollution from textile industry is the huge amount of wastewater discharged with high chemical load, the Gujarat High Court has stressed the significance of effluent management in the textile industries discharging wastewater in the Sabarmati River. The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati has made...
Emphasising that the major source of environmental pollution from textile industry is the huge amount of wastewater discharged with high chemical load, the Gujarat High Court has stressed the significance of effluent management in the textile industries discharging wastewater in the Sabarmati River. The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati has made this observation while declining reliefs to the textile industries which prayed the Court to permit the industries to reconnect the sewer lines to enable them to discharge industrial effluent into the sewer lines.
Background
Basis a news report in August 2021 in the 'Ahmedabad Mirror', the Gujarat High Court took suo motu cognizance of excessive pollution in the Sabarmati River owing to a Sewage Treatment Plant ('STP') flouting the treatment norms and releasing untreated water into the river. Accordingly, the High Court had appointed an Amicus Curiae vide an order dated August 2021. The Amicus Curiae informed the Court that even walking around the embankment was an onerous task owing to the foul smell emanating from illegal discharge. Pursuant to this, the Court directed full examination of the plant, as well, by the Amicus. Subsequently, the Court constituted a Joint Task Force in 2021 and directions were issued to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to furnish correct details about the volume and parameters stipulated by the NGT for every STP in the Ahmedabad District. The Task Force also termed the stretch of 120kms in the Sabarmati River as "dead", "highly polluted/contaminated" and indicated that the Gujarat Pollution Control Board should initiate criminal prosecution against all owners of the polluting industries.
The High Court noted that the Pollution Control Board and the Municipal Corporation identified 500 illegal industries and directed these entities to follow the recommendation and suggestions by the Task Force. The Court, inter alia, also directed industries to make their discharge almost potable, coordinate with the Treatment Plants, reuse the discharge in industrial work (Zero Liquid Discharge) and access Mega pipelines for safe discharge in coordination with the Corporation.
Key Contentions
The textile industries contended that per the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949, they had a legal right to use the sewer drain of the Corporation for discharging industrial effluent. They averred that it was the duty of the Cooperation per Section 155 of the Act to provide drainage in the city and that the only obligation of the manufacturer was to construct drainage in his premises per the specifications provided by the Commissioner. The Court expressed disgust at this "unreasonable stance" of the industries. M/S Ashima Ltd (one of the industries and writ applicant) submitted that the industry had set up a new Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) and therefore, discharge should be permitted in the sewer line. The other industries, the Bench noted, had no response to the inspection report of the ETPs. Further, due to the closure of the industries, they were suffering from huge losses. The Corporation, meanwhile, affirmed that the industries did not treat the effluent in the correct manner and had no vested legal right to discharge the effluent in the river. The Pollution Control Board and Corporation together averred that it was impossible to keep a close watch on the quality of effluents. The Board submitted that the overhaul of treatment plants would come at a huge cost, but the Corporation was taking necessary precaution to prevent air and water pollution. Lastly, the Task Force made a strong case for preventing textile and other industries from discharging effluents in the sewer lines.
Judgement
The Bench primarily remarked that per Section 153(2) of the Act, it was the duty of the Corporation to maintain municipal drains for maintaining effective drainage in the city. Further, under Section 159(3), the Commissioner had a discretion to grant permission to any person or entity to connect the sewer with the municipal drain. Section 166A also empowered the Commissioner to require owners of trade premises to discharge trade effluent in an effective manner and he had overriding powers where drainage of the organisation was not adapted to the general drainage system. Section 186 of the Act prescribed the general prohibitions in relation to the sewerage network of the Corporation and under this provision, dangerous refuse could be prohibited from discharge. Yet time and again, partially treated effluent was discharged by the industries. Reading these provisions together, the Bench concluded that there were no vested legal rights with the industries to discharge the effluent in the sewer lines. The Bench tersely remarked that the Board did not pay attention to this discharge and issued certificates of "clean chit" to the industries. Further averring that in 2013, a Committee of Experts had instructed the Corporation to remove all illegal domestic connections to the pipeline, the Bench noted that the Corporation had not abided by this guideline.
In its final observations, the Court came down heavily on the M/S Ashima and other industries which had averred that Zero Liquid Discharge technology was not financially viable. Another industry which had shifted to this technology was appreciated by the Bench, even as the Bench directed the industries to cooperate with the Corporation, the State Government and the Pollution Control Board to work out a viable industrial effluent pipeline which could carry the effluent straight to the Central Effluent Treatment Plants. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the applications.
Case Title: ARVIND LIMITED THROUGH AUTHO. REP. HARDIK MOTIWALA Versus SUO MOTU
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 35
Case No.: C/WPPIL/98/2021