ORDER Elipe Dharma Rao, J. The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) was established in the year 1971 to develop industrial growth in Tamil Nadu. To ensure a good impact with the available limited resources, SIPCOT has created Industrial Complexes and Parks, strategically located in Nineteen places and Twelve Districts in the State, including one at Cuddalore. Respondents 4 to 11 and 17 to 23 are some of such industrial units established in Cuddalore SIPCOT area at different points of time. 2. It is seen from the materials on record that the residents of the Cuddalore SIPCOT area themselves have formed SIPCOT Area Community Environmental Monitors (SACEM) and brought out several reports in respect of the pollution in SIPCOT area. One such report titled 'Gas Trouble' Air quality in SIPCOT, Cuddalore was published by 'The Hindu' on 21.9.2004, under the caption 'villages in Cuddalore industrial estate toxic hot spot' stating that twenty thousand residents of 10 villages and several hamlets around the over two decade old SIPCOT industrial estate near Cuddalore town are exposed to high levels of 22 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) including eight cancer causing ones, mostly released by factories in the complex. According to the said report, the levels of some of the chemicals in the SIPCOT area were at least 1,000 times higher than those prevailing in South Africa, Thailand and the Philippines. The report also justified the villagers' demands for continuous air monitoring, including for toxic gases, an aggressive air pollution elimination programme, long-term health monitoring, specialised health care facilities for residents and a ban on the setting up or expansion of any polluting facility in the complex. 3. This news item was ordered to be taken as a Writ Petition by the then Honourable Chief Justice. During pendency of this writ petition, not only the community residents (like respondents 14 to 16) but also the above mentioned industrial units in the Cuddalore SIPCOT (Respondents 4 to 11 and 17 to 23) have been brought on record. 4. It is to be mentioned that Cuddalore SIPCOT Industries Common Utilities Ltd. (CUSECS) has been operating in SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Cuddalore since 2001. The infrastructure for effluent collection and disposal in the SIPCOT industrial complex was commissioned in 2001, 19 years after the complex was established. It is the collection and forwarding system for allegedly "treated effluent" from industries in SIPCOT. The infrastructure for effluent collection and disposal in the SIPCOT industrial complex was commissioned in 2001, 19 years after the complex was established. It is the collection and forwarding system for allegedly "treated effluent" from industries in SIPCOT. The effluent is said to be forwarded through a network of pipelines and sumps to the sea off the coast of Rasapettai village. Initially 19 industries registered as members of CUSECS; currently, only 8 industries are members. They are: 1. M/s. Arkema Peroxides Ltd (Respondent No.18) 2. M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd (Respondent No.5) 3. M/s. Bayer Material Sciences Pvt. Ltd (Respondent No.19) 4. M/s. Loyal Super Fabrics 5. M/s. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (Respondent No.22) 6. M/s. Pioneer Jellice India Pvt. Ltd (Respondent No.20) 7. M/s. SPIC Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Respondent No.9) 8. M/s. TANFAC Industries Ltd (Respondent No.17) 5. According to TNPCB, some industries terminated their membership with CUSECS after achieving "zero discharge" or setting up independent mechanisms to dispose their effluents to the sea. 6. The allegations against CUSECS by the residents/respondents 14 to 16 are that the quality of effluents discharged by the CUSECS into the sea is in violation of the standards prescribed by Environment Protection Rules and the Central Pollution Control Board norms and that this is not the first time such violations have been noticed in the effluent quality of CUSECS. It has also been alleged that CUSECS is operating since 2000 on a mere NoC from TNPCB with no consent to establish and operate till date and even the Coastal Regulatory Zone clearance was obtained post facto in November, 2005 and at least five show cause notices have been served on the unit since the year 2000 for violations of effluent standards and that from 2004 there are many incidents of effluent leak from CUSECS on land or in the river. 7. Taking into consideration all these aspects, during the course of hearing, we posed a specific question to the learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as to under which authority the said CUSECS is functioning. For this the learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board has produced before us a letter addressed to him by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 3.9.2010, which is available at Page No.105 of the typed set of papers filed by respondents 14 to 16. For this the learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board has produced before us a letter addressed to him by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 3.9.2010, which is available at Page No.105 of the typed set of papers filed by respondents 14 to 16. From this letter it is clear that CUSECS Ltd. has obtained only a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Board vide Lr.No.T5/TNPCB/F-9051/CUD/W/A/96, dated 28.6.2004 and has obtained clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India vide letter No.J-16011/24/2003-1A III, dated 30.11.2005. It is also seen that though this Unit has applied for consent of the TNPCB under the Water (Prevention and control of pollution) Act, the same has not yet been issued by TNPCB for want of compliance of No Objection Certificate conditions for discharge of effluent quality to Marine disposal standards. 