# Insilco Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 340
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-13
- **Case number:** Writ C. No. 35706 of 2019
- **Bench:** Biswanath Somadder, Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/insilco-limited-v-uttar-pradesh-pollution-control-board-anr-44994
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981- Section 21 and
22- Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25 and 26 -
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board -
application for the purpose of seeking
consent to operate - application rejected.

The unit has not yet evolved any methodology
for achieving prescribed standard of Sodium
Absorption Ratio (SAR) value of 26 without
dilution with fresh water. It has also been
specifically stated by the Chief Environment
Officer that the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control
4 All. Insilco Limited Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Anr.
341
Board had decided the ''Consent to Operate'
applications after giving sufficient opportunity
to the concerned unit by way of query letters
and invitation for presentation of the case -
the concerned unit has contested the merit of
the two letters dated 22nd October, 2019,
rejecting
the
''Consent
to
Operate'
applications,
without
exhausting
the
alternative remedy provided under the two
statutes. (Para 4)

B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
power of judicial review - availability of
statutory alternative remedy not being
an absolute bar for a Constitutional
Court to exercise its power of judicial
review
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India and step in to
intervene
in
certain
exceptional
situations such as arbitrary or mala fide
exercise of power or gross violation of
the established principles of natural
justice or exercise of power without
jurisdiction and so on and so forth - any
decision of any Court is an authority for a
proposition based on certain set of facts
and even a single distinction of any fact
or an additional fact can alter the
applicability of its ratio. (Para 5 & 6)

Held:- The situation is not so exceptional so
as to allow the writ Court to intervene,
exercising its extraordinary high prerogative
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India - Statutory alternative
remedy is available to the writ petitioner to
approach the statutory appellate authority in
respect of both the orders dated 22nd
October, 2019. (Para 6)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Before parting the Court deems
it apposite to place the following advisory
note for the consideration of Lok Adalats
in general on record. On being asked by
the Court to place the compromise terms
on record, it was submitted that the same
has not been made available to parties. It
was stated by learned counsels that
although compromise terms are placed on
the record and bear the signatures of all
respective parties, copies thereof have not
been provided to the claimants. It was
submitted that Lok Adalats in general are
adopting this procedure and that copies of
the
compromise/settlement
are
not
provided. The Court finds no justification
or logic behind the procedure so adopted.
If the compromise terms are part of the
record, there can be no justifiable reason
or cause for copies thereof not being
provided to parties. This issue would
assume added significance in situations
where orders of the Lok Adalat are
assailed before Courts or other judicial
fora and the Courts or Tribunals are
required to ascertain as to which of the
parties had in fact agreed to the
compromise terms. Consequently the
Secretary
of
the
Legal
Services
Authorities of the State is directed to
instruct all Lok Adalats to ensure that
copies of the settlement terms are
provided to parties on an application in
that respect being made. The Registrar
General is requested to place a copy of
this order before the Secretary of the
Legal Services Authority for further
compliance.

12. Accordingly the writ petitions
are allowed. The impugned orders dated
14 September 2019 and 9 October 2019
passed in Writ-C Nos. 33606 of 2019 and
33176 of 2019 respectively insofar as they
direct for placement of the amounts in a
fixed deposit of a Nationalised Bank are
quashed. The matter shall stand remitted
to the Lok Adalat for passing a decision
afresh in light of the observations entered
above. The exercise of reconsideration
shall be concluded with expedition and in
any case not later than within two months
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A340

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C. No. 35706 of 2019

Insilco Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vikas Singh, Sri Abhimanyu Chopra,
Sri Varun Singh, Sri Ram Kaushik, Sri
Tanmay Sharma, Priyanka Midha, Sri Ram
M. Kaushik

Counsel for the Respondents:
-

A. Civil Law - Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981- Section 21 and
22- Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25 and 26 -
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board -
application for the purpose of seeking
consent to operate - application rejected.

