NGT Directs Tamil Nadu PCB To Levy Compensation On Plastic Recycling Unit Operating Without Consent

The southern bench of National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to levy compensation on plastic recycling units operating without consent.

The bench of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati said, “we direct the TNPCB to levy the compensation for the period in which the unit was in operation without obtaining the Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate by following the due process of law.”

B. Saravanan had filed the plea seeking a permanent injunction to restrain M/s. Shiva Sakthi Plastics and M/s. Sakthi Plastics from operating the plastic recycling unit at No.84/6, Vinayagar Kovil Street, M.Pudhupalayam, Panrutti Taluk.

In July, a report submitted by TNPCB stated that there were several complaints received from the applicant and also the public of M. Pudhupalayam Village against the units.

In February, upon inspection it was found that the unit was in operation without obtaining Consent to Operate (CTO) from the TNPCB and the unit had stored the plastic scrap in the middle of the habitation.

A show cause notice was issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 198.

The TNPCB collected the water samples and analyzed them in the lab and the report revealed that there is no contamination due to the activity of the units.

Thereafter, based on another complaint and also the application made by M/s. Shiva Sakthi Plastics for the issuance of Consent to Operate (Direct) in April, the TNPCB inspected the premises and issued the Consent to Operate on to the unit of M/s. Siva Bottles (earlier known as M/s. Sivasakthi Plastics). The consent was issued to the Project Proponent at different locations in the same village.

While directing the TNPCB to levy the compensation for the period in which the unit was operating without CTO, the Tribunal said, “From the report of the TNPCB, it is evident that before obtaining the Consent to Operate for the unit in S.F. No.100/1 of Kizkavarapattu Village, Panrutti Taluk, the Project Proponent was operating in the application mentioned location.”

“If the operation was done by the Project Proponent without consent, the TNPCB should have computed the number of days during which the Project Proponent was carrying on the operations and should have levied the compensation. However, the report is silent about it,” added the NGT.

Case Title: B. Saravanan v. The Member Secretary, TNPCB & Ors.

For Applicants: R. Karthikeyan, K. Kulandaivelu,

K.N. Paridhi Arasu, P. Shanthini & S. Dhamotharan.

For Respondents: Aarti represented

Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2. Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R4 & R5.

Click Here To Read/Download Order