8. Considering this aspect, this Court, by the order dated 21.9.2010 has ordered that the said Unit has no right to function till the grant of consent by the TNPCB, after compliance of the NoC conditions and the TNPCB has also been directed to stop the functioning of the said CUSECS Ltd. and consider the feasibility of granting renewal of consent to those industries which had paid the fees in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, CUSECS Ltd. has been closed. Thereafter, R.17 to R.21 came forward to file implead petitions and the said petitions having been allowed on 20.10.2010, they have come on record as party respondents. 9. It is the strong case of CUSECS Ltd. that their member companies are not using any VOC chemical and that CUSECS is transferring and discharging the treated effluent received from its member industries into the sea about 1 km. away from the seashore through HDP pipeline with end point fitted with specially designed diffuser which dispense the treated effluent in all the directions simultaneously to provide very quick dilution and within a very short time the effluent reaches harmless state at the point of discharge itself and as a consequence of the same, the effluent discharged into the sea is absolutely harmless to marine flora, fauna and aquatic life and have requested to permit them to commence their operation. 10. 10. It is seen from the records that the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) has conducted a study in August, 2007 at the SIPCOT area of Cuddalore and has filed a report before this Court. This report pointed out the presence of VOCs. at different locations including CUSECS, Alapakkam, Kudikadu, Pachayankuppam, Karaikadu and Echangadu villages. 11. In the year 2009, the Central Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forests have conducted a study in selective industrial clusters of the country to identify polluted industrial clusters or areas in order to take concerted action and to centrally monitor them at the National level to improve the current status of their environmental components such as air and water quality data, ecological damage and visual environmental conditions. For this, a total of 88 industrial areas or clusters have been selected by the Central Pollution Control Board in consultation with the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, including Coimbatore, Cuddalore, Erode, Manali, Mettur, Tiruppur and Vellore Industrial areas in Tamil Nadu and brought out its report in the month of December, 2009. 12. This report found that there are 43 industrial areas/clusters out of 88 to be critically polluted with respect to one or more environmental component and such critically polluted areas include the Cuddalore SIPCOT area. Following this report, the Ministry of environment and Forests, Government of India, imposed a moratorium on 43 industrial clusters, including Cuddalore SIPCOT area, requiring the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to monitor the situation by initiating time-bound action plans for improving the environmental quality in those industrial clusters/areas. Even though the initial order of moratorium was till August 2010, for Cuddalore it was extended till 31.10.2010 due to delay in finalising the action plans. Later, on 26.10.2010, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India further extended its moratorium on setting up new industries or expansion of existing units in Cuddalore till March, 2011. Thereafter, the said moratorium was lifted on 15.2.1011 by the Government of India, based on the information provided by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the Central Pollution Control Board to Ministry of Environment and Forest that the revised action plans submitted by the respective SPCBs have been reviewed and approved by them and that the implementation of the action plan has been initiated. This action of the Government - in lifting the moratorium - came under strong criticism by SACEM, requesting to impose further moratorium on expansion of existing facility and setting up of new units in SIPCOT Cuddalore. SACEM, has based this request on a critique (prepared in April, 2011) of TNPCB's action plan for Cuddalore, which formed the basis for lifting of the moratorium. 