B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ONE Taruben Suklal Gamit of songadh Taluka, Dist. Surat, made a grievance before this Court about the breach of pollution Laws committed by the Central pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. and Thermal power Station. The Court issued notice to the erring Units. The Central Pulp and paper Mills Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of papers. It is pointed out to us that the said Unit was declared a sick Unit earlier and the present management took over the said Unit in the month of May 1992. The Unit commenced production in 1993. The Gujarat Pollution Control Board ("gpcb" for short) has produced on record the report of analysis of the sample for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 under the water Act and Air Act. The Company had a turnover of Rs. 8 crores for November, 1993 to March, 1994. The turnover for the period 1994-95 was Rs. 72 crores, for the period 1995-96 the turnover was Rs. 111 crores. So far as the profit and ioss is concerned there was loss in the year 1993-94 to the tune of Rs. 85 lacs; in the year 1994-95 there was profit of Rs. 2 crores 23lacs. In the year 1995-96 for 15 months there was profit of Rs. 24 crores 24 lacs and for period of 12 months there was profit of Rs. 19 crores 40 lacs. ( 2 ) MR. Nanavaty learned Counsel appearing for the Unit submitted that neither the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) act, 1974 nor the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provide for imposition of pollution fine or pollution related damages at 1 % of the annual turnover and therefore no order can be passed by this Court imposing such fine or damages. He further submitted that the order for payment of damages is essential for a tortious liability. In absence of pleadings and proof that such damage has occurred and has been caused by the respondent- company, no order for payment of pollution fine or damages at the rate of 1 % can be made. He also submitted without admitting that an order can be passed for payment of pollution related damages or pollution fine, the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot pass the order. He also submitted without admitting that an order can be passed for payment of pollution related damages or pollution fine, the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot pass the order. His submission is that the Court cannot examine the disputed questions of facts, i. e. whether there has been any pollution related damage and whether such damage has been caused exclusively by the alleged polluter. His submission is that "polluters must pay" principle cannot be invoked in a case where the unit has adequate effluent treatment facilities and is meeting with the norms. His submission is that because of the minor and occasional alleged deviations from the prescribed parameters, the respondent-Company cannot be saddled with the pollution related damages or fine of 1 % of the annual turnover. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel submitted that the company is willing to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lacs or Rs. 30 lacs of its own and would not like to be described as a polluter so as to pay 1%. We are not referring the period for which the present management was not in charge, nonetheless, the Unit Central pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. since 1979 is found committing breach of Pollution laws. The GPCB has produced a tabular statement* of the reports which indicates that for samples collected from 4-9-1979 to 9-9-1988 in number of reports the Unit was not meeting with the parameters laid down by the GPCB. We are not referring those reports in detail because as per the say of the learned Counsel, the present management was not in charge at that time. We are only indicating that the present Unit commenced manufacturing activities with the plant which was in existence at the time when it took over and from results it is clear that the same was not efficacious to treat the trade effluent. The tabular statement of analysis of trade effluent on different Figures underlined indicates the breach committed by the Unit. Thus, it is not so simple as submitted by the learned advocate during his submissions that because of minor and occasional alleged deviations from the prescribed parameters, the respondent-Company cannot be saddled with the pollution related damages or fine of 1 % of the annual turnover. Thus, it is not so simple as submitted by the learned advocate during his submissions that because of minor and occasional alleged deviations from the prescribed parameters, the respondent-Company cannot be saddled with the pollution related damages or fine of 1 % of the annual turnover. It is required to be noted that in May 1992, Unit was taken over by the present management and it commenced with the production in the month of November 1993. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that Company spent rs. 8 crores for treatment plant and therefore we put a question as to when this dates are produced by GPCB for the period from 3-12-1993 to 5-3-1997. The parameters, permissible limits and results of effluent sample analyzed are as under : RESULTS OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS EFFLUENT Parameters Permissible Water Act Water Act Water Act Water Act Water Act Water Act Water Act Water Act Water Act E. P. Act limits 3-12-93 4-5-94 6-7-94 3-1-95 29-3-95 6-9-95 5-12-95 23-2-96 12-6-96 12-6-96 Outlet-I & II Outlet-I & II Outlet-I & II (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ph 6. 5 to 8. 5 6. 91 9. 63 8 6. 4 7. 07 7. 75 7. 1 7. 5 4. 5 7 7. 5 8. 68 8. 81 TEMP. oc 40 oc 28 29 27 37 25oc 26oc 30oc 32oc 39oc 28oc 31oc 30oc 30oc 1/2 Colour pt. co. scale 100 Units 10 350 5 750 35 460 15 2450 200 196 556 Suspended Solids, mg/1 l00mg/1 69 281 36 118 278 180 2348 219 307 77 31 108 100 Oil and Grease, mg/1 10mg/l 0 0 7. 8 11. 6 12. 8 6. 2 4 3. 4 8. 8 8 4. 2 6 5 Sulphides, mg/1 2mg/l 0 0 0 0 N. D. N. D. 0. 27 0. 27 0. 41 2. 