M/S. AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED (UNIT XVI) v. ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS

Item No.1 to 4:-

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

(Through Video Conference)

Appeal No.06 of 2021 (SZ) With

Appeal No.07 of 2021 (SZ) With

Appeal No.08 of 2021 (SZ) With

Appeal No.09 of 2021 (SZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (Unit XVI) Rep. by its Senior Manager (Legal) Sri P. Ravindranath,

S/o. Sri P. Jagannadha Rao, aged 49 years, Having its Registered Office at Plot No.2, Maitri Vihar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 038.

...Appellant(s)

WITH

M/s. APL Health Care Limited Rep. by its Senior Manager (Legal) Sri P. Ravindranath,

S/o. Sri P. Jagannadha Rao, aged 49 years, Having its Registered Office at Plot No.2, Maitri Vihar, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad - 500 038.

...Appellant(s)

WITH

M/s. Amneal Oncology Private Limited Rep. by its General Manager - HR Sri Javed Ahamed S/o. Abdul Majeed Aged about 45 years

Having its Unit at Plot No.A-3, S-4 & A-5A, Sy. No.411, 425, Polepally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar District. ...Appellant(s)

WITH

Page 3 of 40

M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Limited (Unit VII) Rep. by its Senior Manager (Legal) Sri P. Ravindranath

S/o. Sri P. Jagannadha Rao, aged 49 years, Having its Registered Office at Plot No.2, Maitri Vihar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 038. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

1) The State of Telangana Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad,

Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2) The Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary,

Paryavaran Bhavan, A- III,

Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar,

Hyderbad - 500 013.

3) The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, H.No. 6-3-1219, T.S. No.1 Part, Block - C, Ward No.91, Near Country Club, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

...Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s): Mr. Y. Srinivasa Murthy For M/s. P. Venkaiah Naidu Associates. (In all these cases)

For Respondent(s): Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R1. Mr. T. Sai Krishnan along with

Ms. J. Dayana for R2 & R3.

Judgment Reserved on: 28^th January, 2022. Judgment Pronounced on: 04^th February, 2022.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

Page 4 of 40

Whether the Judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet - Yes/No Whether the Judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No

COMMON JUDGMENT

Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.

1. The above appeals have been filed by the respective appellants challenging the order passed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board imposing environmental compensation of Rs.18,25,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) vide impugned Order No.15-MBNR/TSPCB/ZO-HYD/TF/2021-1609 dated 05.01.2021, Order No.15-MBNR/TSPCB/ZO-HYD/TF/2021-1607 dated 05.01.2021, Order No.15-MBNR/TSPCB/ZO-HYD/TF/2021-1606 dated 05.01.2021 and Order No.15-MBNR/TSPCB/ZO-HYD/TF/2021-1608 dated 05.01.2021 respectively.

2. Though different appeals have been filed by different appellants against the order passed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board, in all these appeals common grounds were raised. So, we are considering these appeals by a Common Judgment after reiterating the common grounds raised by all the appellants and the State Pollution Control Board.

3. It is alleged in these appeal memorandums that they are involved in manufacture of pharmaceutical and their units were established in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the plots allotted to them.

Page 5 of 40

4. The appellant in Appeal No.06 of 2021 established their bulk drugs as well as active pharmaceutical intermediates, apart from various formulations as their Unit No. XVI at Sy. Nos. 408 to 412, 418 to 435 in SEZ-IP, Polepalli Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and obtained Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, as they are falling under Orange (Large) Category involved in Pharmaceutical Formulations. The Consent to Operate was granted to them by the 2^nd Respondent vide their Consent Order No.509-

MHB/TSPCB/ZOH/CFO/TS-IPASS/2020-23 dated 20.05.2020 valid upto 30.04.2021.

5. The appellant in Appeal No.07 of 2021 is also a pharmaceutical manufacturing company having their headquarters at Hyderabad and they have established their unit at Sy. Nos. 410/P, 411/P and 458/P, Plot Nos. S-1/B, APIIC, SEZ, Polepalli Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and obtained Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, as they are falling under Orange (Large) Category. The Consent to Operate was granted to them by the 2^ndRespondent vide their Consent Order No.382-MHB/TSPCB/ZOH/CFO/TS-IPASS/2020- 12 dated 04.05.2020 valid upto 28.02.2021.

6. The appellant in Appeal No.08 of 2021 is also a pharmaceutical manufacturing company having their headquarters at Ahmadabad and established their unit at Plot No.A-3, S-4 & A-5A, Sy. Nos. 411, 425 of SEZ, Polepalli Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and obtained Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, as they are falling under Orange (Large) Category. The Consent to Operate was granted to them by the 2^ndRespondent vide their Consent Order No.311-

Page 6 of 40

MHB/TSPCB/ZO-HYD/TS-IPASS/CFO/2018-169 dated 03.07.2018 valid upto 31.05.2028.

7. The appellant in Appeal No.09 of 2021 is also a pharmaceutical manufacturing company having its headquarters at Hyderabad and established their Unit VII at Sy. No. 411, 425, 434, 435, 458 of SEZ-IP, Polepalli Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and obtained Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, as they are falling under Orange (Large) Category. The Consent to Operate was granted to them by the 2^ndRespondent vide their Consent Order No.184- MHB/TSPCB/ZOH/CFO/TS-IPASS/2020-08 dated 04.05.2020 valid upto 31.03.2021.

8. In all these cases, they were received T.O. Letter dated 09.11.2020 from the 2^ndRespondent through the 3^rdRespondent directing the appellants to submit their reply for carrying out assessment of environmental compensation as per the CPCB guidelines and the State Pollution Control Board herein by order dated 03.01.2020. In obedience of the same, the appellants filed their reply dated 24.11.2020 and thereafter, as directed by the 2^ndRespondent, the representatives of the appellants had attended the Task Force Committee meeting held on 29.12.2020 and explained in detail inter-alia that they were not party to the proceedings before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.189 of 2019 and they were strictly adhering to the conditions prescribed by the 2^ndRespondent Board from time to time without any deviation or violations whatsoever. There was no necessity for determination of any environmental compensation in respect of their units. After considering the explanations given by the representatives of

Page 7 of 40

the appellants unit, the Task Force Committee had directed the Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Hyderabad to submit a report and according to the appellants, the Environmental Engineer submitted their report on 30.12.2020. On the basis of the report submitted by the Environmental Engineer, the Task Force Committee again reviewed the issued in their meeting held on 02.01.2021 and it is thereafter, the 2^nd Respondent had assessed the environmental compensation and finalized the amount and issued the impugned order mentioned above. As per the impugned orders dated 05.01.2021 mentioned above, they have issued proceedings against the appellants imposing a compensation of Rs.18,25,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) against each appellant by separate order mentioned above.

