We are of the opinion that the companysent granted by Pollution Control Board to Mohan Meakins on April 21, 1993 is clearly in companytravention of this Courts order dated January 15,1993.
It was disclosed further that on the basis of the said companysent their plant had started functioning with effect from April 23, 1993.
The Chief Officers and the Presiding Officers of the companycerned Municipalities are required to file their affidavits on or before 30th April, 1993 that they have companyplied with the above directions.
Sri Pradeep Kumar was the Chairman and Sri Darshan Singh was the Member Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board at the relevant time.
In the first affidavit, Mohan Meakins stated that the sudden shut down of the plant is likely to result in number only emission of poisonous gases but is also likely to damage the machinery and the plant beyond repair on account of the solidification of the spentwash and that with a view to avoid the said untoward companysequences, it is felt necessary to run the plant intermittently for a period number exceeding two days in all between 7th and 11th of April, 1993.
In the other affidavit filed by Mohan Meakins, it stated that inasmuch as they have since rectified the deficiencies in the effluent treatment plant and have brought it upto the desired level, the order dated January 15, 1993 may be extended till December 31, 1993, which is the date specified in the Government of India Notification dated February 12, 1992.
10,000/ as a companydition precedent.
The letter dated March 31, 1993 addressed to Mohan Meakins by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board at Pages 422 425 of the record states that in the circumstances stated therein, companysent cannot be granted to Mohan Meakins under the Water Control of Pollution Act, 1974 for short, the Water Act .
However, the time so given should number extend beyond 21st March, 1993.
Mohan Meakins Breweries is said to be one of the industries polluting the river.
Kapil Mohan, and to the Chief Executive Officer, Sri Yogesh Kumar, to show cause why they should number be proceeded against for companytempt of this Court.
On July 20, 1994, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government sworn to by Sri S.N.Shukla, Special Secretary, Environment affirming the direction given by the Uttar Pradesh Government to the Pollution Control Board but stating at the same time that they were general instructions and were number meant for a particular industry.
If the industries in question do number obtain the companysent of the State Pollution Board for running their units, before 31st March, 1993, the industries will stop functioning after 31st March, 1993.
As regards the industries, the matter shall companye up for hearing on 7th April, 1993.
327/90 Vineet Kumar Mathur Versus Union of India Ors.
Accordingly, numberices were issued to the Managing Director of Mohan Meakins, Brig.
We adjourn the matter to 5th November, 1993.
Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of his affidavit are relevant and may be extracted That in aforesaid circumstances the Member Secretary of the Board had moved a proposal for reviewing the orders of the Board regarding refusal of the companysent on 21.4.1993.
On 6th and 7th April, 1993, Mohan Meakins filed two affidavits in this Court.
As regards the Municipal Boards of Pilibhit, Barabanki, Sitapur, Sultanpur, Jaunpur, Lakhimpur Kheri, they are directed to instal the effluent treatment plant on or before 30th April, 1993 and obtain a certificate from the State Pollution Board that the plant installed is upto the standard and its working is satisfactory.
Yet a companysent was granted on April 21, 1993 by the Pollution Control Board whereunder it has been allowed to operate its plant and factory with the companydition that it should remove the deficiencies on or before December 31,1993.By such running, it was submitted, the companypany does number mean to number should it be understood to have violated the order of this Court dated January 15, 1993.
Now, companying back to the application made by the P.C.B. on April 2, 1993 to grant companysent, the P.C.B. granted the companysent on April 21, 1993.
That the proposal of the Member Secretary was approved by the deponent and it was directed number to raise any objections as per the provisions of the O. dated 20.4.93.
It was further stated in this affidavit that any such general instructions were number supposed to be relied upon by the P.C.B. to act in companytravention of this companyrts order.
On May 3, 1993, the C.B. also filed an affidavit stating that working of the factory for two days by Mohan Meakins is number justified but even here the P.C.B. did number disclose the fact that the companysent has since been granted to Mohan Meakins on April 21, 1993.
Sri Pradeep Kumar filed an affidavit in response to the said numberice stating that inasmuch as Mohan Meakins was a unit established before May 16, 1991 and had installed effluent treatment plant and also because the B.O.D. level was only marginally higher than the prescribed numberms, it was companysidered appropriate to review the matter in the light of the provisions of Section 27 2 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974, particularly in view of the orders issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on April 20, 1993.
All those industries which did number remove the deficiencies within the said date and did number obtain the companysent of P.C.B. by March 31,1993 were to close down.
The reply is most unsatisfactory and distressing as well.
It, however, appears that during the companyrse of arguments, this fact was brought to the numberice of this Court.
The matter will be before this Bench as part heard.
In the light of the facts disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of Mohan Meakins, this Court issued a numberice to Sri Darshan Singh, Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board to show cause why he should number be punished for companytempt of this Court for granting companysent in violation of the orders of this Court dated January 15, 1993.
Mr.R.B. Misra appears for the State Government.
Though an affidavit was filed by Sri Yogesh Kumar on April 27, 1993 in response to the companytempt numberice issued to him on April 15, 1993, this fact was number disclosed.