08 N. D. 9. 87 2. 2 Ammonical Nitrogen, mg/1 50 mg/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 20 Total Chromium, mg/1 2 mg/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hexavalent Chromium, mg/1 0. 27 0. 27 0. 41 2. 08 N. D. 9. 87 2. 2 Ammonical Nitrogen, mg/1 50 mg/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 20 Total Chromium, mg/1 2 mg/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hexavalent Chromium, mg/1 0. 7 mg/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BOD, mg/1 30 mg/1 22 917 18 80 23 8 143 223 145 46 51 91 91 COD, mg/1 250 mg/1 93 2579 40 404 138 117 484 553 520 156 173 154 149 Total Organic Chloride 2 kg/t of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 product Total Dissolved solids, mg/1 2100 mg/1 0 0 262 1118 400 496 620 1218 2400 422 636 636 560 Chlorides, mg/1 Not specified 0 0 0 366 40 60 60 80 580 100 0 328 212 Sulphates, mg/1 Not specified 0 0 0 60 89 40 210 190 220 100 0 160 110 % Sodium Not specified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 Parameters Water Act 15-6-96 Water Act 27-8-96 Water Act 4-10-96 Water Act 1-11-96 Water Act 6-12-96 Water Act 3-1-96 E. P. Act Water Act 5-2-97 Outlet-I & II E. P. Act 5-2-97 Outlet-I & II Grab 8-2-97 5-3-97 ph 7. 49 8. 25 8. 08 7. 62 7. 79 8. 35 8. 38 7. 5 7. 7 7. 6 7. 65 7. 4 7. 15 Temp 30oc 30oc 31oc 30oc 30oc 28oc 28oc 40oc 33oc 33oc 33oc 30oc Colour 556 225 200 100 150 150 150 850 500 750 500 1250 200 Suspended solids 114 80 24 42 88 90 86 536 114 608 126 162 84 Oil and grease 1. 4 1. 2 0. 4 0. 6 1. 4 1. 2 1. 2 1. 6 1. 4 1. 4 1. 6 0. 8 2. 6 Sulphides 2. 27 0. 86 0. 012 N. D. 0. 38 0. 19 0. 26 0. 13 0. 19 0. 13 0. 19 0. 13 0. 19 NH3n - - 1. 68 - - - - 5. 6 4. 76 5. 32 4. 76 2. 2 1. 2 1. 6 1. 4 1. 4 1. 6 0. 8 2. 6 Sulphides 2. 27 0. 86 0. 012 N. D. 0. 38 0. 19 0. 26 0. 13 0. 19 0. 13 0. 19 0. 13 0. 19 NH3n - - 1. 68 - - - - 5. 6 4. 76 5. 32 4. 76 2. 8 - Cr - - - - - - - - - - - CR+6 - - - - - - - - - - - BOD 55 142 15 47 8 49 39 215 32 225 27 12 - COD 206 440 98 159 99 156 117 688 194 208 194 157 153 TOCL - - - - - - - - - - - Total dissolved solids 694 832 1174 742 1292 626 594 1456 1118 1455 1128 1280 - CL 150 310 300 150 460 210 230 440 310 440 320 350 210 So4 110 12104 104 76 101 60 60 100 119 103 131 113 62 %na - - - - - - - - _ - figures underlined indicates the breach of the parameters. So far as the sample collected from the stake is concerned, samples were collected on several dates and on several occassions, it is found that the Unit has failed to meet with the norms. The GPCB has placed on record, the details of analysis which are as under : Parameter Suspended Particulate Matter Mg/nm3 So2ppm Noxppm H2srpm Sourse i. e. From stack of Permissible Value Results of Analysis 150 100 50 3-1-95 311 4 1. 33 50 TPH Boiler 29-3-95 1921 28. 51 1. 05 CPBIⅈ 5-12-96 554 153 0. 92 50 TPH Boiler 19-4-96 174 152 88. 7 2. 03 0. 33 0. 31 26. 6 50 TPH Boiler Chemical Recovery Boiler 12-6-96 444 36 15 50 TPH Boiler 15-6-96 63 80 2. 9 7. 1 3. 1 3 Chemical Recovery Boiler 50 TPH Boiler 3-9-96 79 220. 65 70. 28 50 TPH Boiler 6-12-96 91 84 15 25 2. 55 0. 87 Chemical Recovery Boiler 50 TPH Boiler 3-1-96 17 133 44 24 0. 3 3 Chemical Recovery Boiler 50 TPH Boiler 5-2-97 25 112 14 455 4 3. 6 Chemical Recovery Boiler 50 TPH Boiler 5-3-97 32 71 14. 7 32. 3 1 1. 65 70. 28 50 TPH Boiler 6-12-96 91 84 15 25 2. 55 0. 87 Chemical Recovery Boiler 50 TPH Boiler 3-1-96 17 133 44 24 0. 3 3 Chemical Recovery Boiler 50 TPH Boiler 5-2-97 25 112 14 455 4 3. 6 Chemical Recovery Boiler 50 TPH Boiler 5-3-97 32 71 14. 7 32. 3 1 1. 7 Chemical Recovery Boiler 50 TPH Boiler amount was spent and we are told by the learned Counsel that the Primary Treatment plant was stabilized in July, 1995 and the secondary Treatment Plant came in existence in July, 1996 and was stabilized in september or October, 1996. Thus, it is crystal clear that this Unit commenced manufacturing process without bothering about the pollution norms or the laws. If it would have been aware about the duty cast on the management of discharging the trade effluent in accordance with the norms laid down by the GPCB, the Unit would not have commenced the manufacturing process without establishing the Secondary treatment Plant. Jit is required to be noted that the Primary Treatment Plant and the secondary Treatment Plant which is to be provided should be of such a nature that it can adequately and efficaciously treat the trade effluent so as to bring the trade effluent within the norms prescribed by the gpcb. In October, 1996 the Secondary treatment Plant came to be stabilized, meaning thereby from 1993 to 1996 October, the Unit continued its manufacturing process without bothering about the pollution laws or pollution norms. ( 4 ) NO doubt. Unit is drawing water mainly from Ukai Left Bank Main Canal of ukai Dam built on river Tapi but one has to consider what is the material consumed by the Unit for production and what quantity of trade effluent is discharged by the unit, ultimately polluting the river water. ( 5 ) UNITs total consumption of water as found by NEERI is 29,450 m3 per day. Unit consumes bamboo, tt hardwood, caustic soda bye, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, sodium sulphate, coal, furnace oil, Alum, rosin, Wax emulsion, soap stone, starch, whitening agent, hydrochloric acid, caustic soda, lime and sulphonic acid. Unit is discharging waste water in huge quantity, i. e. 27870 m3 per day. ( 6 ) TRADE effluent not meeting with the norms was discharged in Ghoda Nallah which was mixing with water of river Tapi. Unit is discharging waste water in huge quantity, i. e. 27870 m3 per day. ( 6 ) TRADE effluent not meeting with the norms was discharged in Ghoda Nallah which was mixing with water of river Tapi. It is known to all in this country that people living in villages near the river are consuming water of river for their day to day need including that of drinking and cooking food. Cities may have facilities of purifying the river water but people living in villages have no such benefits and are consuming non-potable