9. The appellants have filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana as W.P. Nos.1586 of 2021, 1614 of 2021, 1615 of 2021 and 1623 of 2021 and the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana by Common Order dated 28.01.2021, disposed of the writ petitions as withdrawn with liberty for the Writ Petitioners namely, the appellants herein to approach the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for appropriate orders and/or to file an appeal against the order that has been passed by the National Green Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as may be considered appropriate.

10. It is thereafter, the appellants have filed Review Applications before the Principal Bench as R.A. Nos.20 of 2021 to 23 of 2021 in O.A. No.189 of 2019 and the Principal Bench had dismissed those Review Applications observing that if any appeal is filed against the order passed by the State Pollution Control Board under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal

Page 8 of 40

Act, 2010, then all the grounds raised by them can be considered and the Principal Bench had further observed that the State Pollution Control Board has taken a liberal view and directed the State Pollution Control Board to revisit the quantum of compensation.

11. During the pendency of the Review Applications before the Principal Bench, the appellants have filed these appeals against the order passed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board imposing environmental compensation. All these appeals were not admitted in view of the pendency of the Review Applications filed by the appellants before the Principal Bench and after dismissal of the same by the Principal Bench, the matter was admitted and notice was ordered.

12. The Telangana State Pollution Control Board has entered appearance and filed an independent counter statement more or less raising the same contentions in all these appeals. They contended that the appeals are not maintainable and the same have to be dismissed in limine. As far as the appellant in Appeal No.06 of 2021(SZ) is concerned, they obtained Consent to Operate on 12.04.2017 for Dry and Liquid Injectables for 30 million units / annum, which was valid upto 31.03.2022 evidenced by Annexure - 1. On 20.05.2020, the appellant in that case had obtained Consent to Operate (Expansion) from the Board for Dry and Liquid Injectables for 60 million units/annum for a period upto 30.04.2021. They have applied for renewal of the Consent to Operate and the same has been submitted before the 3^rdRespondent. As regards the appellant in Appeal No.07 of 2021(SZ) is concerned, they had obtained Consent to Operate on 04.05.2020 for Tablets - 616.67 MTMP, Capsules - 33.33 MTMP and Ointments - 1.1 MTMP and Soft Gel - 300.0 Millions/month,

Page 9 of 40

which was valid upto 28.02.2021 and subsequently, the unit has applied for renewal of the Consent to Operate on 19.01.2021 and the same was rejected by order 09.02.2021 for certain reasons. As regards the appellant in Appeal No.08 of 2021(SZ) is concerned, they obtained Consent to Operate (Expansion) on 12.04.2017 vide Order dated 03.07.2018 with a validity period upto 31.05.2028 for the various Injectable Formulation - 10,00,000 Vials/annum, with condition that the industry shall pay the consent fees annually from the financial year 2019-20 till the validity of the Consent Order. The appellant had obtained Consent to Operate of the Board vide Order dated 04.07.2020 valid upto 31.05.2021 for the products viz., Cyclophosphamide for Injection - 1g/2g, Cyclophosphamide for Injection - 500 mg, Docetaxel of Injection - 20 mg, Docetaxel Injection Concentrate - 80 mg, Gemcitabine HCL for Injection - 1g/2g, Gemcitabine for Injection - 200 mg, Oxaliplatin for Injection - 50 mg/100mg/200mg, Paclitaxel for Injection - 10 mg/30 mg/100 mg, Paclitaxel for Injection - 150 mg/300 mg and Paclitaxel Protein Bound - 100 mg - 16,80,000 vials/annum and Arsenic Trioxide Injection 2 mg/m - 50,000 vials/year and Mitomycin for Injection, USP 5 mg/Vila - 10,000 vials/year. As regards the appellant in Appeal No.09 of 2021(SZ) is concerned, they obtained Consent to Operate on 12.04.2017 with a validity period upto 31.03.2023 for production of Tablets - 15000 Million/Annum, Capsules - 3000 Millions/Annum, Ointments - 25 Million/Annum, Liquid Orals - 7.5 Millions/Annum, Dry power for Oral Suspension Sachets - 25.0 Million/Annum and Soft Gel Capsules -

100.0 Millions/Annum and on 04.05.2020, the appellant had obtained Consent to Operate for the Expansion from the Board with validity period upto 31.03.2021 for production of Tablets - 5000

Page 10 of 40

Millions/Annum, Capsules - 3000 Millions/Annum, Dry power for Oral Suspension Sachets - 25.0 Millions/Annum and Soft Gel Capsules -

200.0 Millions/Annum. They applied for renewal of Consent to Operate and the same was submitted before the 3^rdRespondent and obtained Consent to Operate for Expansion vide Order dated 03.07.2018 with a validity period up to 31.05.2028 for the various Injectable Formulation - 10,00,000 Vials/annum, with condition that the industry shall pay the consent fees annually from the financial year 2019-20 till the validity of the Consent Order. The appellant had obtained Consent to Operate of the Board vide Order dated 04.07.2020 valid upto 31.05.2021 for the products viz., Cyclophosphamide for Injection - 1g/2g, Cyclophosphamide for Injection - 500 mg, Docetaxel of Injection - 20 mg, Docetaxel Injection Concentrate - 80 mg, Gemcitabine HCL for Injection - 1g/2g, Gemcitabine for Injection - 200 mg, Oxaliplatin for Injection - 50 mg/100mg/200mg, Paclitaxel for Injection - 10 mg/30 mg/100 mg, Paclitaxel for Injection - 150 mg/300 mg and Paclitaxel Protein Bound - 100 mg - 16,80,000 vials/annum and Arsenic Trioxide Injection 2 mg/m - 50,000 vials/year and Mitomycin for Injection, USP 5 mg/Vila - 10,000 vials/year.

