BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI.

APPLICATION No. 291 of 2014 (SZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Sandeep Raghurajan (Male Aged -38 years)

S/o. P.M. Raghurajan
Plot No.72, F-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 070. .. Applicant

Versus

1. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

No.76, Mount Salai
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.

2. The President
Ayapakkam First Grade Panchayat
Villivakkam Panchayat Union
Tiruvallur District
No.20, Pillayar Koil Street
Ayapakkam,
Chennai – 600 077.

3. VGN Developers Private Limited,

No.15, Wallace Garden, 2nd Street
Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 006.

4. Mr. T. Kamaraj (Male Aged – 60 years)

S/o. S.V.M. Thangavel
Plot No.98, F-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai - 600 077.

5. Mr. Muthukumar B. (Male Aged – 38 years)

Page 1 of 25
 S/o. Balasubramaniam M.
Plot No.72, S-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

6. Mr. Pugazhenthi M. (Male Aged – 36 years)

S/o. Munu Velu
Plot No.75, F-2
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

7. Mr. M. Rajasekar (Male Aged – 40 years)

S/o. T. Mani
Plot No.78, F-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

8. Mr. B. Saravanakumar (Male Aged – 32 years)

S/o. K. Balachandran
Plot No.74, S-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

9. Mr. S. Srinivasan (Male Aged – 52 years)

S/o. G. Santhanam
Plot No.95, F-2
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

10. Mrs. Suchitra Kumar (Female Aged – 39 years)

D/o. E.R. Vaitheeswaran
Plot No.73, F-2 & S-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

11. Mr. S. Vinod (Male Aged – 29 years)

Page 2 of 25
 S/o. V. Sukumar
Plot No.75, G-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

12. Mr. G.S. Vijayalakshmi (Female Aged – 45 years)

D/o. G. Srinivasan
Plot No.73, F-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

13. M. Narendrakumar (Male Aged – 38 Years)

S/o. T. Mani
Plot No.78, G-1
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

14. Mr. Muthuswamy C. (Male Aged – 39 Years)

S/o. M. Chidambaranathan
Plot No.72, G-2
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077

15. Mr. B. Boomiramanathan (Male Aged – 63 Years)

S/o. Boominathan
Plot No.33, F-3
VGN Platina
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

16. VGN Platina Welfare Association (Sl.No.403/13)

Rep. by its President Mr. A. P.Anand
VGN Platina, Ambigai Nagar,
Ayapakkam
Chennai – 600 077.

Page 3 of 25
 .. Respondents

(Respondents 4-15 and 16th were impleaded vide Miscellaneous Application

No.130 of 2015(SZ) and Miscellaneous Application No.226 of 2015 (SZ)
respectively and were allowed by the orders of this Tribunal dated 10.09.2015
and 23.09.2015 respectively.)

Counsel appearing for the Applicant: M/s. A.Thirumaran, R.Hariharan and

K.P. Arivalagan.

Counsel appearing for the Respondents: Mrs. H.Yasmeen Ali for Respondent
No.1; M/s. A. Immanuel, J. Jenny for Respondent No.2; M/s. K. Hari Shankar,
Srinath Sridevan and T.K. Baskar for Respondent No.3; M/s. A.Anilan and
D.Narayan Kumar for Respondent Nos. 4-15 and Mr. J.S.Jayaprabin for
Respondent No.16.

ORDER

PRESENT:

1. Hon’ble Justice M. Chockalingam

Judicial Member

2. Hon’ble Shri P.S.Rao

Expert Member

Dated, 13th January, 2016.

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the Internet. Yes / No

2. Whether the judgment is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter. Yes / No

The applicant who is a resident of VGN Platina (a residential complex),

has filed this application seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to bring to an

end the water and air pollution caused by the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) at

Page 4 of 25
VGN Platina, Ayapakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District and for

other reliefs.

2) The applicant purchased a residential flat in VGN Platina together with

an undivided share of land and has obtained the Chennai Metropolitan

Development Authority (CMDA) approval. There are as many as 672

apartments in VGN Platina out of which 480 flats are occupied. The apartments

have been promoted by VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd., the 3rd respondent herein,

who at the time of selling the apartments to the individual owners, collected a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from each apartment owner for the construction of STP as

well as a Water Treatment Plant. The 3rd respondent at the time of obtaining

sanction from the 2nd respondent for his plan, represented that each and every

apartment block consisting of a plot, will have a separate septic tank and by

assuring and undertaking so, obtained approval from the 2nd respondent.