river water for day to day need. Thus, people in the instant case, residing in villages near river Tapi in the area are compelled to consume river water mixed with trade effluent not meeting with the norms. Trade effluent must be within the parameters prescribed, otherwise it is dangerous. Effects of such effluent on human beings may not be noticed soon after consumption of water but the same is known after continuous use of such water. Effect on human beings, vegetation, aquatic life and on animal is required to be taken a note. Village people being not aware about the damage caused on account of polluted water, cannot take any action. Even if it is noticed after some time, village people not having sufficient means to approach the court of law may not be able to approach the Court. It is known that polluted water adversely affects not only human beings but also vegetation, animals, aquatic life, etc. and therefore, whoever pollutes must pay. ( 7 ) APEX Court has indicated "the Public trust Doctrine" in case of M. C. Mehta v. Kamalmnath reported in JT 1996 (ii) SC 467 at p. 485 which reads as under:"30. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private owenrship. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professorsax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority:"three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third, the property must be maintained for particular types of uses. ""44. Our legal system - based on English common Law - includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The state is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. " ( 8 ) RIVER water is meant for public at large. By polluting river water others who are enjoying the same are adversely affected and results of adverse effect may not be spontaneous. ( 9 ) XXX xxx xxx ( 10 ) ENVIRONMENTAL protection is a matter of grave concern for human existence. Right enshrined under Article 21 would be a useless right if polluters are permitted to pollute environment by their acts or omissions and also if polluters are not directed to pay to repair the damage caused to the society, or to take effective steps for betterment of environment. Right guaranteed can be protected if there is safeguard to the environment. Apex Court in case of virendra Gaur and Others v. State of haryana and Others reported in 1995 (2) scc p. 577 has pointed out the duty of government and local authorities in para 7 which reads as under:"7. Right guaranteed can be protected if there is safeguard to the environment. Apex Court in case of virendra Gaur and Others v. State of haryana and Others reported in 1995 (2) scc p. 577 has pointed out the duty of government and local authorities in para 7 which reads as under:"7. Article 48-A in Part IV (Directive principles) brought by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, enjoins that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. " article 47 further imposes the duty on the state to improve public health as its primary duty. Article 51-A (g) imposes a "a fundamental duty" on every citizen of India to "protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures". The word "environment" is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit "hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance". It is therefore not only the duty of the State but also the duty of every citizen to maintain hygienic environment. The state, in particular, has duty in that behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled hygienic environment. Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution, Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution, etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21. Therefore, hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment. Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence. Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising the man-made and the natural environment. Therefore, there is a constitutional imperative on the Statee government and the municipalities, not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an mperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the man-made and the natural environment. Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising the man-made and the natural environment. Therefore, there is a constitutional imperative on the Statee government and the municipalities, not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an mperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the man-made and the natural environment. " ( 11 ) ARGUMENTS were advanced before the division Bench of this Court in the case of pravinbhai J. Patel v. State of Gujarat 1995 (2) G. L. R. p. 1210 that there may be breach of pollution norms but in absence of evidence of adverse effect caused on environment no order can be passed. The Court has pointed out the effects of water pollutants. We have referred paragraph 12 of the judgment delivered and other books on the subject. ( 12 ) WHAT are the effects of the pollutants have been set out in the Guidelines on environmental Pollution Control issued by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board in 1988. Considering all these the effects of pollutants and effects of not maintaining parameters would be as under: Water Pollutants Effects 1 2 (i) ph (ii) Colour Increase in salinity, adverse impacts on plants and aquatic life. Highly corrosive, damages the drainage & plant machinery, causes contamination of ground water. Limits the photosynthesis, affects the dissolved oxygen concentration. Disturbs the balance between the aquatic life and D. O. available. It has aesthetic (iii) Suspended solids (iv) Total dissolved solids (v) Bio chemical oxygen demand (20oc, 5 days B. O. D.) (vi) Oil & Grease (vii) Organics (viii) Arsenic (ix) Cadmium consideration for potable water. It causes rejection of water supply source. Reduction in oxygen in water, blockage of fish gill. Adverse effect on marine life, increase turbidity, general silting of water ways. Affects the drains and pump machinery. Reduces