13. They further contended that the power of the State Pollution Control Board is excluded or debarred by virtue of Section 22 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is not correct and they have got every power under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and other environmental laws to take action for violation of conditions and other polluting activities. One Kosgi Venkataiah, Mudireddypally (V), Rajpur (M), Mahabubnagar District has filed an application before the National

Page 11 of 40

Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi on 02.04.2018 alleging pollution caused by the Pharmaceutical Industries (Formulation industries) established in the vicinity of Polepalli Village, Gundlagadda Thanda, Rayapallli Village, Mudireddypalli Village and the Principal Bench issued an order dated 16.07.2018, directing the Telangana State Pollution Control Board to conclude the proceedings arising out of the notice issued by the Board dated 16.12.2016 and if the same is concluded, the applicant in that case seek redressal, if any grievance occurs by the order passed by the Board evidenced by Annexure - 2, Order produced in all these counter affidavits. Thereafter, another letter petition was filed as O.A. No. 189 of 2019 before the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal with regard to the pollution caused by the Pharmaceutical Companies in TSIIC, SEZ as mentioned earlier and sought for a direction to take appropriate action against those companies including the appellants units in these matters. The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal had passed an order dated 15.04.2019 in O.A. No. 189 of 2019, directing the 2^ndrespondent to take appropriate action against the Pharmaceutical Companies in that area and directed to file an action taken report regarding the same evidenced by Annexure - 3, Order dt.15.04.2019 produced along with the counter affidavit in all these cases. Pursuant to the directions, a team was constituted with the Technical and Scientific officials of the Board and they inspected the Pharmaceutical Industries located in TSIIC, SEZ, Polepaliy, Jadcherla on 28.05.2019 & 03.06.2019 and its surroundings. The team submitted their report along with monitoring reports including the monitoring reports of the appellants' units to the Board on 08.07.2019 evidenced by Annexure - 4 produced in all these cases along with the counter. The team verified the

Page 12 of 40

contents of the complaint, permissions obtained, adequacy of the treatment and disposal system of effluents, air pollution control systems and other relevant details including collection of samples, ground water samples in that area. When this matter was reviewed before the Task Force Committee held at the Board office, the Committee directed to issue a closure order to the industries for non-compliance and the same was issued by the Board on 27.07.2019 evidenced by Annexure - 5. Further, on 27.07.2019, the 2^ndRespondent addressed a letter to the District Collector and District Magistrate - Mahabubnagar to constitute a Multi-Disciplinary Committee (MDC) comprising of Revenue, TSIIC, Agriculture, Ground water, Task Force Committee members of the Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Hyderabad to carryout assessment of crop damages, ground water pollution and to fix compensation to the affected farmers under "Polluter Pays" principle evidenced by Annexure-6. Accordingly, on 17.08.2019, the committee was constituted to study the impact / effects of pollution being caused by the industries located in Polepalli SEZ to the surrounding villages for assessment of crop damage and fixation of compensation. The Committee visited the TSIIC, SEZ, Polepalli & surrounding areas on 23.08.2019, 27.08.2019 and 28.08.2019 and the Board's Officials have submitted the report to the District Collector - Mahabubnagar District on 14.09.2019 evidenced by Annexure - 7. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 189 of 2019 on 20.09.2019, whereby a Joint Committee was constituted with representatives from Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB) and directed them to file a factual report on the above issue. The Principal Bench also directed

Page 13 of 40

the Pollution Control Board to enforce the "Polluter Pays" principle in respect of the units which were found to be violating the environmental norms or which may be hereafter be found to be doing so, evidenced by Annexure - 8. On 03.01.2020, evidenced by Annexure - 9 and 09.11.2020, the 3^rdRespondent addressed a letter to the industries and directed them to submit their reply for carrying out assessment of environmental compensation as per CPCB guidelines. On 24.01.2020, the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi has passed an order in O.A.No.189 of 2019, evidenced by Annexure - 10 which reads as follows:

"Further action may be taken by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board in terms of above recommendation and also compensation may be assessed and recovered on "Polluters Pay" principle after following due procedure of hearing the concerned polluters. A further action taken may be filed before the next date.^" The Regional Office, Hyderabad has submitted the report on environmental compensation to the 3^rdRespondent on 13.03.2020 & 18.07.2020. On 31.10.2020, the 3^rdRespondent has placed the issue before the Task Force Committee where it noted the request sought by the industry representatives to grant time for submitting their representation along with explanation pertaining to the non-compliances of the industry, evidenced by Annexure - 11 and thereafter, on 21.11.2020, the industry had submitted its reply in respect of the same. On 29.12.2020, the industry was called for hearing before the Task Force Committee, a meeting held for assessment and finalization of environmental compensation which was attended by the representatives of the appellants' unit. The Task Force Committee after detailed discussion, directed the 3^rdRespondent to submit the details of the Consent to Operate, evidenced by Annexure - 12. On 30.12.2020, the information

Page 14 of 40

relating to Consent to Operate and status of the industry was submitted and on 02.01.2021, the Task Force Committee again reviewed the issue in the Task Force meeting and the Committee noted non-compliance of the Board's directions / conditions, evidenced by Annexure - 13. Further, the Committee noted that 606 days of violation. After detailed discussions, and on noticing the non-compliance of Board's conditions / directions by the industry, decided to impose Environmental Compensation on the industry for a period of 365 days instead of 606 days, as it is an Orange Category Pharmaceutical formulation unit and recommended to impose Environmental Compensation of Rs.18,25,000/- and accordingly, on 05.01.2021, the Board had issued direction levying environmental compensation and direction for compliance by the industries and deposit the environmental compensation amount. The respective appellants unit had deposited the amount of Rs.18,25,000/- on 24.05.2021, 20.07.2021, 22.06.2021 and 31.07.2021 respectively. On 12.01.2021, these respondents have submitted their report before the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal having mentioned that this matter was discussed for issuing levying of compensation along with the replies submitted by the industries and the compliance status and with respect to the same, the Joint Committee has observed that the industries were partially not complied with the conditions imposed in the Consent to Operate order and Board's directions, evidenced by Annexure - 14. Thereafter, on 15.01.2021, the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal had issued direction to recover the assessed compensation from the industries and thereby, directed to take coercive measures in case of default of payment, including closure till compliance and also consider revision so as to recover the entire period of default, following due

Page 15 of 40

process of law, evidenced by Annexure - 15. Thereafter, the industries had submitted representation on 28.01.2021 at Zonal Office, Hyderabad requesting the Board not to take any coercive action against the industry, as they have approached the Hon'ble High Court against the subject order on Environmental Compensation. The appellants had also filed Review Applications before the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi as R.A. Nos. 20 of 2021 to 23 of 2021 in O.A. No. 189 of 2019 in respect of the order dated 15.01.2021 of the Principal Bench and the same was dismissed on 12.07.2021 and the Principal Bench in its earlier order noticed that the compensation was based on a very liberal view and that the Board ought to have revisited the quantum of compensation and also directed to take coercive measures for recovery of the assessed compensation and found no ground to review the order dated 15.01.2021, evidenced by Annexure - 16.

