JUDGMENT : 1. On 29.11.96 we passed an order that an affidavit should be filed indicating how many of the 40 industries mentioned in the earlier affidavit were responsible for pollution. The Environmental Engineer of the A.P. Pollution Control Board has filed an affidavit and has appended thereto a statement showing the nature of pollution by each of these 40 industries. From the statement it appears clear that Industries Nos. 3, 10 and I I are not causing any pollution, the first does not discharge any industrial effluent whatsoever whereas the other two have provided full-fledged ETPs and are treating their effluents in their own ETPs and thereafter using the water for the purposes of irrigating in their own land. Therefore, barring industries at Serial Nos. 3, 10 and 11, notices 11 go to the remaining 37 industries to show- cause why action for discharge of effluents harmful to agriculture and livestock should not be taken. The notices may be served through the A.P. Pollution Control Board. 2. The Report of the learned District Judge dated, 23.10.96 is exhaustive and it indicates the extent of pollution hazards to agriculture and livestock which takes place on account of the discharge of effluents by the industries located in that area. Some of the industries have been contending that even though they have their own ETPs they are being compelled to use CETP the capacity whereof is limited and as a result thereof the effluents not brought below the tolerance level are discharged for which they are being blamed. M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. and M/s Standard Organics have their own ETPs which have the capacity to treat their effluents and bringing them below the tolerance level before discharge. In addition thereto, M/s Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd., Sri Saibaba Cellulose Pvt. Ltd., Bhagyanagar Oil Refineries Ltd., Neuland Laboratories Ltd. and M/s Asian Paints (India) Ltd. have been mentioned in the Report of the District Judge. 3. Out of these industries, so far as M/s Standard Organics is concerned the Report of the District Judge shows that the TSS was 1569 and beyond its capacity. The learned counsel for the said industry states that they are trying to expand their capacity but till they do so they cannot be exonerated. 3. Out of these industries, so far as M/s Standard Organics is concerned the Report of the District Judge shows that the TSS was 1569 and beyond its capacity. The learned counsel for the said industry states that they are trying to expand their capacity but till they do so they cannot be exonerated. So far as the other industries are concerned, in view of the Report of the learned District Judge we direct that they may be permitted to treat their effluents at their own ETPs under supervision of the Pollution Board so that the load on the PETL also described as CETL can be reduced since it is not able to take the full load. However, the Pollution Board will keep strict vigilence on these industries so that the effluents discharged after treatment at their plants are below the tolerance level. So far as M/s Voltas Ltd. is concerned the learned District Judge has stated in his Report that it had discharged effluents which were not treated and brought below the tolerance level. Mr. Salve, the learned counsel for the said Company, has explained that this was on account of excessive rain on 4.9.96 and as a result the effluent had escaped by overflow but they have taken care to ensure that even in such an eventuality it does not escape. The Pollution Board will inspect the factory and satisfy itself whether the Company had taken sufficient steps to safeguard against the escape of untreated effluents even in such an eventuality. 4. The grievance made by some of the industries is that the compensation fixed by the State Government which the concerned industries are required to pay has not been based on the extent of pollution caused by these industries. A guideline needs to be given in this behalf. We think it appropriate that the learned District Judge, who has furnished a Report, should work out the guidelines on the basis of which the compensation may be determined and recovered from the defaulting industries. The guidelines so fixed by the District Judge may be conveyed to the State Government and the State Government may determine the compensation inconformity therewith. The industries will pay the compensation as determined and if on account of the guidelines there is a re-determination which takes place and surplus payment is made that may be adjusted. The guidelines so fixed by the District Judge may be conveyed to the State Government and the State Government may determine the compensation inconformity therewith. The industries will pay the compensation as determined and if on account of the guidelines there is a re-determination which takes place and surplus payment is made that may be adjusted. The learned counsel for M/s VBC Ferro Alloys and M/s Hindustan Fluorocarbons Ltd. point out that the said Companies are not discharging any effluents and that is also the statement made by the Pollution Board. We have taken note of the same and the notices so far as they are concerned would stand discharged. 5. While concluding the Report the learned District Judge has pointed out that PETL (also described as CETL) is by itself a major contributor for pollution. It seems that it has undertaken the responsibility of treating pollutants beyond its capacity. That is the reason why we have permitted some of the industries which have their own ETPs to use them rather than make them to send their effluents for treatment of PETE Unfortunately, PETL also contracted to the pollutants of industries from Karnataka when its capacity was limited. The Report says that a small partially commissioned only CETP for 128 industries is causing havoc. These industries have no individual pollution control devices and those which have them have not put them into operation. The next result is that the pollution of staggering dimension is talking place causing untold miseries to innocent rural humanity. The learned counsel for A.P. Pollution Control Board states that they have issued notices to PETL and PETL has assured that they would remedy the situation by the end of March, 1997. It is necessary to look into this matter. We, therefore, direct notices to issue to PETL. The PETL will place all the relevant facts before this Court and explain why action should not be taken against it for discharging untreated effluents into the streams which are main source of water supply to the residents of several down stream villages. All the notices hereinbefore mentioned shall be returnable within four weeks.