permissibility of soil and fertility. Reduces porosity of soils, increases salinity of soil, contaminates the ground water source. Affects aquatic life system. Depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water bodies and causes anaerobic conditions. Odour, nuisance, sensitive to toxic effluent. Reduction in oxygen transfer in water, adverse effect in aquatic and marine life, general insurance. Depletion of oxygen and adverse effect on aquatic and marine life, causes septic conditions and odour, nuisance, may cause direct toxicity. Affects aquatic life system. Depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water bodies and causes anaerobic conditions. Odour, nuisance, sensitive to toxic effluent. Reduction in oxygen transfer in water, adverse effect in aquatic and marine life, general insurance. Depletion of oxygen and adverse effect on aquatic and marine life, causes septic conditions and odour, nuisance, may cause direct toxicity. Poses an aesthetic problem, increases the cleaning and maintenance problems of drains, treatment plant and machineries, causes choking. Causes fatigue, loss of energy, neurological disturbances adverse effect on kidney and lever skin diseases. Gastro intestinal type of (x) Chromium (xi) Cyanide (xii) Fluoride (xiii) Mercury (xiv) Nickel (xv) Phenolic compounds (xvi) Pesticides (xvii) Amonical Nitrogen (xviii) Per cent Sodium poisoning, nausea, salivation, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain. Adverse effect on kidney, pancreas, thyroids and bones. Adverse effect on skin and mucous membranes, ulcers, cancer of lungs. Highly toxic, rash and itching on skin, loss of appetite, headache, weakness, nausea, dizziness, irritation of eyes and respiratory tracts. Causes fluorosis, dental defects, adverse effect on bone. Damage to vegetation and plants. Minamata disease, adverse effect on brain, kidney, spleen, lever, bone and central nervous system. Loosening of teeth, dryness of throat and amount, physic disturbances. Causes nickel Itch on skin, carcinogenic. Imparts bad taste to water, disturbs digestive system, loss of appetite, difficulty in swallowing, vomiting, excessive salivation, diarrhoea, mental disturbances, skin eruptions, dermatitis. Toxic to fish and marine life, adverse effect on central nervous system, lever, kidney, induce nausea, diarrhoea. Affects marine aquatic life, raises toxicity. Adverse effect on land. (xix) Nitrates Causes disease known as "methemoglobinemia" generally. ( 13 ) THE reports also indicate that the unit had no efficacious treatment plant to control air emission. SPM concentration in the ambient air within the industry premises does not conform to the limits prescribed by GPCB. NOx and So2 concentrations in the stake emissions from the recovery and power house boilers do not conform to the limits prescribed by GPCB. ( 14 ) THE Secondary Treatment Plant which was stabilized in September-October 1996 was also not efficacious to discharge the trade effluent within the norms prescribed by the GPCB and that is clear from the reports which we have reproduced hereinabove. ( 14 ) THE Secondary Treatment Plant which was stabilized in September-October 1996 was also not efficacious to discharge the trade effluent within the norms prescribed by the GPCB and that is clear from the reports which we have reproduced hereinabove. Thus, the treatment plant which is said to have been provided by the unit cannot be said to be an adequate and efficacious treatment plant so as to treat the effluent to bring within the permissible limits of the norms prescribed by the GPCB. The Unit was inspected by the National environment Engineering Research Institute, nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "neeri") by a team of six members between april 21-22, 1997. NEERI has examined the treatment plant of the Unit in detail and the report of analysis is also produced on record. It is clear from the report that Unit was not in a position to meet with the norms prescribed for colour, suspended solids, BOD and COD. The team collected hourly samples and composited for six hours and 24 hours. Thus, samples were taken continuously at particular intervls and were examined scientifically. On the day of examination, even the team of NEERI found that the Ambient air Quality did not meet the GPCB standards for SPM and Stack Emissions from power house boiler did not meet with the gpcb standard for S02. We have perused the report submitted by NEERI which is in detail. NEERI has observed as under: the effluent treatment plant was in operation during the period of inspection and the treated effluent is being discharged into Ghoda nallah finally meeting river Tapi after travelling a distance of 10 kms. The treated effluent characteristics do not conform to the prescribed limits of the mef and GPCB for discharge into inland surface water with respect to the following parameters:- Colour (w. r. t. GPCB Standard)- Suspended solids- BOD- CODPerformance date indicated BOD removal in the range of 70. 5-74. 2% in the activated sludge unit against the design efficiency of 90%. MLSS concentration in the aeration tank of activated sludge process was in the range of 712 to 1664 mg/l with an average mlss concentration of 1073 mg/l and mlvss of 676 mg/l (Table 10 ). MLVSS/ mlss ratio was in the range of 0. 62-0. 64 against design valuee of 0. 8. MLSS concentration in the aeration tank of activated sludge process was in the range of 712 to 1664 mg/l with an average mlss concentration of 1073 mg/l and mlvss of 676 mg/l (Table 10 ). MLVSS/ mlss ratio was in the range of 0. 62-0. 64 against design valuee of 0. 8. Of the eight fixed aerators provided in the aeration tank, only three aerators were under operation as observed during the period of inspection. The management informed the inspection team that five aerators were non-operational due to cable damage since the morning of April 21, 1997. Completely mixed conditions is not being maintained in the aeration tank due to five non-operational aerators. Dissolved oxygen concentration in the aeration tank was nil throughout the tank depth near the aerators and away from the aerators. The oxygen uptake rate of biomass (MLVSS) in the aeration tank was 24. 