3) The 3rd respondent had constructed the STP in Plot No. CS No.2 which

is maintained by a Private Contractor to cater to the entire 672 apartments.

There are no individual septic tanks for the plots containing apartments and the

entire VGN Platina complex is dependent upon the STP. The applicant states

that at the time of purchasing the flat, the 3rd respondent misrepresented that it is

a housing scheme with facilities like STP and Water Treatment Plant and that

the STP was approved by the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent and it

is working efficiently. It was assured that the STP has got adequate facility in

Page 5 of 25
curbing water pollution by treating sewage generated in the entire 672

apartments in VGN Platina and further, there would be no air pollution also.

But the STP is not functioning properly and is not authorised either by the 1st or

the 2nd respondent and further, it has become not only a nuisance but also a

source of air and water pollution for the inhabitants of VGN Platina in particular

and for the nearby residents in general.

4) The applicant lists the following discrepancies in respect of the

impugned STP:

a) The STP has not been licensed either by the authorities of the local

Panchayat or by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board). Since, the

STP is not authorised, its functioning cannot be audited by the 1 st respondent.

The STP has been constructed by the 3rd respondent, without taking into

consideration of the approval from the 2nd respondent.

b) As per the sanctioned original plan of the lay out and subsequent

construction plan obtained from the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent, no

specific place has been earmarked for the construction of the STP and the land

in which the STP is established, was originally earmarked for the construction

of a shop and it is not suitable for constructing STP.

c) The waste water treatment plants need to be located away from the

residential areas or at least 300 feet from the nearest residence to prevent

Page 6 of 25
overflow of sludge or waste water into the next plot. In the instant case, the STP

is built just within 3 feet from the nearest residence. An ideal STP should be

compounded on all sides not only to prevent unauthorised personnel from

entering the same, but also to prevent reversal flow of water but here, there is no

compound wall between the STP and the residential area.

d) An ideal STP should be capable of handling at least 7 KLD of sewage

for a community of 670 flats but the impugned STP is designed to handle only 5

KLD of sewage resulting in overflow of sludge and waste water and the

percolation of waste water into the ground leading to ground water pollution.

Excess water from the water treatment plant and water from rain water

harvesting structures also flow into the STP and thereby create an additional

load which it is not designed to handle. The collection tank is not sufficient to

hold the sewage water coming during peak time, which results in flooding of

other process tanks thereby resulting in untreated water mixing with semi

treated water and this makes the entire process, procedure and exercise futile

and results in untreated water being discharged.

e) Due to the over flowing of the STP, an unimaginably pungent odour is

being generated which may be composed of harmful gases.

5) The 1st respondent in its reply stated that, based on the complaint

received from the residents of M/s. VGN Platina, against the 3rd respondent

regarding the pollution caused and improper designing of STP, an inspection

Page 7 of 25
was carried out by the District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Ambattur of the

Board along with the Assistant Environmental Engineer on 24.10.2014.

During the inspection, Site Engineer of M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Limited and

some of the complainants were present and it was observed that the STP was

built nearer to the residential flats without leaving any buffer area. The DEE

vide a letter dated 27.10.2014 & 29.11.2014, instructed the Managing Director

of 3rd respondent to revamp the STP, leaving adequate buffer area in between

the STP and the residences so as to avoid such problems to the nearby residents

and also to submit the action taken report immediately. It was also informed not

to dispose any treated or untreated sewage outside the premises directly or

indirectly.

6) Subsequently, the above said location was again inspected by the DEE

on 10.12.2014 and a show cause notice was issued under the Water (Prevention

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act, 1974) and the Air (Prevention

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act, 1981) vide Proc.

No.TNPCB/DEE/NA/SCN/W & A/2014 dated 11.12.2014, since the respondent

has not taken any steps in respect of revamping of the STP. The respondent was

also instructed to submit the action taken report but no action taken report was

submitted. During the inspection, it was observed that revamping works were

not carried out and consent was not obtained from the Board under the Water

Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981. The STP components were found to be

Page 8 of 25
constructed as underground structures and were filled with sewage and during

inspection they were under operation. Therefore, at the time of inspection, the

size of the components of STP provided by the unit could not be assessed.