14. Further, they contended that the Board has vested with the power under Section 23 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, to inspect and to perform its functions entrusted under the statute. Further, there is no bar on account of the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 in exercising the powers of the Pollution Control Board under environmental laws within the area of Special Economic Zone. Necessary opportunities have been given and hearing was also conducted with the representatives of the appellant companies and before the Task Force Committee and only after discussions and considering the objections raised, recommendations were made by the Task Force Committee after considering the recommendations of the Joint Committee appointed by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.189 of

Page 16 of 40

2019. The principles of Natural Justice have been fully complied with. They filed a Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court and the same were also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court as withdrawn with liberty for the appellants to approach the Principal Bench or the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the case may be as advised. The amount of compensation assessed in view of the observation made by the Principal Bench is perfectly justifiable and there is no illegality committed by them and they prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. Y. Srinivasa Murthy in all these cases and Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali, the learned counsel for the 1^stRespondent and Mr. T. Sai Krishnan along with Ms. J. Dayana, the learned for the Respondents No.2 and 3 in all the cases.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that since the unit is situated in Special Economic Zone, they are governed by the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and by virtue of Section 20 to 23 of the said Act, any action has to be taken against the erring units only by those officers authorized under the said Act. Further, the State Pollution Control Board proceeded on the basis of the report submitted by the Joint Committee which was appointed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No.189 of 2019 of which the appellants were not parties. Further, no proper opportunity was given by the State Pollution Control Board applying the principle of Natural Justice of issuing show cause notice and also proper hearing before imposing compensation. It was not a case where compensation was awarded on the basis of pollution caused to the environment but on the basis of directions and recommendations which were said to be not

Page 17 of 40

complied with by the appellant units concerned. Further, the quantum of compensation assessed is also excessive. Since they have already deposited the amount, no loss will be caused, if an opportunity has been given to the appellants for rehearing by remitting the cases to the Telangana State Pollution Control Board.

17. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Telangana State Pollution Control Board argued that they found certain irregularities and pollution being caused on account of activities of the Pharmaceutical companies and certain directions were issued during 2016, by appointment of the Task Force Committee based on the directions issued by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal. Thereafter, subsequently another case was filed before the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal and the Principal Bench has appointed a Joint Committee comprising of the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board to inspect the units in question. During inspection, it was found that Pharmaceutical companies including the appellant companies were not complying with the directions and a Task Force Committee was constituted to look into the issue and on the basis of the report of Task Force Committee and the Joint Committee directions, a notice was issued as to why compensation assessed should not be imposed and reply was submitted by the appellant units and the same was considered and personal hearing was also conducted and only thereafter, the amount was assessed and imposed. Further, when a Review Applications were filed by the appellants, the Principal Bench has observed that the State Pollution Control Board has taken a liberal view in assessment of compensation and they will have to revisit the

Page 18 of 40

same and ultimately disposed of the Review Applications that the contentions raised by them can be considered when the appeal is filed. Further, the Principal Bench in O.A. No.189 of 2019 had directed the State Pollution Control Board to revisit the quantum of compensation and as such, there was no illegality committed by the Board in conducting the proceedings and imposing the environmental compensation. Provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is not applicable and they are governed by the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 where specific powers have been provided.

18. The learned counsel appearing for the State Government also supported the views of the Telangana State Pollution Control Board.

19. We have considered the pleadings and also submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

20. The points that arise for consideration are:-

(i) Whether the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the provisions of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 the proceedings of the Telangana State Pollution Control Board is vitiated as without jurisdiction is sustainable?

(ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board is liable to be interfered with?

(iii) If at all, it is liable to be interfered with, what is the nature of further directions to be given in this regard including the quantum of compensation fixed?

Page 19 of 40

Point No. (i):-

21. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, action of the State Pollution Control Board is not proper and only the Development Commissioner of Special Economic Zone alone will be having jurisdiction to enquire into those aspects. The learned counsel has relied on Section 20, 21 and 22 of the said Act which reads as follows:-

"20. Agency to inspect.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Central Government may, by notification, specify any officer or agency to carry out surveys or inspections for securing of compliance with the provisions of any Central Act by a Developer or an entrepreneur, as the case may be, and such officer or agency shall submit verification and compliance reports, in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the said notification.

21. Single enforcement officer or agency for notified offences.—

(1) The Central Government may, by notification, specify any act or omission made punishable under any Central Act, as notified offence for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The Central Government may, by general or special order, authorise any officer or agency to be the enforcement officer or agency in respect of any notified offence or offences committed in a Special Economic Zone.

(3) Every officer or agency authorised under sub-section (2) shall have all the corresponding powers of investigation, inspection, search or seizure as is provided under the relevant Central Act in respect of the notified offences.

22. Investigation, inspection and search or seizure.— The agency or officer, specified under section 20 or section 21, may, with prior intimation to the Development Commissioner concerned, carry out the investigation, inspection and search or seizure in the Special Economic Zone or in a Unit if such agency or officer has reasons to believe (reasons to be recorded in writing) that a notified offence has been committed or is likely to be committed in the Special Economic Zone:

Page 20 of 40

Provided that no investigation, inspection and search or seizure shall be carried out in a Special Economic Zone by any agency or officer other than those referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 21 without prior approval of the Development Commissioner concerned:

Provided further that any officer or agency, if so authorised by the Central Government, may carry out the investigation, inspection and search or seizure in the Special Economic Zone or Unit without prior intimation or approval of the Development Commissioner."

22. A reading of Section 20 of the said Act will go to show that the Central Government has to notify certain offences and for the purpose of investigation of those offences, an officer or agency has to be specified for the purpose of carrying out surveys or inspections for securing of compliance with the provisions of any Central Act by a Developer or an entrepreneur, as the case may be. Further, a reading of Section 22 will go to show that only for the purpose of investigation of any notified offence, an agency or officer specified under Section 20 and 21 can do the investigation and seizure with prior intimation to the Development Commissioner concerned, but that will not preclude the regulators under the environmental laws to carry out their powers under environmental laws. So under such circumstances, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the State Pollution Control Board has no power to conduct inspection and take any action against any entrepreneur under the environmental laws.

23. Further, in this case, inspections etc. were conducted on the basis of the directions given by the Tribunal based on the complaint received regarding pollution caused on account of the activities of the Pharmaceutical companies. Further, the closure orders issued by the State Pollution Control Board were also not challenged by the appellants

Page 21 of 40

and they have now come with the appeal only against the quantum of compensation alone.

24. So under such circumstances, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the proceedings initiated by the State Pollution Control Board for imposing compensation against the appellant companies is vitiated by virtue of violation of Section 20 to 22 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is not sustainable and the same is rejected. The inspection and further enquiry conducted by them are well within the powers and the action taken by them is not vitiated for any of the grounds mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellants and they are perfectly legal and justifiable.

25. The Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No. (ii) & (iii):-

26. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the appellant companies are involved in manufacture of pharmaceutical of various types and their units are situated in Special Economic Zone, Polepalli, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. It is also an admitted fact that since they are falling under Orange (Large) Category of Pharmaceutical Formulation units, they will come under the consent mechanism of Pollution Control Board both under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Further, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the appellants units had obtained necessary Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate for their respective units and they are functioning on the basis of the same. There

Page 22 of 40

is no dispute regarding the fact that whenever there is violation of conditions found or whenever there is pollution caused on account of the activities of the appellants units, then the State Pollution Control Board has power to initiate proceedings against them.