8 mg/l. hr as against 40-60 mgfl. hr in the conventional activated sludge process indicating moderate activity of the biomas (MLVSS) in the aeration tank. Sludge volume index (SVA) of 155 ml/g was obtained with MLSS concentration of 1128 mg/l (Fig. 5 ). ( 15 ) NEERI has observed that the SPM concentration in the ambient air within the industry premises does not conform to the limits prescribed by the GPCB. Nox and so2 concentrations in the stack emissions from the recovery and power house boilers do not conform to the limits prescribed by the GPCB. ( 16 ) THUS, it is very clear that the performance of the treatment plant cannot be said to be adequate and efficacious to treat the trade effluent so as to bring the same within the norms prescribed by the GPCB and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was no efficacious treatment facility to treat the trade effluent. ( 17 ) MR. Nanavaty submitted that now the Unit is meeting with the norms. It is required to be noted that after the suggestion made by NEERI improvement is made in the treatment plant and it is only thereafter the trade effluent is meeting with the norms as stated by the learned Counsel. Part of the suggestions submitted by neeri have been complied with and the compliance of the remaining part is in progress. It is required to be noted that after the suggestion made by NEERI improvement is made in the treatment plant and it is only thereafter the trade effluent is meeting with the norms as stated by the learned Counsel. Part of the suggestions submitted by neeri have been complied with and the compliance of the remaining part is in progress. Thus, it is clear that we find improvements only after compliance of some of the suggestions made by NEERI and till then the treatment plant which is said to have been errected for the treatment of trade effluent in October 1996 was not effective. The fact remains that from 1993 onwards to September-October 1996 the unit was not meeting with the norms and knowing fully well that it was required to meet with the norms prescribed by the gpcb has continued its operation without adequate treatment facility and till the improvements carried out as suggested by neeri, Unit was not in a position to discharge the trade effluent as per norms prescribed by GPCB. ( 18 ) THE question is whether the Unit was discharging its trade effluent in accordance with the norms laid down by the GPCB or not and whether the Unit had adequate and efficacious treatment plant to treat the trade effluent so as to discharge the same after proper treatment so that the trade effluent meets with the norms. As observed above, we find that the Unit had no adequate and efficacious facilities for treating the trade effluent and only after the suggestions made by NEERI, on its compliance in part, we find that the trade effluent is meeting with the norms. Therefore, till improvements as suggested by NEERI were carried out the unit was discharging the trade effluent knowing full well that it has no adequate and efficacious treatment plant and that the trade effluent is not meeting with the norms laid down by the GPCB. The learned counsel is not right in his submission that on only some occasions, the Unit was not meeting with the norms laid down under the water Act as well as the Air Act. ( 19 ) ABOUT the liability of the Unit questions which are raised in this matter came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Deepak Nitrate Ltd. v. Ajit D. Padiwal and Ors. ( 19 ) ABOUT the liability of the Unit questions which are raised in this matter came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Deepak Nitrate Ltd. v. Ajit D. Padiwal and Ors. , reported in 1997 (1) G. L. H. at page 1062. The relevant observations at page 1070 of the judgment in Paras 17, 23, 24 and 25 reads as under :. . . xxx xxx xxx. . . . "23. This Court in the case of pravinbhai Patel (supra) in para 119, for striking a balance between the industrialization and ecology, has observed as under:"119. In our opinion, the object underlying the promulgation of the aforesaid Acts relating to environment is essentially to achieve this balance between industrialization and ecology. The fact that industrialization affects the air, water and other factors of environment, cannot be denied. What the three Acts provide is that the emissions into the air, the discharge of water by the industry and other forms of pollution are to be contained within permissible limits. In other words, the extent to which pollution can take place, is permitted or legalized. In laying down various parameters, the Government and the pollution control Boards are expected to take into consideration not only the state of the industry, but also the extent to which pollution will be accepted by nature. For example norms have been laid down under the water Act, which require various parameters to be achieved for the discharge of effluents. The permissible norms show as to what extent water can be permitted to be polluted. For instance, according to the said norms, the total dissolved solids of the effluent into river should not be more than 2,100 mg/l. The meaning of this is that the pollution which is caused by the industry would be permissible or tolerated upto 2,100 mg/l and no more. Therefore, it is in this way that balance is struck between industrialization and ecology. ""24. In the aforesaid case of Pravinbhai patel, decided on August 5, 1995, this court had directed all the polluting industries in Ahmedabad to pay 1 % of their turnover, out of the highest turnover for the preceding two financial years. Therefore, it is in this way that balance is struck between industrialization and ecology. ""24. In the aforesaid case of Pravinbhai patel, decided on August 5, 1995, this court had directed all the polluting industries in Ahmedabad to pay 1 % of their turnover, out of the highest turnover for the preceding two