Hence, the 3rd respondent was requested to submit the details of quantity of

sewage generated and the design capacity of STP components by the DEE vide

Letter. No. TNPCB/DEE/AMB/NGT-291/2015 dated 17.03.2015. The 3rd

respondent submitted the details vide letter dated 31.03.2015 stating that the

STP is located underground with a design of 500 KLD capacity to treat 400

KLD of sewage generated. The unit has been provided with Automatic Bar

Screen Chamber, Collection tank, Anaerobic Reactor, Fluidised Bed Bio-

Reactor (FBBR), Settling tank, Clarified water tank underground and has

provided Pressure sand filter and activated carbon filter above ground. Treated

water is used for gardening the parks, pathways and for maintaining the

greenery. The analysis of STP outlet sample collected on 22.04.2015 reveals

that the parameters are within the limit. But, the dimensions of the components

of STP could not be assessed as it was filled with sewage continuously.

7) The 2nd respondent in his reply stated that the Member Secretary,

CMDA, vide Ref. PPD/49/2009/L1/12195/09 dated 21.10.2009 issued planning

permit for laying 178 plots in 16.32 acres of land in Ayapakkam First Grade

Panchayat in Villivakkam Panchayat Union and permission was granted by the

Commissioner, Villivakkam Panchayat Union vide Ref.2113/09/A3 dated

Page 9 of 25
23.10.2009. Building permission was granted by the 2 nd respondent vide Ref.

No.310/10-11. It was found at the time of inspection that the 3rd respondent has

unauthorisedly constructed the STP causing air and water pollution to the

inmates of the complex and to the neighbourhood and it was also noticed that

illegal constructions were made in setback areas and a Commercial Complex

and Club House were illegally constructed. There was encroachment of the

Panchayat Road and Public Pond too.

8) The 2nd respondent issued notice to the 3rd respondent on 22.07.2014

under Rule 34 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 pointing out the

irregularities regarding the STP and to remove unauthorised constructions. The

3rd respondent vide a letter dated 08.08.2014 accepted that the STP has been

constructed unauthorisedly and sewage water is drained across the public road.

But, the 3rd respondent has neither demolished the unauthorised construction of

the STP nor created individual septic tank for each house as per the approved

plan. An explanation was also sought from the 3rd respondent regarding the

unauthorized construction of a commercial complex measuring 3000 sq.ft in

Plot No.112 and of high tension electric motors and sewage purification

machineries at a depth of 15 feet below it, for which the 3rd respondent had

replied that proper approval has already been obtained but the 2nd respondent

who is the competent authority had not granted any approval.

Page 10 of 25
 9) The 3rd respondent in its reply stated that, the STP was built

considering the welfare of the occupants of flats in the VGN Platina and with a

good intention of providing pollution free environment to the occupants of this

project as the area was devoid of a well developed public sewage system. The

layout was originally promoted by one, Mr. Aswin, who obtained CMDA

approvals vide Letter No.L1/12/95/09 dated 21.10.2009 for individual plots and

thereafter, sold the same to the 3rd respondent. Thus, CMDA approval was

obtained by the previous owner of the land for the layout plan only. Further,

houses at affordable cost were constructed in each plot with common facilities

such as Water Treatment Plant and STP, with advanced technology, with a view

to cater to the needs of the lower income group though it was not mandated as

per the rules and regulations then in existence. Keeping in mind the best

interests of the purchasers/occupants of the various houses constructed in the

said plots and with a view to provide adequate and hygienic facilities for

treating water and sewage which would also be environment friendly, the 3 rd

respondent constructed a common STP to cater to the needs of entire houses

built in VGN Platina. It is submitted that, the construction of individual septic

tanks would not have been as efficient as the common STP and would have

resulted in causing much damage to the environment as well as an increase in

cost for the residents of VGN Platina.

Page 11 of 25
 10) The 3rd respondent further stated in its reply that the STP system

installed at VGN Platina is based on anaerobic baffle reactor technology and is

functional and continues to be efficient in treating the sewage drained into it.

Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, there are no specified rules

with respect to the construction of a standalone STP for residential houses and

also, no policy/directive exists to obtain authorization from the 1st or 2nd

respondent. Samples from the output of the STP are being tested in reputed labs

every month and it has been ensured that the treated water is well within the

parameters of Board norms. The 3rd respondent further states that approvals

have been obtained individually for each plot from the CMDA, Local body and

the STP has been constructed considering the welfare of the residents in the

VGN Platina. The STP is being maintained by a private contractor who

periodically monitors the functioning of the unit. The entire project has been

handed over to the purchasers during 2013 itself and it is pertinent to state in

this regard that, the 3rd respondent had already replied to the 2nd respondent

through a letter dated 08.08.2014.

11) The discrepancies in the STP were denied on the following basis by

the 3rd respondent:

a) No clear cut sewage treatment policy is in existence in the State of

Tamil Nadu to obtain approval for the construction of a standalone STP in a

cluster of ordinary residential buildings either from the 1st or the 2nd respondent.

Page 12 of 25
Neither there are any specifications laid for construction of STP and to monitor

its functioning. It was only due to the persistent efforts of the 3rd respondent that

the residents of VGN Platina enjoy a clean environment with better facilities

using advanced technology.

b) STP storage tanks have been constructed underground, wherein the

drained sewage from the residents is treated and is thereafter sent to the

collection tank which is also located underground. The underground collection

tank where the raw sewage flows into it is located at a distance of about 100 feet

from the nearest residence and this leaves adequate buffer space. The area

where the STP is located is fenced on all sides so as to prevent unauthorised

personnel entering the site, considering the safety of the residents.

The allegations with regard to overflowing of sewage and untreated water into

nearby lands are denied as false and vexatious. No environment pollution is

caused due to the functioning of the STP and also, there is no violation of any

norms of the approved plan.

c) The STP built is designed to handle 500 KLD of sewage and the same

will be more than sufficient to take care of 672 residential units at VGN Platina.

At no point of time, since its inception, sewage has been discharged untreated

from the STP. The Collection tank is sufficient to hold the sewage water during

peak time and no untreated water has ever been discharged into the open owing

to the improper functioning of the STP. The sewage water does not flow into

Page 13 of 25
the nearby ponds as alleged by the applicant. On the contrary, the treated water

is distributed for watering plants grown in VGN Platina. There are no hidden

pipes to discharge untreated water to nearby ponds as alleged by the applicant

and these allegations are unwarranted. The treated water is distributed in

setbacks, parks, roads etc. and this would recharge the ground water and benefit

the residents in that area.

d) The applicant and other anti-welfare elements of the association at

VGN Platina caused the non-functioning of the STP by disconnecting the power

supply in collusion with the 2nd respondent.

Finally, the 3rd respondent prayed for the dismissal of the application.

12) The respondents 4 to 15 in their joint reply stated that they have

purchased flats in VGN Platina and are residing there since 2011. They allege

that the residents are suffering with the menace of water, air and noise pollution

continuously and the STP poses a very serious health hazard since it is located

very near to the tenements. The stench emanating from the STP is unbearable,

forcing all the residents to keep their doors and windows closed all the time and

that apart, untreated water is flowing over in the open spaces and gets stagnated

all over the complex throughout the year leading to the breeding of mosquitoes.

The noise emanating from the STP, which runs round the clock, is very high

and unbearable. The smoke emanating from the chimney provided in the STP

gets engulfed in the complex. The construction of the STP does not conform to

Page 14 of 25
any norms and the 3rd respondent has constructed the STP with scant regard to

the pollution control rules and the 1st respondent is duty bound to initiate

emergency measures under Section 32 of the Water Act, 1974 to prevent the

water pollution in the nearby water stream.

13) The 16th respondent, VGN Platina Welfare Association, in its reply

states that there is no air and water pollution as alleged and the 3 rd respondent

has provided the STP with a capacity of 500 KLD and not 5 KLD as alleged

which is more than enough for handling the domestic sewage. However, the 3rd

respondent has not obtained any consent from the 1 st respondent to operate the

STP and therefore, the 16th respondent had requested the 3rd respondent to

obtain necessary permission from the 1st respondent. The contractor periodically

takes water samples of the treated water. However, no test results have been

furnished to the association. The 16th respondent alleges that the respondents 4

to 15 are not residing near the STP and they were impleaded on the instructions

of the 2nd and 4th respondent only to portray falsely that an environmental

problem has been caused by the establishment of the STP.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

14) This is a case wherein the applicant has sought reliefs to direct the 3 rd

respondent to stop the water and air pollution caused by handling the sewage in

the STP located in the residential complex where the applicant himself resides.