27. It is also seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board/Respondents No.2 & 3 that earlier an application was filed as O.A. No.165 of 2018 before the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal alleging pollution caused on account of operation of pharmaceutical units by one Kosgi Venkataiah and the Principal Bench by order dated 16.07.2018 directed the State Pollution Control Board to look into the issue and conclude the proceedings arising out of their own notice dated 16.12.2016 issued in this regard within two weeks, leaving open the liberty of the applicant to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law, if he had any further grievances despite orders passed by the State Pollution Control Board and with that observation, the application was disposed of.

28. Further, it is also seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board/Respondents No.2 & 3 that a letter petition was filed Mr. Sravan Kumar, Advocate which was taken cognizance by the Principal Bench as O.A. No.189 of 2019 wherein it was alleged that despite directions issued in O.A. No.165 of 2018 (Kosgi Venkataiah Vs. Union of India and Ors.), no action has been taken in respect of pollution caused by the Pharmaceutical companies operating in TSIIC - SEZ in Polepalli Village, Jadcherla Mandal of Mahabubnagar District including the appellant units and the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal by order dated 15.04.2019, directed the Telangana State

Page 23 of 40

Pollution Control Board to look into the matter and submit a report and the case was posted to 01.08.2019 for that purpose. Based on that directions, a Task Force Committee was appointed with certain officers to inspect the Pharmaceutical industries working in Special Economic Zone mentioned above including the appellant units and they found certain irregularities and pollution caused on account of their activities and certain recommendations have been made by their Letter No.TSPCB/ZOH/Gen-15/2019 dated 08.07.2019 which reads as follows:-

"Recommendations by the team:

1. The team felt that, all the industries shall install digital flow meters to the effluent collection tank for measurement of effluent before sending to CETPs and the same may be connected to TSPCB server.

2. The borewell samples carried out by the team shows that parameters viz. Total Dissolved Solids, Chlorides, Total Alkalinity, Total hardness, Calcium as Ca⁺² and Magnesium as Mg⁺² & COD exceed the drinking water standards at all locations. This clearly indicates that, the ground water is contaminated in the area.

3. The team felt that, CCTV cameras may be installed at all discharge points at the individual industries in SEZ, Polepally to monitor any illegal discharges/dumping of wastes.

4. Some of the industries are exceeding the emission standards through stack and thereby causing severer air pollution in the area. The team felt that, all the above industries may be directed to install Online Continuous Emission Monitoring systems (OCEMS) and connect with TSPCB server.

5. The industries may be directed to take necessary steps to prevent further deterioration of ground water quality and may submit quarterly status report on groundwater quality to the concerned Regional Officer for taking necessary action.

6. The industries may be directed to maintain separate energy meters for ETPs, ROs, etc and shall maintain daily records for hours operated, power consumed, effluent generated, effluent re- used manually in log registers.

In view of the above, the industries may be called for legal

Page 24 of 40

hearing to review of non-compliance of Board directions and to take further action in the matter."

29. Thereafter, the State Pollution Control Board by their letter dated 27.07.2019 issued directions to the appellants to carry out certain recommendations under Section 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on the basis of the inspection report of Multi Disciplinary Committee on SEZ, Polepalli as per the proceedings of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Mahabub Nagar. The inspection report will go to show that on inspection certain irregularities were found in non-compliance of the directions issued earlier and also violation of the consent conditions and they were shown as Sl. No. IV, V, VI and VIII in the inspection report and separate notices were issued to appellant industries.

30. It is also seen from the proceedings of the Principal Bench and also documents produced by the respondents that the Joint Committee appointed by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.189 of 2019 also inspected the units including the appellants unit and found certain irregularities which were specifically mentioned in the report with Sl. No. E, F, G & K respectively in respect of the appellants unit regarding the non- compliance of the directions issued and certain recommendations were given which were shown as Sl. No.3, 4, 5 and 9 and certain conclusions were also made by the committee regarding the non-compliance and consequence of the same and thereafter, the Principal Bench by order dated 20.09.2019, directed the State Pollution Control Board to take appropriate action on the basis of the Joint Committee report and take

Page 25 of 40

appropriate action applying the "Polluter Pays" principle against the erring units in accordance with law. It was also admitted by the appellants and on that basis, notices have been issued to show cause as to why environmental compensation should not be assessed fixing the amount and in certain cases, closure orders were also issued. The report of the committee was considered by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.189 of 2019 and by order dated 24.01.2020, considered the recommendations made by the committee in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:-

"RECOMMENDATION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

(INDUSTRY WISE):

I. M/s Hetero Labs Ltd., Unit - I, Unit - II & Unit - III, TSIIC, SEZ, Polepally (V), Jadcherla (M), Mahabubnagar District:

 The industry should stop the operation of oil fired boiler of capacity 1 X

5 TPH immediately as it is operated without permission of the SPCB.  The industry should install separate energy meters to the APCE connected with Briquette fired boiler of capacity 1 x 5 TPH.  The industry treats all its effluents, except RO rejects, in its treatment facility and reuse it against SPCB order dated 08.01.2018 which says that the industry shall lift the entire effluents from Unit - I, Unit - II & Unit - III to M/s PETL CETP. The industry should strictly comply the Board's order dated 08.01.2018.

 The industry shall take adequate control measures to prevent seepages to the adjacent industry namely M/s Shilpa Medicare Ltd., during rainy season.

 The industry should take control measures to meet the particulate matter emission from the stack attached to the Briquette fired boiler of capacity -

5 TPD.

2. M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited (Formerly Raichem Life Science Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No.S-20, 521, S-22, S-23 & S- 24,-A at TSIIC-SEZ, Peddpally (V), Jadcherla (M) Mahabubnagar District:

 The industry should provide first run off rain water collection tank of appropriate capacity based on the area of the industry and first run off collected shall be lifted to CETP along with other effluents and maintain records.

Page 26 of 40

 The industry should provide adequate storage capacity to store the effluents for minimum of seven days capacity as prescribed in CFO.  The industry should take control measures to meet the particulate matter emission from the stack attached to the Briquette fired boiler of capacity-

3TPH.

3. M/s.AurobindoPharma Ltd. Unit — VII, Sy.No.408 to 412, 418 to 435 etc.TSIIC-SEZ, Polepally (V), Jadcherla (M), Mahabubnagar District:

 The industry should dismantle the below ground level effluent storage tanks being used to store industrial effluents as well as domestic waste water as per the Board's directions dt. 27.07.2019.  The industry should go for first run off rain water collection tank of appropriate capacity considering the total area of the industry (50 Acres) as the existing tank capacity of 160 KL is highly insufficient and first run off collected shall be lifted to CETP along with other effluents and maintain records.