The unit has not yet evolved any methodology
for achieving prescribed standard of Sodium
Absorption Ratio (SAR) value of 26 without
dilution with fresh water. It has also been
specifically stated by the Chief Environment
Officer that the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control
4 All. Insilco Limited Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Anr.
341
Board had decided the ''Consent to Operate'
applications after giving sufficient opportunity
to the concerned unit by way of query letters
and invitation for presentation of the case -
the concerned unit has contested the merit of
the two letters dated 22nd October, 2019,
rejecting
the
''Consent
to
Operate'
applications,
without
exhausting
the
alternative remedy provided under the two
statutes. (Para 4)

B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
power of judicial review - availability of
statutory alternative remedy not being
an absolute bar for a Constitutional
Court to exercise its power of judicial
review
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India and step in to
intervene
in
certain
exceptional
situations such as arbitrary or mala fide
exercise of power or gross violation of
the established principles of natural
justice or exercise of power without
jurisdiction and so on and so forth - any
decision of any Court is an authority for a
proposition based on certain set of facts
and even a single distinction of any fact
or an additional fact can alter the
applicability of its ratio. (Para 5 & 6)

Held:- The situation is not so exceptional so
as to allow the writ Court to intervene,
exercising its extraordinary high prerogative
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India - Statutory alternative
remedy is available to the writ petitioner to
approach the statutory appellate authority in
respect of both the orders dated 22nd
October, 2019. (Para 6)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Biswanath
Somadder, J.)

1. This is an application under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
filed by a Limited Company - Insilco
Limited - seeking this Court's intervention
in respect of two orders; both dated 22nd
October, 2019, passed by the Chief
Environment Officer of Uttar Pradesh
Pollution Control Board. One order was
rendered in an application of the writ
petitioner / company seeking consent to
operate under section 21 / 22 of Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981, as amended. The other order was
passed in an application for the purpose of
seeking consent to operate under section
25 / 26 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as
amended.

2. This writ petition was initially
moved on 5th November, 2019, when the
following order was passed:-

"Having
heard
learned
advocates for the parties and upon
perusing the instant writ petition, we are
of the view that the only issue which falls
for consideration in the facts and
circumstances of the case is whether the
two orders (both dated 22nd October,
2019) were passed by the Uttar Pradesh
Pollution Control Board without giving
any opportunity of hearing to the writ
petitioner. In order to get an answer to
this issue, we direct the learned advocate
representing the Uttar Pradesh Pollution
Control
Board
to
obtain
specific
instructions from his client and also bring
before us the relevant records of the
instant case in order to substantiate that
the two orders were passed consequent
upon giving adequate notice to the writ
petitioner.

Put up this case on 13.11.2019
in the Additional Cause List."

3. Today, when the matter is taken
up for further consideration, pursuant to
the direction of this Court as contained in
the order dated 5th November, 2019, the
learned advocate appearing on behalf of
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board
hands-over an "Instruction Note", which
may be kept on record. This instruction
note reveals certain facts which are
relevant
and
are,
therefore,
setout
hereinbelow:

"1. M/s Insilco Ltd, Gajraula,
Amroha is engaged in production of
Precipitated Silica - 21000 TPA from
Sodium Silicate - 80 TPD, Suphuric Acid
31.5/day, Ammonia 30 kg/day.

2. Unit has earlier obtained
Consent To operate Water under the
provisions of Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 vide letter
dated 08.05.2018 and valid upto 31-122018. Consent To operate Air under the
provisions of Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981 was issued vide
letter dated 11-05-2018 valid upto 31-122018. The said Consent to Operate was
issued with the specific condition that unit
shall ensure Zero Liquid Discharge by
31-12-2018 through recycling of treated
effluent
or
other
methodology
recommended by IIT, Roorkee and
approved by CPCB.

3. Unit has obtained NOC dated
02.1.2018 from CGWA for ground water
extraction of 4900 kl/day. The NOC from
CGWA is valid upto 07.12.2019.

4. Unit has Effluent Treatment
plant and treated effluent is diluted with
fresh water to meet the norms of SAR
(Sodium Absorption Ratio).

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
PIL NO. 418/98 Imtiaz Ahmad vs. UOI,
Directed UPPCB to prescribed SAR Limit
for the industry. UPPCB in compliance
imposed SAR value of 26 for treated
effluent of the unit.

6. The matter of unit was taken
up by Hon'ble NGT in O.A. No. 200/2014
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors.,
Hon'ble NGT in its order dated 26.4.2017
considered the inspection report dated
25.4.2017 of High Power inspection team
constituted by Hon'ble NGT wherein the
inspection team found that M/s Insilco
Ltd. has been prescribed with the norms
of SAR which the unit is achieving not by
treatment but by dilution with fresh water
and such practice is nothing but fraud.