financial years. The principle for paying this 1% amount as compensation for betterment of the environment and as compensation for the affected people and affected area is based on the sound principle "polluter pays" which is now firmly entrenched in Indian legal system as clearly evinced in a catena of decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court including the decision in the case of Vellore Citizens forum reported in 1996 (5) SCC 647 . ""25. Looking to the large number of industries in large industrial estates and also at other places where industries are established, the affected people and those concerned for the environment would find it difficult, if not impossible, to point out the exact nature of damage being caused by an individual unit. Once an industrial Unit is found to be violating the GPCB norms, it would follow that damage has been caused to the environment. Now, if an individual inquiry were to be made in respect of each industrial unit as to which particular area of soil was damaged or which particular sub-stratum of underground water level was affected on account of the discharge of untreated or improperly treated industrial effluent, not meeting with the GPCB norms, either on account of percolation or on account of such effluent going on to the agricultural fields or into the water sources of the community, such inquiry would not lend itself to easy quantification in a Civil suit for damages which would take years, if not decades, for final decision. On the other hand, in last two years, this Court has in a number of decisions applied the aforesaid formula of 1 % of the turnover as compensation for the betterment of the environment and allied purposes in various industrial areas of Ahmedabad. Nandesari (where the present Unit is situate), Vapi and Ankleshwar and 1% of the highest turnover has been found to be the lowest common denominator as the figure for compensation. If such inquiry is held, we are sure that the extent of damage would be more than 1% as assessed. Nandesari (where the present Unit is situate), Vapi and Ankleshwar and 1% of the highest turnover has been found to be the lowest common denominator as the figure for compensation. If such inquiry is held, we are sure that the extent of damage would be more than 1% as assessed. At this stage, we would also like to place on record that after the decision of this Court in the case of Pravinbhai (supra) covering industrial units of Ahmedabad, the formula of quantifying 1 % of the highest turnover as compensation for damage caused to the environment on account of violation of pollution control laws during the period prior to judicial cognizance has come to be widely accepted even by the industries in Baroda, bharuch, Surat and other districts of gujarat. " ( 20 ) BY and large all Units have agreed of their own to pay one per cent of the highest turnover of a year out of the last three years towards betterment of environment. By this Units have shown repentance and in several cases Units of their own have stated before us that they shall not manufacture, till the Effluent Treatment plant is provided and if provided till the same is upgraded so as to see that the trade effluent which is to be discharged is meeting with the norms. It is contended on behelf of the Unit in some cases that in absence of any specific proof of damage, the Court should not pass such an order. It is a common principle of damages that damages claimed are required to be specifically proved by a party claiming such damages and proved damages can be awarded by the Court. It may happen that damage is proved but may be difficult to quantify the same. Case of causing damages to individual is different than that of causing damages to the society as a whole. Such damages are not only adversely affecting human beings but are causing harm to the environment and as a consequence thereof human beings, animals, birds, plants, vegetation, aquatic life, etc. are adversely affected. Even in such cases it may be that effect of illegal act/omission may not be spontaneous but its effect may be known at a later stage. In such situation, is that the Court should allow the defaulting Units to go scot free. are adversely affected. Even in such cases it may be that effect of illegal act/omission may not be spontaneous but its effect may be known at a later stage. In such situation, is that the Court should allow the defaulting Units to go scot free. When the damage is caused to the society at large where the individual including the owners of the units will suffer we think that the Court is not that helpless. The Court has with it sufficient material to award quantified damages for betterment of environment. The Water Act and other Environment Act provide for necessary parameters to be met by the Units if they are discharging effluents. In the instant case, there is enough material to show that the Unit though had no efficacious treatment plant yet was discharging the trade effluent which was not meeting with parameters and that too number of times. Not meeting with the parameters of one of the pollutants is sufficient to say that the Unit is not meeting with the parameters. It is not necessary that in order to make the Unit liable the Unit should be found not meeting with the parameters of all the pollutants. Here, in the instant case, it cannot be disputed by the Unit that it was not meeting with the parameters. Keeping this fact in mind that the Unit was not meeting with the parameters, the presumption is that the Unit was a polluting unit. Unit pollutes water and the said polluted water which is discharged also spoils or damages the earth as well as ground water by percolation. The Unit is consuming 2,94,50,000, i. e. 29,450 litres of water per day and it discharges 2,78,70,000 litres of polluted water per day. Keeping this discharge in mind, it can be said that the Unit is discharging 83,61,00,000 litres, i. e. 8,36,100 M3 litres of polluted water per month. Thus, huge quantity of water has become useless either for human consumption or