Page 15 of 25
It is a fact that the 3rd respondent has developed the aforesaid residential

complex consisting 672 apartments which are meant only for residential

purpose and no commercial or industrial activities are permitted. As per the

records placed before us, it is clear that while getting the layout approved and

also for sanctioning of the plan, the respondent builder has made a provision for

construction of individual septic tank system for all the apartments and no

specific area was earmarked in the layout for the construction of a STP. But

only after the structures have been completed, the builder has gone for common

sewage disposal system by establishing STP instead of individual septic tanks

and justifies his action stating that a centralized and environment friendly STP

is more appropriate rather than having individual septic tanks and gone ahead

with the construction of underground STP with a good intention to provide

pollution free environment as the area where the complex is built, is devoid of a

well developed public sewerage system. The STP is designed with a capacity of

500 KLD to treat 400 KLD sewage in the complex which according to the

builder is located in the site area under its own control and which has not been

earmarked for any other purpose. The 3rd respondent builder further pleads that

a centralized sewage disposal system to cater to the needs of all the houses in

the complex is more hygienic rather than individual septic system and therefore,

there is nothing wrong in taking up the project and making it functional.

But, here the point to be noted is that the applicant has come forward with an

allegation that rather than mitigating the pollution, the STP is causing pollution

Page 16 of 25
apart from emanating bad odour, therefore, it is appropriate that the STP meets

the standards and be repaired and scientifically operated. It is also to be noted

that some of the residents who are impleaded in this application as respondents

4-15 are in support of the applicant while the 16th respondent association is in

support of the 3rd respondent, builder. Therefore, based on the complaint, the

DEE of the Board has inspected the STP on 24.10.2014 and observed certain

shortcomings and directed the 3rd respondent to revamp the STP. The unit was

again inspected by the DEE on 10.12.2014 and a show cause notice was issued

on 11.12.2014 since the 3rd respondent has not taken any steps in revamping the

STP and also no consent was obtained from the Board under the Water Act,

1974 and Air Act, 1981. Subsequently, the DEE also requested the 3rd

respondent for technical details and design of the STP. Accordingly, the 3 rd

respondent furnished the details that the unit is provided with Automatic bar

screen chamber, Collection tank, FBBR, Settling tank, Clarified water tank

underground and has also provided Pressure sand filter and Reactivated carbon

filter above ground and the treated water is used for gardening and for

maintaining the greenery in the complex. The Results of the laboratory analysis

of the STP outlet samples are within the permissible limits. As the shortcomings

pointed out by the DEE reveal that the STP was under operation without

consent and not made to function properly, a show cause notice was also issued.

Page 17 of 25
 15) The Tribunal paid its anxious consideration and directed the DEE to

inspect the unit once again and to furnish the inspection report. Accordingly, the

DEE filed the report on 15.12.2015 stating that the unit was inspected on

09.12.2015 and is reproduced below:

1. Buffer zone distance criteria and consent for establishment of STP

a) It is respectfully submitted that Sewage Treatment Plant for a

residential complex is generally located based on the contour of
the site within the project areas and there is no buffer zone siting
criteria prescribed by the TNPCB for housing sewage treatment
plant for handling the sewage generated from a residential
complex.

b) It is further submitted that M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd has filed
application for the consent of the Board in the name of M/s. VGN
Developers Private Limited - Platina project, at Ayapakam Village,
Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District for its 500 KLD capacity STP
on 08.10.2015 through online and the application was returned to
the unit through online on 24.10.2015 for want of additional
details. But the unit has not resubmitted the application for the
consent of the Board till date.

2. Regarding revamping of STP, etc.

It respectfully submitted that the unit has provided Sewage Treatment

Plant with a capacity of 500 KLD to handle the sewage generated from
its residential complex. The unit had provided the following units of
Sewage treatment plant viz. Collection Tank, Anaerobic Reactor, FBBR
(Aeration Tank), Settling Tank, Clarified water tank below the ground
level and provided Mechanical Bar Screen Chamber, Pressure Sand
Filter and Activated carbon filter above the ground level.