13. In this background, since from the year 2007, the year in which NEERI has conducted a study in this area, there are lot of changes with some industries acquiring 'zero discharge' and some industries closing down for various reasons and to have information with regard to the latest position in the area, this Court, by the order dated 18.11.2010, has directed NEERI to inspect the area with regard to the extent of air and water pollution (alleged to have been) caused by the respondents 4 to 13 and 17 to 23 and the industries mentioned in Chapter III, page 3.1 of the final report filed by NEERI in August 2007 and submit a report to this Court, after giving opportunity to the industries as well as their counsel. To carry on this study, this Court, vide order dated 22.12.2010, has directed respondents 4 to 11 and 17 to 23 to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each to the credit of NEERI, Chennai within a period of one week. 14. Accordingly, a five member team, constituted by the Director, NEERI inspected the industries/R-4 to R.11 and R.17 to R.23 in SIPCOT, Cuddalore and submitted its report in April, 2011. In this report, NEERI has focussed on ground water quality of surrounding villages, surface water quality, marine disposal site, ambient air quality and VOC in industries premises. In this report, NEERI has stated that "Physico-chemical characteristics of some of the bore wells water in SIPCOT area do not conform to the limits prescribed for drinking water purpose with respect to turbidity, TDS and total hardness. On the whole, it can be concluded that the impact of industrial emissions from SIPCOT Industries, Cuddalore on ambient air quality is within limits as compared to ambient air quality standards with respect to PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOx and NH3. Concentrations of five HAPs. namely Acrolein, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde and Propionaldehyde have been found to exceed standard/screening/guideline values." 15. On the whole, it can be concluded that the impact of industrial emissions from SIPCOT Industries, Cuddalore on ambient air quality is within limits as compared to ambient air quality standards with respect to PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOx and NH3. Concentrations of five HAPs. namely Acrolein, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde and Propionaldehyde have been found to exceed standard/screening/guideline values." 15. For better understanding, we re-produce hereunder the differences between the two reports submitted by NEERI in 2007 and 2011: Sl. No. 2007 Report 2011 Report 1. Ground Water Not mentioned Monitored ground water quality shows that physico-chemical characteristics of some of the bore well water in SIPCOT are do not conform to the limits prescribed for drinking water purpose (IS-10500-1991) with respect to turbidity, TDS and total hardness. 2. River water Not mentioned River water samples do not conform to the limit prescribed by MoEF or TNPCB for drinking water with respect to parameters like turbidity, TDS and total hardness and sulphate 3. Marine water Not mentioned The marine water characteristics and let out effluents quality falls in tolerance limits for industrial effluents discharged on marine costal area prescribed by MoEF except for sulphate 4. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (AAQM) Within prescribed limit AAQM was carried out with respect to SO2-Sulphur Dioxide, No - Nitrous Qxide, H2S-Hydrogen Sulphate, NH3-Amonia, PM10-Size of Particulars and PM 25 for 24 hours continuously for one week inside the industries and surrounding village. 24 hourly average values of SO2, NOX 5. VOC i. Benzene high concentration found; ii. Acrolein was not monitored iii. Formaldehyde not monitored iv. Acetaldehyde not monitored v. Propionaldehyde not monitored 29.229 UP per meter cube 15 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), no Aldehyde's monitored Concentration of 5 HAP namely Acrolein, Benzene, formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde and propionaldehyde have been found to exceed standard/screening/guideline value. Benzene - 94.5% mg. per meter cube in SIPCOT Industrial area HAP 28+4 Aldehyde. 16. The above report of NEERI makes it clear that the quality of ground water and river water do not conform to the prescribed standards and some of the discharged effluents are within the prescribed limits and some are not. Therefore, a question would arise as to whether the respondent industries are to be blamed for such falling standards in the quality of environment. 17. On the part of CUSECS, the above report of NEERI has been commented as has no application to their member units. Therefore, a question would arise as to whether the respondent industries are to be blamed for such falling standards in the quality of environment. 17. On the part of CUSECS, the above report of NEERI has been commented as has no application to their member units. It has been averred by this respondent that there is no possibility of VOCs from its premises and hence no such test was being conducted in the premises of the 21st respondent, even by the TNPCB as it is not applicable to this respondent. It has further been stated that despite this respondent is not emitting any air pollution, the sample taken from the atmosphere situated in various places including the 21st respondent premises, which has no manufacturing activity, have shown excess to the standards prescribed by some foreign countries viz. Ontario (Canada) and New Zealand in respect of Acrolein, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde and Propionaldehyde; that