cultivation. Normally at present the price of ten thousand litres of water is Rs. 250/- (charges at the rate at which water is supplied by gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short "gidc") to an industrial unit ). The water polluted by the Unit per month comes to the value of rs. 20,90,250/- (Rupees twenty lacs ninety thousand two hundred fifty) approximately. Normally at present the price of ten thousand litres of water is Rs. 250/- (charges at the rate at which water is supplied by gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short "gidc") to an industrial unit ). The water polluted by the Unit per month comes to the value of rs. 20,90,250/- (Rupees twenty lacs ninety thousand two hundred fifty) approximately. To bring the trade effluent within the parameters, additional water will be required. If the effluent is containing 500% more cod, then for 100 litres of trade effluent 500 litres of fresh water will be required to bring the said trade effluent within the norms. Even this water will not be potable. To make it potable it is required to be purified. Thus the damage caused is much more than the discharge of trade effluent. Apart from this by discharge of polluted water soil is also damaged on account of percolation. The villages are not supplied with treated water by a Gram panchayat or any Municipality and village people have therefore to rely upon the river water and ground water, which is available to them through well. With the pollution of water villagers do not get even potable water, which is the most basic need of a man to survive. On account of polluted water, life, health, vegetation and aquatic life gets affected adversely. State has to spend for health of people and livestock and also for better agriculture and better environment. . ( 21 ) KEEPING only consumption aspect in mind and if we calculate the value of the water spoiled by the Unit the damage caused by the Unit comes to Rs. 2,50,83,000/- (Rupees two crores fifty lacs eighty-three thousand) approximately per year. Unit is also found responsible for polluting air. Legislature has empowered the appropriate authority to fix the norms so that there is no adverse effect on environment. Before few years smoking is dangerous was not known but now statutory notice is to be printed on a packet of cigarettes. Not only that but before few years that was not prohibited while travelling by air or train, but now the same is prohibited. Air pollution on account of emission of gases or suspended particulate matters is considered equally dangerous. Effect on human beings and on others would not be spontaneous. Not only that but before few years that was not prohibited while travelling by air or train, but now the same is prohibited. Air pollution on account of emission of gases or suspended particulate matters is considered equally dangerous. Effect on human beings and on others would not be spontaneous. Experts considering air pollution, water pollution, its adverse effect on environment, agriculture, plantation, vegetation, aquatic life prescribed norms. Any violation of such norms should be taken very seriously, as experts after long experience have prescribed the norms. Breach of such norms in the instant case is nothing but a gross violation of the same causing severe damage to environment. In our opinion, polluters must pay so that repairs can be carried out or at least preventive action can be taken by the appropriate authority. ( 22 ) AS observed by us earlier, the Unit soon after taking over, or before production did not bother to erect a treatment plant for treating trade effluent but with the aid of an old primary treatment plant, commences the production. Company did not pay attention to upgrade the plant in spite of adverse reports. It continued with manufacturing with old primary rusted plants and machinaries with only one primary clarifier (See page 640 ). In the next sentence Company stated that it spent Rs. 8 crores and set up full-fledged pollution control system/ treatment plants including primary and secondary treatment plants with 8 aerators, sludges dewatering, belt press filter, electrostatic precipitators in three boilers, etc. However, intentionally, it appears that the unit has suppressed as to when the amount was spent? When secondary treatment plant was erected? Therefore, we had to ask the learned Counsel about the installation of secondary treatment plant. It is clear that in November 1993, Unit commenced production, primary treatment plant was stabilized in July, 1995 and secondary treatment plant was stabilized in September or october, 1996. Even thereafter, Unit was not in a position to discharge the trade effluent as per norms of GPCB. If the amount of 8 crores was spent initially, position would have been different. According to Unit yearly cost of running the treatment plant would be more than Rs. 140 lacs (page 648 ). Even thereafter, Unit was not in a position to discharge the trade effluent as per norms of GPCB. If the amount of 8 crores was spent initially, position would have been different. According to Unit yearly cost of running the treatment plant would be more than Rs. 140 lacs (page 648 ). From the reports it is clear that there was no treatment plant as required and therefore in past at least from november, 1993 to September, 1996 there was lot of savings by not spending for treatment plant. After 3 years secondary plant became operative and till then by not spending amount for running efficacious treatment plant Unit has saved Rs. 420 lacs (for 3 years ). By not spending amount of rs. 8 crores for three years Unit has saved rs. 4,32,00,000/- (Rupees four crores thirty-two lacs) calculating at 18% interest (bank rate of interest ). Thus, Unit has saved more than Rs. 8 crores 52 lacs. In our opinion these calculations which are based on the figures of expenses and month of stabilizing the plants, must be taken into consideration. This illegal saving enjoyed by the Company must be deprecated. Instead of that amount, we propose to order one per cent of the highest