Page 18 of 25
 S.No Description No. of Units Dimensions in mm

1 Bar Screen Chamber 01 2200×500×800

2 Collection Tank 01 7000×6000×4600
3 Anaerobic Baffle Reactor 01 7000×2625×3700

4 FBBR(Aeration Tank) 01 3350×2550×3700

5 Settling Tank 01 3350×5800×3700
6 Clarified water 01 3350×3250×3700
7 Treated water 01 5293×8725×3700
8 Pressure Sand Filter 01 1800 dia×1500 HOS

9 Activated Carbon Filter 01 1600 dia×2000 HOS

Subsequent to the issue of Show Cause Notice to the unit vide Proc. dated
11.12.2014, the unit has revamped the Sewage Treatment Plant and the
treated sewage samples was collected on 22.04.2015 from the final outlet
of STP and the Report of Analysis of treated sewage samples collected
from the outlet of STP reveals that the parameters analysed satisfies the
standards prescribed by the Board (Copy enclosed).

3. Present status of STP today.

It respectfully submitted that the said Sewage Treatment Plant was again
inspected on 09.12.2015. During the inspection, it was noticed that all the
treatment unit of STP was in operation and a sample of treated sewage was
collected from the outlet of STP. The Report of Analysis of the treated
sewage reveals that the parameter pH & BOD satisfy the standards
prescribe by the Board. Whereas the total suspended solids is 38 mg/lit as
against the 30 mg/lit (Copy enclosed). The unit has provided G.I sheet cover
of 28 feet height in the Northern side of the STP i.e. between the residential
apartments and STP, G.I sheets cover of 13 feet in the Southern and Western
side and a compound wall of 5 feet height in the Eastern side. The unit has
also provided DG set of capacity 63 KVA as a standby power source for
operating the STP. The said STP is located adjacent to the residential
apartments (Plot No. 72)

4. Applicability of Environmental Clearance:

Page 19 of 25
 It respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, in its order dated 12.09.2013 in Application
No. 124 of 2013, directed the Respondent State of Haryana, Public Works
Department (Water Supply & Sanitation) to seek Environmental Clearance
from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for
installation of Common Sewage Treatment Plant, as the activity falls under
the Schedule to Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 Category
B Clause 7(h)- Common Effluent Treatment Plants & 7 (i) - Common
Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility (CMSWMF) stating that (Para
35 of the Judgment) that the sewage in any town travels through open drains
where large amounts of industrial waste, domestic discharge and trade
effluents are directly or indirectly discharged into such drains. Before these
drains reach the STPs, they undoubtedly contain sewage and other trade
effluents, including chemical effluents, in other words, it is mixed effluent
and not a sewage waste simplicitor. Whereas in this case, the Sewage
Treatment Plant installed by M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd. - VGN Platina,
at Ayapakam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, sewage generated
from the 674 dwelling units only is connected for treatment and no other
source of waste water is getting mixed.

It respectfully submitted that in the case of the above judgment, the

location of the treatment plant can be identified by the authorities after
conducting Environmental Impact Assessment study and ascertaining the
suitability of the site, whereas in this case the Sewage Treatment Plant to
treat the sewage generated from the residential apartments has to be
necessarily located within the premises”.

16) The site where the aforesaid residential complex VGN Platina is

constructed lies in an underdeveloped area and there is no public sewerage

disposal system or construction of sewer lines linking to a Common Effluent

Treatment Plant maintained by the civic authorities. Therefore, it is necessary

that the complex should have its own sewage disposal mechanism to treat the

domestic sewage either by constructing an individual septic system which

Page 20 of 25
consists of a septic tank linked with soak pit for each of the dwelling units or a

well designed and well operated centralized STP to treat the sewage generated

in the complex. It is a fact that initially, it was planned to have individual septic

systems but the builder argues that the construction of individual septic tanks

would not have been as efficient as the common STP and would have resulted

in causing more damage to the environment besides increasing the cost to the

residents. He further points out that there is no clear cut Sewage Treatment

Policy or guidelines issued either by the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent for

its implementation in a cluster of ordinary residential buildings and neither there

are any specifications laid down for the construction of STP or monitoring its

function. The STP is built underground and only the clarified water is processed

through the Pressure sand filter and Activated carbon filters and there is no

direct discharge of waste. The underground collection tank where the raw

sewage is collected is located at a distance of about 100 feet from the nearest

residence and this leaves adequate buffer space.

