Heard Mr. K.S. Nanavati, Senior Counsel, for the applicant, Mr. M.R. Raval, AGP, for respondent No.2, and Mr.Chiriste for respondent No.3. Other respondents are served.
By way of this Misc. Civil Application, the applicant seeks clarification/review of the judgment dated August 5, 1995 rendered in Special Civil Application No.770 of 1995. Under paragraph 135 (c)(xii) thereof, the applicant has been called upon to contribute 1% of its annual gross turnover for the year 1993-94 or 1994-95 whichever is higher. That amount comes to Rs.15 lakhs and odd and this application has been filed to seek clarification that the applicant-unit is not covered under the aforesaid judgment.
it is the case of the applicant that earlier a notice dated March 10, 1995 under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act was served on the applicant calling it to show cause as to why the unit should not be closed down, unless they achieve the norms which were mentioned in the notice. The applicant replied to the said notice pointing out that the unit was meeting the parameters as prescribed under their consent issued on November 17, 1983. However, in spite of that, closure order was effected. The applicant, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 7700 of 1995. In that petition, an order came to be passed by a Division Bench recording a statement made on behalf of the respondents that the impugned order of closure appeared to have been issued under a bona fide mistake. The respondents, therefore, withdrew that notice. In view of that statement, the petition was withdrawn. The closure order and notice were apparently in error inasmuch as notice dated March 10, 1995 was issued to the manufacturers of textile printing, whereas the applicant is an engineering unit engaged in the manufacture of rotary screens which are used in textile printing.
Mr. Nanavati, therefore, contended that, in view of this order, which was passed subsequent to the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 770 of 1995, the applicant could not be now called upon to contribute 1% of the amount. Mr. Nanavati pointed out that after recycling of water consumption, quantity of water for discharge comes to around 23,000 liters per day and that is used for gardening which is at large-scale around the factory of the applicant.
Mr. Raval on the other hand contended that contribution of amount of 1% was irrespective of that judgment.
In order to independently examine this issue, we looked into the reports in this behalf. From those reports, it is seen that in September 1992 and September 1993 there were reports which indicated that TDS generated by the applicant-unit was on higher side. But thereafter there were no reports until judgment. Incidentally, as far as TDS is concerned, relaxation has already been granted upto December 31,1995 in the judgment dated August 5, 1995 rendered in Special Civil Application No.770 of 1995. which has been subsequently extended.In this view of the matter, the applicant is entitled to clarification that they are not required to contribute 1% under the judgment dated August 5, 1995 rendered in Special Civil Application No.770 of 1995. This Misc. Civil Application is, accordingly, allowed. Although this Misc.Civil Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms, Mr. Nanavati, on instruction, fairly stated that the applicant would still contribute an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards the projects to be undertaken under the aforesaid judgment. The amount of Rs.5 lakhs will be paid by the applicant in five equal instalments, first of which will start from January 10, 1997 and thereafter on 10th of every subsequent month.
December 20,1996(H.L. Gokhale, J.) (M.S. Shah, J.) (swamy)