 The industry should provide the leachate collection system in the Hazardous waste storage shed.

 The empty raw material storage drums should be detoxified properly and stored in the closed shed before disposal.

 The dedicated storage area should be provided to store the waste oil drums before its disposal.

 The dust collector along with chimney should be provided in the mill room where crushing of rejected / expired medicines are carried out.  The industry should obtain necessary permission from the Board for the operation of coal fired boiler of capacity 6 TPH with Bag filter followed by mechanical dust collector as APCE as it is operated without CFO of the Board.

 The industry should provide vent condensers in the storage tanks (2 Nos.) of capacity of 20 KL each where mixed spent solvents are stored.  The industry treats all its effluents, except RO rejects, in its treatment facility and reusing it. The industry shall lift the entire effluents to M/s PETL CETP, as per the Board's directions dated27.07.2019 for further treatment and disposal.

 The industry should take control measures to meet the particulate matter emission from the stack attached to the Furnace oil boiler of capacity - 4 TPH.

4. M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Unit — XVI, Sy.No.408 to 412, 418 to 435 etc. SEZ-IP, Polepally (V), Jadcherla (M), Mahabubnagar District:

Page 27 of 40

 The industry should dismantle all the below ground tanks being used for storage of waste water.

 The industry should stop the operations of 2 No. of 5 TPH Oil fired boilers and operate after obtaining the CFO of the Board.  The industry should provide leachate collection pit in the hazardous waste storage facility. The industry should provide first run off rain water collection tank of appropriate capacity based on the area of the industry and first run off collected shall be lifted to CETP along with other effluents and maintain records.

5. M/s. APL Health Care Ltd., Sy.No.410/P,411/P & 458/P, Plot No.S-1/B, TSIIC, SEZ. Polepally (V), Jadcherla (M), Mahabubnagar District:

 The industry should dismantle all the below ground level tanks being used for storage of waste water.

 The industry should stop the operations of 2 No. of 5 TPH Oil fired boilers immediately as it is operated without CFO of the Board. The industry should not operate D.G. Sets 3 x 1500 KVA, 1 x 1000 KVA and 1 x 2000 KVA without obtaining CFO from the Board.  The industry should provide leachate collection pit in the hazardous waste storage facility.

 The industry should provide first run off rain water collection tank of appropriate capacity based on the area of the industry and first run off collected shall be lifted to CETP along with other effluents and maintain records.

 The empty raw material storage drums should be detoxified properly and stored in the closed shed before disposal.

 The dedicated storage area should be provided to store the waste oil drums before its disposal.

 The dust collector along with chimney should be provided in the mill room where crushing of rejected / expired medicines are carried out.  The industry should improve the house keeping in the hazardous waste storage area.

6. M/s. Mylan Laboratory, (Formerly M/s. Glochem Industries Ltd.,) Sy.no.408, 410, Plot No.S-16 & S-17/A, TSIIC-SEZ, Polepally (V), Jadcharla (M), Mahabubnagar District:

 The industry should dismantle all the below ground level tanks being used for storage of waste water.

 The industry should provide adequate storage capacity to store the effluents for minimum of seven days capacity as prescribed in CFO.

Page 28 of 40

 The industry should provide first run off rain water collection tank of appropriate capacity based on the area of the industry and first run off collected shall be lifted to CETP along with other effluents and maintain records.

 The industry should provide Digital Flow meters at inlet & outlet of ETP and STP to quantify the wastewater generated and disposed to

PETL CE

7. M/s. Evertrogen Life Sciences (Formerly M/s. Optimus Generics Ltd.), Plot No.S-8, S-13/P & 5-14/P„ TSIIC, SEZ, Green Industrial Park, Polepally (V), Jadcherla (M), Mahabubnagar District:

 The industry should provide adequate storage capacity to store the effluents for minimum of seven days capacity as prescribed in CFO.  The industry should provide first run off rain water collection tank of appropriate capacity based on the area of the industry and first run off collected shall be lifted to CETP along with other effluents and maintain records.

8. M/s. Shri Kartikeva Pharma (SEZ Unit), Sy.No.408-412, 418-435, 437-445, Polepally (V), Jadcherla (M), Mahaboobnagar District:

 The industry should provide adequate storage capacity to store the effluents for minimum of seven days capacity as prescribed in CFO.  The industry should not operate FE system without obtaining permission from Board.

 The industry should install digital flow meter to the final storage tank to quantify the waste water disposed to CETP.

9. M/s. Amneal Oncology Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Epsilon Pharmaceuticals Private Limited), Plot No.A-3, S-4 & A-5A, Sy.No.411, 425 etc. Polepally (V), Jadcherla (M), Mahabubnagar District:

 The industry should provide. adequate storage capacity to store the effluents for minimum of seven days capacity as prescribed in CFO.  The industry should provide first run off rain water collection tank of appropriate capacity based on the area of the industry and first run off collected shall be lifted to CETP along with other effluents and maintain records.

 The industry shall install Digital flow meter with totalizer facility instead of Mechanical flow meters.

Page 29 of 40

10. M/s. Suvarna Apparel & Fashion Exports Limited., Sy.Nos.103 to 109 & 148 to 152, Rangareddyguda (V), Balanagar (M), Mahabubnagar District:

 The industry should provide proper shed for storage of hazardous waste and the storage area has to be provided with elevated concreted platform with dyke wall and leachate collection pit.

 The industry should extent the D.G. Sets stack above the roof of the building where it is installed with sufficient height as per the CPCB guidelines of Emission Regulations Part-TV.

 The industry should provide closed sheds for storage husk and husk ash to avoid the fugitive emissions.

 The soil analysis results show that the pH of the soil inside the premises is in the range of 5.6 to 9.76 which indicates the soil is either acidic or alkaline in nature. This may be due to discharge of untreated effluents inside the premises earlier.

 The industry is right now under closure order. The industry should not be allowed to resume its operations until unless it upgrades ETP, MEE system with crystallizer and APCE attached with 6 TPH Boiler in all respects.

 It was learnt that the industry is going to close its operations permanently and in this regard the industry has reportedly submitted a letter to Member secretary, Telangana SPCB, Hyderabad.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. All the industries located in TSIIC SEZ Polepally, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Telangana are Pharmaceutical Formulations Units only except M/s Shri Kartikeya Pharma which is engaged in Ashwagandha extraction. All these industries are falling under Orange Category only and not Red Category as informed by the Petitioner to the Hon'ble NGT. It may also be informed here that Pharmaceutical Formulation industries are not coming under the purview of Environmental Clearance.