17) We do not agree with the contention of the applicant that individual

septic tanks would have been more environment friendly than centralized STP.

For small development projects with limited population it may be ideal to go in

for individual septic systems particularly where the soil conditions are

conducive for filtration and percolation of the treated water to subsoil layers

without causing groundwater pollution. But here, there are 672 residential units

Page 21 of 25
and once all the units are occupied, the total population residing in the complex

may range between 3000 - 4000 and hence, having a centralised and well

designed STP, if operated properly, will not be a cause for any concern and in

fact the STP will result in proper utilization of sewage as the treated water can

be utilized for watering the plants and for maintaining the greenery in the

complex.

18) The latest report of the DEE gives a clear picture of the existing STP

and no adverse remarks have been reported against the unit as the unit has been

revamped and defects are rectified. No doubt, improper maintenance may lead

to pollution but that cannot deter in establishing the unit in interest of the

residents. However, if the centralized STP is not maintained well it may become

a potential source of nuisance to the residents and therefore due consideration

needs to be given to minimize noise and odour problems. Though the distance

from the nearest residence is short, the measures taken by the builder in

revamping the unit and providing fence with G.I. Sheets on three sides and

compound wall on one side, etc. as reported by the DEE, may take care of the

apprehensions of the applicant.

19) With regard to obtaining consent from the Board, it is clear that the

3rd respondent builder failed to get consent before the establishment of the STP

and making it functional. However, the latest report of the DEE indicates that

the builder has filed an application for consent on 08.10.2015 but it was

Page 22 of 25
returned on 24.10.2015 for want of additional details and it is yet to be

resubmitted. In the above circumstances, we feel it necessary to issue the

following directions to ensure that the STP is made to function properly without

creating any nuisance to the residents and also without causing any pollution:

i) We direct that the 3rd respondent if not yet resubmitted the

application for getting the consent, shall submit the application

returned by the Board, duly attending to the shortcomings pointed

out by the Board within a fortnight from the date of this order and

the Board shall process the application and take appropriate decision

on granting the consent within 4 weeks thereafter.

ii) The record placed before us reveals that the functioning of

the STP is assigned to a contractor by the 3rd respondent. The

contractor shall deploy only competent Technicians to operate the

STP who shall be fully conversant with the recommended operating

procedure for which purpose, Operation and Maintenance Manual

shall be prepared if not yet prepared. For this purpose a detailed

Terms of Operation of Contract shall be finalised and implemented.

iii) Testing of samples shall be done at periodic intervals to

enable proper control of the STP’s performance.

Page 23 of 25
 iv) Operational parameters shall be regularly analyzed in a

reputed accredited lab and the data shall be utilized for performance

optimization of the plant. The results of the analysis should be

accessible to all the residents and shall be displayed on the notice

board in the complex.

v) Hours run meters shall be provided for all the machinery

and equipment and the total hours operated shall be recorded in a log

book which should be made available to the residents’ welfare

association as well as the inspecting Board officials to satisfy that

the equipments are not switched off in order to save on power bills.

vi) Generally, it is observed that removal of sludge is the most

neglected aspect of STP operation. This should be avoided and

sludge shall be removed periodically.

vii) The STP should be kept in a tidy state by good

housekeeping by cleaning and painting metal works, maintaining

with adequate lighting etc.

viii) Screenings should be removed as per schedule and

dripped dry for subsequent disposal.

ix) The operation and maintenance of the STP need to be

streamlined and upgraded if any shortcomings are noticed in future.

Page 24 of 25
 x) Sufficient spare parts for periodical maintenance as per

manufacturers’ recommendation shall be made available so that

there is no occasion for any impediment functioning of the STP.

xi) Standards prescribed for operating the standby DG set

shall be strictly followed so that there is no air and noise pollution

and necessary consent in this regard is obtained from the Board.

20) With regard to the deviation from the approved plan and indulging in

violation of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and approval

granted by the CMDA, by the 3rd respondent, as alleged by the applicant, we

cannot go into the matter since the Tribunal is mandated to look into the

environment and pollution issues that too pertaining to the enactments listed in

Schedule - I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

21) With the above directions, we dispose of this application. However,

there is no order as to costs.

(Justice M. Chockalingam)
Judicial Member

(Shri. P. S. Rao)
Expert Member
Chennai.
13th January, 2016.

Page 25 of 25