turnover of the year out of the last three years and that in our opinion, under any circumstances, is less than the damage caused to the society and the public at large and also the amount saved by the Unit. We are not taking into consideration the consequences of the polluted water on the health of the human beings, animals and aquatic life. If the same is calculated, then, in our opinion, even one per cent is a very meagre amount ordered by us. However, keeping the apparent damage in mind we have ordered only one per cent. In view of this our order cannot be said to be arbitrary or without material on record. ( 23 ) AS observed earlier, trade effluent ultimately reaches the river and pollutes the river water. It is a matter of common knowledge that river water is used by villagers for their basic day to day requirements. In view of the polluted water being used by the villagers they suffer, but the suffering may not be spontaneous. It may take some time even to know that the damage is caused on account of use of polluted water. In view of the polluted water being used by the villagers they suffer, but the suffering may not be spontaneous. It may take some time even to know that the damage is caused on account of use of polluted water. Even villagers are not aware about the fact that the water is polluted or not and again for villagers there is no alternative but to have the water passing in river. Polluted water also percolates and affects not only the earth but water table also. If it is a suit filed by a person who is suffering at the hands of the wrong-doer he may be required to prove it strictly in accordance with law and may take a long procedure by filing a suit and further appeals and ultimately the sufferer may not get anything except frustration while at the same time the State is required to spend the amount for the health of the people, for the welfare of the society including betterment of environment. Parameters are fixed considering several aspects including environment. Moment the environment is affected, not only human beings, animals and birds are affected but also aquatic life. It is the duty of the state not only to look after the human beings but animals also who cannot speak or complain about their sufferings. As wrong is committed by the Unit it has no right to say that it is not liable to pay unless it is proved that the damage is suffered by someone and to a particular extent. In the State of Gujarat almost all units which were discharging trade effluent not meeting with the norms have paid one per cent of the amount and most of them have offered to make the payment of 1 % in view of the decision rendered in pravinbhais case (supra) feeling that they have discharged the trade effluent not meeting with the norms and wrong is committed by them and for a creative measure they have readily paid the amount. More than 1,000 Units including small and big have paid one per cent willingly which is required to be noted at this stage. ( 24 ) FROM what we have stated herein above, it is difficult to agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel Mr. Nanavaty that in view of disputed questions this Court cannot decide. More than 1,000 Units including small and big have paid one per cent willingly which is required to be noted at this stage. ( 24 ) FROM what we have stated herein above, it is difficult to agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel Mr. Nanavaty that in view of disputed questions this Court cannot decide. Looking to the reports, it is very clear that Unit was not meeting with the norms laid down by gpcb. Merely because the. Unit had a treatment plant, it cannot be argued that unit should not be ordered to pay the amount. If the effluent treatment plant is efficacious to treat the trade effluent so as to discharge the trade effluent within the norms prescribed by GPCB and on some occasions there is failure on account of acceptable reasons or valid reasons the contention may be accepted but not otherwise. The learned Counsels submissions that there is minor or occasional deviations from the prescribed parameters cannot be accepted in view of the reports which we have reproduced. It is required to be noted that even after the secondary treatment plant being installed or erected by the Unit much after the commencement of the production, the Unit was not able to meet with the norms and only after suggestions pointed out by NEERI were carried out in part Unit is able to meet with the norms. In view of what we have stated hereinabove, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel requires to be rejected. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage that the association of Narol Textile Processors in ahmedabad had prayed for a review of the directions contained in Pravinbhais case (supra) for paying one per cent of the highest turnover as compensation. The said review Application was rejected by this court and ultimately SLP (Civil) No. 18043/96 filed by the Association also came to be dismissed by the Honourable supreme Court on 16-6-1996. ( 25 ) IN view of what we have stated hereinabove, we direct the Unit to pay one per cent of its highest annual turnover of the year out of the last three years. It is directed that the Unit shall pay one per cent of Rs. 111 crores, i. e. the highest turnover for the year 1996-97 (as per figures of turnover supplied by the learned Counsel) which comes to Rs. It is directed that the Unit shall pay one per cent of Rs. 111 crores, i. e. the highest turnover for the year 1996-97 (as per figures of turnover supplied by the learned Counsel) which comes to Rs. 1,11,00,000/ -. The unit is directed to pay this amount within a period of eight weeks from today. As and when the amount is deposited by the Unit, the Registry is directed to invest the amount in a Fixed deposit with any nationalized bank, initially for a period of 181 days, and the Registry shall go on renewing the deposit for further periods of 181 days, if no further orders are passed by the Court to the contrary. Order according by. .