2. The industries located in TSIIC SEZ Polepally may be directed to comply with the recommendations of the Joint Committee for non- compliances as given above and submit the Action Taken Report (ATR) with time bound action plan to Telangana SPCB. Also as directed by the Hon'ble NGT in its Order dated September 20, 2019, Telangana SPCB may be directed to initiate action against violating industries by imposing environmental compensation for the violation period observed based on 'polluter pays' principle as per the guidelines prepared by CPCB.

3. The analysis results of ground water samples collected from bore wells

Page 30 of 40

of agricultural fields from surroundings of SEZ used for irrigation meet the IS:11624-1986 (Reaffirmed 2009), Guidelines for the Quality of Irrigation Water w.r.t. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR), Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) and Boron Content. As regards to Total Salt Concentration, nearly 50 % of the bore well samples used for agricultural purposes fall under High Class as Electrical Conductivity is reported in the range of 3540 to 5040 µmhos/cm. As the historical data of ground water quality of this area is not available, the reason for high salt content in these samples could not be explained clearly. The extensive use of ground water for agricultural purpose may be one of the reasons as there are no other water sources in this area other than ground water.

4. The analysis results of soil samples collected from the agricultural fields from northern side of SEZ, where complainants fields are located, reveals that the pH of the soil is slightly alkaline as pH is reported as 7.91 & 8.02 against the standard of 6.5-7.5, salinity effect is negligible as EC is reported less than 1 dSnil , Micro nutrients like Zinc & Copper are less than critical levels of 0.7 ppm and 0.3 ppm respectively and Heavy Metals like Cadmium, Nickel, Lead and Chromium are less than permissible limits of 0.5 ppm, 2 ppm, 5 ppm and 2 ppm respectively. This above results show that soil is not polluted. However, it is suggested that the farmers may take the advice of district agricultural officer and take corrective measures accordingly as the Joint Committee do not have expertise in this field.

5. The discharge of either treated or untreated effluents from any of the industries located in TSIIC SEZ Polepally from its premises was not noticed by the Joint Committee during inspection and monitoring of these industries.

6. The Joint Committee noticed that TSIIC SEZ Polepally is lacking the drainage facility for collection and diversion of storm water. TSIIC may be directed to provide this facility immediately.

7. It is suggested that TSIIC may install piezometric wells in all the four directions of SEZ to monitor the quality of ground water from time to time and develop green belt in the SEZ area.

8. M/s. Suvarna Apparel & Fashion Exports Limited is located at Sy.Nos.103 to 109 & 148 to 152, Rangareddyguda (V), Balanagar (M), Mahabubnagar District and not in TSIIC SEZ Polepally. The distance between the former and later is more than 7 KM. M/s. Suvarna Apparel & Fashion Exports Limited was not in operation during inspection of the Joint Committee due to closure order issued by Telangana SPCB."

Page 31 of 40

31. Thereafter, a direction was issued to the Telangana State Pollution Control Board to take appropriate action in terms of the above recommendations and also compensation may be assessed and recovered applying the "Polluter Pays" principle, after following the due procedure of hearing the concerned polluters. It is on that basis, the State Pollution Control Board has issued show cause notices to show cause as to why the compensation should not be imposed applying the formulae evolved by the Central Pollution Control Board, fixing the number of days violation as 1125 days. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants herein have filed reply to the same and hearing was conducted before the Task Force Committee appointed by the State Pollution Control Board which was going into the question of allegations of pollution and violation of conditions and it is thereafter, the number of days was restricted to 365 days and on that basis, the environmental compensation was fixed as Rs.18,25,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) and the impugned orders were issued later.

32. Further, this was again considered by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.189 of 2019 on 15.01.2021 and also considered the compliance report and the steps taken by the State Pollution Control Board by report dated 12.01.2021 and extracted in Para (4) of the order which reads as follows:-

"The issue of levy of compensation was again discussed in the Task Force Committee meetings held on 29.12.2020 & 02.01.2021 at TSPCB, Zonal office, Hyderabad. The Committee has reviewed the Joint Committee report dated 20.01.2020 and other reports, along with the reply submitted by the industries. The Committee noted the following:

 The industries are Pharmaceutical Formulation industries, which are categorized under Orange category.

 As per Joint Action Committee report constituted by the Hon'ble NGT, there were no direct discharge of treated or untreated effluents outside the premises. Further, ground water samples collected from bore wells of agricultural fields from surroundings of SEZ used for irrigation conform to the IS:11624-1986 standards (Reaffirmed

2009).

Page 32 of 40

 The soil sample collected from agricultural fields from northern side of the SEZ where complainant's fields are located, reveals that the pH of the soil is slightly alkaline, salinity effect is negligible as Electrical conductivity is reported less, Micro nutrients like Zinc & Copper are less than critical levels and Heavy Metals like Cadmium, Nickel, Lead and Chromium are less than permissible limits.

 The Joint Action Committee has observed the industries have partially not complied with CFO conditions and Board directions.

The Committee recommended to impose Environmental Compensation for a period of one year i.e., 365 days for all Pharmaceutical Formulation industries and 6 months i.e., 180 days to M/s. Shri Kartikeya Pharma which is engaged in Ayurvedic Ashwagandha extraction as the pollution load is less.

Further, M/s. Suvarna Apparel & Fashion Exports Limited, is not in operation for more than one year and the same was observed during the inspection of the Joint Committee in January 2020. The compliance status of Joint committee report of induvial industries located in TSIIC, SEZ Polepally Village are as follows:

Sl. Name of the industry Present compliance status No. & location

1 M/s. Hetero Labs Ltd., Unit • The industry has provided flow — I, Sy. Nos. meters at inlet and outlet of 440-441, TSIIC, SEZ, ETP for accessing the quantity of Polepally (V), Jadcherla effluents generated and treated. (M), Mahabubnagar

District

M/s. Hetero Labs Ltd., Unit • The industry has installed - II, Sy. No.410 & 411, briquette fired boiler instead of TSIIC, furnace oil fired boiler and also SEZ, Polepally (V), Jadcherla obtained CFO of the Board. (M), Mahabubnagar District • The industry is also installed bag filter as air pollution control

equipment and also provided energy

meters for the

same.

M/s. Hetero Biopharm • The industry has installed Limited (Formerly Hetero briquette fired boiler instead of Drugs Ltd., Unit — III) furnace oil fired boiler and also TSIIC, SEZ, Polepally (V), obtained CFO of the Board. Jadcherla

• The industry is also installed bag (M), Mahabubnagar

filter as air pollution control District

equipment and also provided energy meters for the

same.