there is no standard prescribed by India, except Benzene; that the above referred hazardous pollutants are mainly emerged as evaporative emissions from un-burnt or partially unburnt hydro carbons mostly from vehicular exhaust, fuel filling station, fuel adulteration, domestic firewood, municipal waste, dumping etc; that NEERI has also taken a sample test at the point S-11 viz. Yogiram Inn, which is 13 km. away from the SIPCOT Industrial complex; that the said reading of parameter itself is sufficient to establish that the industrial emissions, if any, are not the cause for the alleged excess of Acrolein, Benzene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde and Propionaldehyde; that the sources of atmosphere PAHs are both natural and anthropogenic; that the natural sources are forest fire, volcanic activities and bacterial decay of organic materials; that the anthropogenic sources are industries, automobiles, combustion of fossil fuels and households, municipal waste dumping etc.; that in fact, the industries in the SIPCOT industrial complex are situated very near to the highways and Cuddalore town municipal wastes are dumped in the adjacent site to the SIPCOT industrial complex and the vehicular exhaust, fire wood usage of villagers, municipal waste decay and organic material decay are the main source of VOCs in the said locality and therefore, according to this respondent, NEERI ought not to have taken the standard prescribed for two countries situated in both North and South Poles since the standard is more stringent than any other country. 18. 18. Be that as it may, the fact lies that CUSECS is not having the necessary consents from the authorities concerned, except a 'No Objection Certificate' from TNPCB, which has also been kept in abeyance by TNPCB for the reason that CUSECS has not adhered to the conditions attached thereto. When the very inception of CUSECS is not in accordance with law, having no legal sanctity and further the possibility of leakage through its pipeline cannot be ruled out (as no clean chit has been given to CUSECS by TNPCB or any other competent authority), we do not see any reason to lift the ban imposed by us on the functioning of CUSECS. However, it is made clear that if CUSECS complies with the required legal criteria by the authorities concerned, like TNPCB, it is for the authorities concerned to pass appropriate orders on the request of CUSECS. 19. There is some force in the contentions raised by some of the units that they alone cannot be blamed for the pollution since there are many adding factors like burning of garbage and vehicular traffic contributing very much to the air pollution. In the absence of any technical data provided before us by either NEERI or TNPCB to distinguish or differentiate the pollution because of units or the other factors, we are unable to either justify or reject the contentions raised by such units that they cannot alone be blamed. However, being a statutory body to maintain environment, the burden lies with the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and also the Central Pollution Control Board to take all necessary steps to combat pollution, in any form it may be, in the manner known to law. 20. Some of the impleaded units like respondents 6, 20 and 22 have urged before us that their emissions are well within the prescribed limits and even the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has either given consent or renewed the consent granted to them and hence they are not at all necessary parties to the present proceedings. Materials have also been placed before us by the said units stating that their emissions are within the prescribed limits and that no legal action has been initiated against them by the authorities concerned. Materials have also been placed before us by the said units stating that their emissions are within the prescribed limits and that no legal action has been initiated against them by the authorities concerned. If that is the case, while appreciating such of the actions of the Units in taking all steps to combat pollution, we also direct the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to continuous air monitoring, including for toxic gases of the units and if any violation is found, to take necessary legal action against the errant unit/units as per law. 21. Even with regard to the other units, where violations are reported, we direct the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to keep continuous air monitoring, including for toxic gases of the units in SIPCOT Cuddalore and take necessary and suitable legal action against any errant or default unit, as per law. 22. Though a direction has been sought for on the part of respondents 14 to 16 to completely ban on the setting up or expansion of any unit in the Cuddalore SIPCOT, we make it clear that such blanket orders cannot be passed by us since it is for the authorities like the Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forest to assess each individual case and grant or reject such permissions/renewals and all the units cannot be put together and branded as 'violators', without verifying the individual cases. Therefore, this request of the respondents 14 to 16 is rejected. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.