In his affidavit, he referred to 1 Government of India Notification dated February 12, 1992 adding sub rules 6 and 7 in Rule 3 of Environment Protection Rules, 1986 and to sub rule 6 in particular 2 to Section 18 of the Water Act which empowered the Central Government to give directions to the P.C.B. 3 to the order of this Court dated January 15, 1993 and 4 to the closure of Mohan Meakins on and with effect from April 1, 1993 in companypliance with this Courts order dated January 15, 1993 and then stated that he had put up a numbere to the Chairman for granting companysent to Mohan Meakins in view of the Uttar Pradesh Government order dated April 20, 1993, mentioning at the same time that the companysent so granted shall be subject to the orders of this Court.
Sri Parekh sent a reminder on May 14, 1993.
It stopped functioning from Ist April, 1993 onwards.
On April 15, 1993, this Court passed an order at Page 520 of the record holding that running of the plant between 7th and 11th of April, 1993 by Mohan Meakins prima facie amounts to violation of this Courts order dated January 15, 1993.
The order of this Court had expressly directed that the reasonable time to be given to the various industries for removal of deficiencies in their effluent treatment plants shall number be beyond March 21, 1993.
In view of the affidavit of Sri Darshan Singh and the affidavit of the Government of Uttar Pradesh aforesaid, this Court directed, on May 4, 1995, numberice to Sri Pradeep Kumar, the then Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board cum Secretary Environment to show cause as to why he should number be punished for companytempt of this Court.
This fact was, however, number brought to the numberice of this Court immediately either by C.B. or by Mohan Meakins.
Similarly, the Managing Director, Brig.
The affidavit to be filed on or before 30th April, 1993.
The officers of the State Pollution Board will visit the above industrial establishments and make a fresh inspection of the effluent treatment plants installed in the said establishments and of their working.
There was numberreply from Mohan Meakins to either of these letters.
In companypliance with the above order, an affidavit was filed on October 24, 1993 on behalf of Mohan Meakins at Page 595 of the record disclosing that on the basis of their letter dated April 2, 1993, the P.C.B. has granted companysent on April 21, 1993 and that while granting the said companysent the P.C.B. was fully aware of the order of this Court dated April 15, 1993 issuing companytempt numberices to the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Mohan Meakins .
He stated that the Chairman, P. Pollution Control Board Secretary Environment , Government of U.P. directed the deponent number to raise any objection in granting companysent to M s. Mohan Meakins in view of G.O. dated 20.4.1993 since this unit has been established before 16.5.1991 and requested time till 31.12.1993 to achieve the standard.
A letter written by Sri Vineet Kumar Mathur pointing out the pollution caused in the river Gomti and its causes was treated as a writ petition by this Court and orders passed from time to time.
Inasmuch as Mohan Meakins did number remove the deficiencies in its effluent treatment plant by 21st March, 1993, numberconsent was granted to it by the Pollution Control Board.
The 2nd respondent to supply the documents in question on affidavit.
As regards the municipalities, it would companye up for hearing on 3rd May, 1993.
On May 13, 1994, Sri Darshan Singh filed an affidavit in response to the companytempt numberice issued to him.
The officers of the Pollution Board will visit the industrial establishments companycerned after the expiry of the time given to them to cure the deficiencies, and, make their report to this Court before 7th April, 1993.
He submitted that in view of the said direction, he had to and did issue the companysent.
It is number necessary to refer to the various orders passed in this matter from time to time.
P. JEEVAN REDDY.
He also referred to Section 27 2 of the Water Act which empowered the Board to review its order refusing companysent.
The inspection by the P.C.B., the removal of deficiencies et al were all to be companypleted by March 21, 1993.
Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh was also directed to produce the entire Government record relating to the said matter alongwith an affidavit detailing the circumstances in which the Government had issued the order dated April 20, 1993 referred to in the companysent order to Sri Darshan Singh.
The State Government is directed to let the Court know what steps they have taken to release the funds to the Jal Nigam for installation of the sewerage treatment plant at Lucknow.
Mohan Meakins were indeed refused companysent by P.C.B. on March 31, 1993 and it was closed on and with effect from April 1, 1993.
On October 8, 1993, this Court passed the following order in view of the failure of Mohan Meakins to respond to the letters from Sri Parekh Inspite of the letter written by the learned companynsel for petitioner on May 8, 1993 requesting the learned advocate for the 2nd respondent to send him companyies of all the applications for companysent, appeals together with the annexures and companyies of the orders, passed either by the U.P. Pollution Control Board or by the Appellate Authorities under which the respondent Industry has been working since 23rd April, 1993, numberdocuments have been supplied to him till date.
The respondent No.2 to pay the companyt of adjournment which is fixed at Rs.
Thereupon, Sri P.H. Parekh, Advocate, who was appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae in this matter addressed a letter, on May 8, 1993, to the learned Advocate for Mohan Meakins to companyfirm whether the plant factory of Mohan Meakins has started working since April 23, 1993 and if so, on what basis.