2 M/s. Shilpa Medicare • The industry has provided 640 KL Limited (SEZ Formulation below ground level tank for collection unit) (Formerly M/s. Raichem of first run off rain water before sent Life Sciences Private to CETP.

Limited), Plot No.S-20, S-21,

• S-22, S-23, & S- The industry has provided 2x250 KL 24- A at GIP, Jadcherla, storage tanks in addition to the Polepally (V), Mahaboobnagar existing

District 400 KL tanks to maintain minimum

• storage of 7 days capacity. The industry obtained CFO of the Board for briquette fired boiler and

Page 33 of 40

Page 34 of 40

Page 35 of 40

2 M/s. Shilpa Medicare 05.01.2021 365 Rs. Limited (SEZ Formulation 18,25,000/- unit) (Formerly M/s.

Raichem Life Sciences

Private Limited), Plot No.S- 20, S-21, S-22, S-23, & S- 24-A at GIP, Jadcherla,

Polepally (V),

Mahaboobnagar District

3 M/s. Aurobindo Pharma 05.01.2021 365 Rs. Ltd, Unit-VII, Sy, No. 411, 18,25,000/-

425,

434, 435, 458, SEZ-IP, TSIIC, Polepalli (V), Jadcherla (M),

Page 36 of 40

Mahaboobnagar District

4 M/s. Aurobindo Pharma 05.01.2021 365 Rs. Ltd, Unit-XVI, Sy.No.408 18,25,000/- to 412, 418 to 435 etc.,

SEZ-T,

Polepalli (V)., Jedcherla (M), Mahaboobnagar District

5 M/s. APL Health Care 05.01.2021 365 Rs. Ltd., Sy.No.410/P,411/P 18,25,000/- & 458/P, Plot No.S-

1/B, APIIC,

SEZ, Polepally (V), Jedcherla (M), Mahaboobnagar District

6 M/s. Mylan Laboratory, 05.01.2021 365 Rs. (Formerly Glochem 18,25,000/-

Industries Ltd.,), Sy.No.408,

410 GIP, Plot No. S-16 & S-17/A,

SEZ Jadcherla, Polepally (V), Jadcherla (M), Mahaboobnagar District

7 M/s. Evertogen Life 05.01.2021 365 Rs. Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 18,25,000/- (Formerly M/s. Optimus

Generics Ltd.) Plot No. S-8, S- 13/P & S-14/P, APIIC,

SEZ,

Green Industrial Park, Polepally (V) Jedcherla (M), Mahabubnagar District

8 M/s. Shri Kartikeya 05.01.2021 180 Rs. 9,00,000/- Pharma (SEZ Unit),

Sy.No.408-412,

418-435, 437-445, Polepally

(V), Jadcherla (M),

Mahaboobnagar District

9 05.01.2021 365 Rs.

M/s. Amneal Oncology

18,25,000/-

Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s.

Epsilon

Pharmaceuticals Private

Limited), Plot No.A-3, S-4

& A-5A, Sy. No. 411, 425

etc.

TSIIC-SEZ, Polepally (V),

Jadcherla (M),

Mahabubnagar District

10

M/s. Suvarna Apparel The industry is not in operation for more than & Fashion Exports

Limited.,

Sy.Nos.103 to 109 & 148 one year and the same was observed during to

152, Rangareddyguda (V), the inspection of the Joint Committee in Balanagar (M), January 2020.

Mahabubnagar District

The Board issued directions for levy of Environmental Compensation and directions for compliance vide Orders dated 05.01.2021

(Annexure-I)."

Page 37 of 40

33. Thereafter, it was observed that the objection of the applicant in that case though there was a finding for non-compliance of longer period, they have taken a liberal view and the "Polluter Pays" principle was not properly applied. The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal found that this submission has been substantiated by referring to the individual orders as well as composite report and the Tribunal do find merit in the submission. Thereafter, the State Pollution Control Board was directed to recover the assessed compensation, taking coercive measures for default in payment, including closure till compliance and also consider revision as to cover the entire period of default, following due process of law. The same view has been reiterated by the Principal Bench in the common order dated 12.07.2021 passed in the Review Applications [R.A. Nos. 20 of 2021 to 23 of 2021] filed by the appellants herein while dismissing the application for review. However, in the Review Applications, the right of the appellants to challenge the order of the State Pollution Control Board by filing an appeal is left open.

34. The reply submitted by the appellants herein in that case and also the grounds raised by them in the appeal memorandum also did not show as to whether they have fully complied with the directions and recommendations made. As regards the compensation aspect is concerned, the environmental compensation on account of pollution caused and compensation for violations stand in a different footing and the Principal Bench has directed the Central Pollution Control Board to evolve a formulae for calculating the compensation for violation of the conditions, as in most of the cases though certain polluting activities are found due to non-compliance of the direction and further directions

Page 38 of 40

issued to curb such possibilities, they are not taking any steps and subsequently, further directions are also being issued and in order to avoid such lethargic attitude on the part of the industries to make them understand about the responsibility to comply with the directions whatever issued by the State Pollution Control Board by way of directions given to them on earlier occasions such a methodology was directed to be evolved by the CPCB and on that basis the CPCB had conducted studies on this aspect and then evolved a formulae and that is approved by the Principal Bench and directed the CPCB to implement the same through the State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees and accordingly, the CPCB has issued directions and that is being applied by the SPCBs wherever violation of conditions were found by them against the erring units.

35. Prior show cause notices were issued stating the reasons for issuing such show cause notice to the appellants units including the compensation to be imposed and they have been given an opportunity to file reply and personal hearing was also provided by the Task Force Committee appointed by the State Pollution Control Board to enquire into these issues and it is thereafter, the State Pollution Control Board has evaluated everything on all those aspects and then calculated the environmental compensation and in fact, though they found the days of violation as 1125 days, but only 365 days were taken for arriving at the compensation amount and this was also commented by the Principal Bench and the Principal Bench has directed the State Pollution Control Board to revisit the quantum of compensation.

Page 39 of 40

36. So under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation imposed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board for non-compliance of the directions issued by them on an earlier occasions by the appellants units and there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the "Principles of Natural Justice" were violated and their objections were not properly considered and no opportunity was given to them to meet the issue and they are not entitled for any relief in this regard. We confirm the order passed by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board imposing the compensation against the appellant units.

37. In view of the above findings, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.

38. The Point No.(ii) and (iii) are answered accordingly.

39. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed and the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in the respective appeals.

40. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the official respondents by e-mail for their information and compliance of directions.

Sd/- Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-

Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

Appeal No.06/2021 (SZ) Appeal No.07/2021 (SZ) Appeal No.08/2021 (SZ) Appeal No.09/2021 (SZ) 04^thFebruary, 2022. Mn.

Page 40 of 40