7. Hon'ble NGT in its order
dated 26.4.2017 issued closure order
against M/s Insilco Ltd. Hon'ble NGT in
O.A. No. 200/2014 M.C. Mehta vs. Union
of India and Ors. vide order dated
8.5.2017 allowed operation of unit subject
to payment of Rs. 15 Lakh. Unit deposited
the said amount. Hon'ble NGT also
directed that as regards ZLD through
dilution, the industry would put forward
its case before joint inspection team
which shall offer its comments and place
the report before tribunal. The joint
Committee
of
CPCB
and
UPPCB
inspected the unit on 23.5.2017 and made
following recommendations:

 i.
The
Unit
required
to
recalculate the dosing of magnesium
sulphate to meet the SAR standard.

ii. In a time bound manner the
unit
shall
discontinue
the
present
chemical addition (10 Tons of MgSO4)
and further dilution of ground water
(1800 to 2000 KLD) to meet the
prescribed SAR value (26). Instead unit
may switch over to complete ZLD (Zero
Liquid Discharge technology) system to
save ground water and wastage of
chemicals for neutralization. Presence of
Fluoride (5 to 6 mg/1) also indicates that
rather than dilution, ZLD may be the only
option for achieving and continuity of the
unit.

iii.
Presence
of
inorganic
pollutants in the storm water indicates
4 All. Insilco Limited Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Anr.
343
poor operation and maintenance of the
plant and suspected partial diversion of
effluent or negligent handling of sludge by
the unit, which may require further
investigation.

iv. The Unit shall operate STPs
continuously.

v. Closure of the unit may be
considered, if the unit failed to provide
the time bound action plan for achieving
ZLD.

8. The unit vide letter 6.11.2017
communicated that agreement has been
signed with IIT, Roorkee for assessment
of possibility to recycle / reuse treated
effluent in economic viability mode and
development activity for investigation of
alternative remedies to mitigate the high
sulfate / high TDS in the effluent.

9. Board has issued directions
on dated 12.1.2018 to the unit to ensure
the compliance of recommendation of the
joint inspection team.

10. The unit vide its letter dated
19.1.2018 submitted compliance of the
directions and informed that the unit has
appointed IIT, Roorkee to carry on
research and development activity for
investigation of alternative remedies to
mitigate the high sulfate / high TDS in the
effluent.

11. The unit vide its letter dated
26.4.2018 addressed to CPCB and
UPPCB submitted the progress of R & D
of IIT, Roorkee and submitted the interim
report
of
IIT,
Roorkee
regarding
treatment of high sulphate bearing waste
water.

12. Unit vide its letter dated
20.8.2019 has submitted the Final report
of Department of Civil Engineering IIT,
Roorkee.
UPPCB
gave
unit
the
opportunity to present its case and the
findings made by IIT, Roorkee. Unit was
invited for a presentation on final report
on 17.9.2019. Unit presented its case on
the said date.

13. In the final report IIT,
Roorkee
has
evaluated
various
technologies like Reverse Osmosis (found
non-feasible), MEE (found not techno
economically
viable),
Gypsum
Precipitation
followed
by
biological
treatment
(found
non-feasible),
Electrocoagulation followed by nono
filteration (non-feasible), Membrane -
based ZLD process consisting of RO
followed by MEE and crystallization
(non-feasible). The report of IIT, Roorkee
further suggests that treated waste water
of 120 KLD STP may be used for dilution
of effluent and in future when Gajraula
STP gets commissioned, the unit may seek
permission for utilization of treated
sewage for dilution of treated effluent.
The report clearly states that there is no
feasible technology available other than
the present practice followed by unit for
the treatment to maintain SAR.

14. Unit is using fresh water for
dilution of effluent to achieve the norms of
SAR 26. The study carried out by IIT,
Roorkee has failed to arrive at any
feasible method for the industry.

15. The process of dilution with
fresh water cannot not be allowed.
Keeping the facts in view the Consent To
Operate Water & Air application has
been rejected by UPPCB vide its letter
dated
22.10.2019.
UPPCB
while
processing the consent application has
given opportunity to the unit by raising
query on 27.11.2018 and again on
1.5.2019."

4. The Chief Environment Officer,
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, in
his "Instruction Note" has also stated that
the unit has not yet evolved any
methodology for achieving prescribed
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
standard of Sodium Absorption Ratio
(SAR) value of 26 without dilution with
fresh
water.
The
Joint
Committee,
constituted by the Hon'ble National Green
Tribunal (NGT), in its report has
specifically mentioned that use of fresh
water cannot be allowed for such
purposes. It has also been specifically
stated by the Chief Environment Officer
that the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control
Board had decided the ''Consent to
Operate'
applications
after
giving
sufficient opportunity to the concerned
unit by way of query letters and invitation
for presentation of the case. It has also
been further stated that in the present writ
petition, the concerned unit has contested
the merit of the two letters dated 22nd
October, 2019, rejecting the ''Consent to
Operate' applications, without exhausting
the alternative remedy provided under the
two statutes.

5. We are alive to the settled
proposition of law with regard to
availability
of
statutory
alternative
remedy not being an absolute bar for a
Constitutional Court to exercise its power
of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and step in to
intervene in certain exceptional situations
such as arbitrary or mala fide exercise of
power or gross violation of the established
principles of natural justice or exercise of
power without jurisdiction and so on and
so forth.

6. In the facts of the instant case, the
writ petitioner-company participated all
throughout the decision making process
which led to passing of the two orders
dated 22nd October, 2019. This is not a
case where the two impugned orders
strike the writ petitioner like a lightning
bolt from the blue in an exceptional
situation as enumerated above. Even if
there
might
have
been
some
technical/procedural infirmity, it is simply
not so gross so as to allow the writ
petitioner
to
get
benefit
of
the
extraordinary
high-prerogative
jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, which is
essentially discretionary in nature. The
two judgments which have been referred
by the learned advocate representing the
writ petitioner are both unreported. One is
in respect of Writ - C No. 4462 of 2013
(H.M.A. Agri Industries Ltd. Versus State
of U.P. through Secretary and others),
being a judgment and order dated 28th
January, 2013. The other judgment has
been rendered more recently by another
Division Bench of this Court on 31st
May, 2019, in Writ - C No. 10259 of 2019
(H.M.A. Agro Industries Ltd. Versus
State of U.P. and two others). We notice
that the earlier judgment of this Court in
Writ - C No. 4462 of 2013 has been
followed in the latter judgment. So far as
the earlier judgment rendered on 28th
January, 2013, is concerned, in the facts
of that case, a copy of an analysis report
which was used against the writ petitioner
had not been supplied to the writ
petitioner. As such, in the considered
opinion of the Division Bench, it was a
lapse on the part of the concerned
respondent which had to be rectified by
them before the writ petitioner could be
relegated out of the High Court on
account
of
availability
of
statutory
alternative remedy of appeal. Both the
judgments
referred
by
the
learned
advocate for the writ petitioner cannot be
a blanket authority for the proposition that
the writ Court is bound to entertain a writ
petition
in
each
and
every
case
notwithstanding
the
existence
and
availability
of
statutory
alternative
4 All. Ikrar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
345
remedy. In fact, as stated earlier, in the
case of H.M.A. Agri Industries in Writ -
C No. 4462 of 2013, the issue was
centered around non supply of a copy of
an analysis report to the writ petitioner
which was used against the writ petitioner
by the concerned respondent authority. In
the latter case, the fact situation was
totally different. The allegation was in
respect of non compliance of direction
issued by the National Green Tribunal
(NGT) with regard to pollution caused by
the Abattoris. In both cases, the writ
petitioner was H.M.A. Agri Industries
Ltd., which was engaged in the business
of state of the art Abattoirs, where frozen
meat was packed and sold across the
world. The writ petitioner company was
directed by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution
Control Board to ensure that ETP
(Effluent
Treatment
Plant)
was
operational and the treated effluent
conformed to parameters. Certain other
directions were issued by the Uttar
Pradesh Pollution Control Board, as
contained in its communication dated 6th
February, 2019, and considering such
facts, the Division Bench had intervened.
At this stage we must observe that any
decision of any Court is an authority for a
proposition based on certain set of facts
and even a single distinction of any fact or
an
additional
fact
can
alter
the
applicability of its ratio. In the facts of the
instant case, as observed earlier, we do
not find the situation to be so exceptional
so as to allow the writ Court to intervene,
exercising
its
extraordinary
high
prerogative
discretionary
jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The writ petitioner, of course, is not
without any remedy. Statutory alternative
remedy is available to the writ petitioner
in respect of both the orders dated 22nd
October, 2019. The writ petitioner is
always at liberty to approach the statutory
appellate authority in respect of the two
orders dated 22nd October, 2019, and take
all points which are available in law. We
make it clear that in the event the writ
petitioner
approaches
the
statutory
appellate authority, the said authority
shall not be influenced in any manner by
any observation made herein and shall
decide the appeals strictly in accordance
with law.

7.

The
writ
petition
stands
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A345

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No: 36346 of 2014

Ikrar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Madhusudan Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Satyendra Pratap Singh, Sri
S.P. Singh

A. Civil Law - Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 10 (5)
and (6) - Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Section 3
and 4 - Possession over the vacant land
has been taken over by the Tehsildar and
not by the appropriate authority as
envisaged
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Land
Ceiling
(Taking
of
Possession, Payment of Amount and