WAJAHAT SHABIR
SRINAGAR: Facing allegations of irregularities in granting environmental clearances to industries in Kathua, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has presented a detailed defense to the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
These allegations, arising from a news report dated September 10, 2024, claimed that industrial units in Kathua were granted Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) without adhering to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) rules. The CPCB clarified its role, emphasizing its commitment to strict adherence to environmental guidelines and legal frameworks.
The case stems from a news report alleging irregularities in granting permissions to polluting industries in Kathua, with potential consequences for public health and the environment.
Following the report, the NGT directed the CPCB to explain the processes involved and outline its oversight responsibilities. In its affidavit, the CPCB underscored its statutory mandate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It clarified that while CPCB provides overall guidance, implementation of consent protocols lies with the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs).
CPCB’s reply explained its Pollution Index-based categorization system, which classifies industries into Red, Orange, Green, and White categories based on their pollution potential.
The Pollution Index accounts for water and air pollution levels, hazardous waste generation, and resource consumption. Red category industries, identified as highly polluting, require stringent monitoring, while Orange and Green categories represent medium and low pollution potential. White category industries, considered non-polluting, are exempt from obtaining CTOs.
The CPCB stated that of the 429 industries operating in Kathua, 38 were classified under the Red category, 219 under Orange, and 173 under Green. It assured that all classifications adhered to its prescribed standards. Furthermore, out of the 429 units, 10 required mandatory environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006, which had been duly obtained. The CPCB emphasized that granting CTE and CTO to industries was done following proper assessments and compliance with all legal requirements.
Addressing the allegations of lax monitoring, CPCB detailed its extensive communication with the Jammu & Kashmir Pollution Control Committee (J&K PCC). Letters and emails exchanged between November 2024 and January 2025 included requests for action-taken reports and updates on the industries in question. In response, J&K PCC confirmed that consent approvals were granted following due diligence and environmental guidelines. The CPCB also highlighted its directives issued under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water and Air Acts to ensure consistency in the categorization of industries and proper enforcement of pollution control measures.
The report that triggered the inquiry had raised significant concerns about the environmental impact of industrial activities in Kathua. Allegations of industries bypassing EIA protocols and operating with inadequate pollution controls underscored the need for robust local monitoring systems. The CPCB, while defending its position, reiterated that state-level SPCBs and PCCs are primarily responsible for enforcing pollution norms on the ground.
CPCB’s affidavit also reaffirmed its commitment to promoting sustainable industrial practices. The categorization system, it argued, incentivizes industries to adopt cleaner technologies and minimize environmental impact. The board emphasized that it balances environmental sustainability with the “Ease of Doing Business” initiative, ensuring that industrial development does not compromise ecological objectives.
The case highlights the critical importance of balancing industrial growth with environmental preservation, particularly in sensitive regions like Kathua. CPCB’s detailed response serves as a reminder of the challenges involved in enforcing environmental laws amid expanding industrial activities. The NGT’s eventual ruling in this matter is expected to set a precedent for similar cases, potentially strengthening regulatory frameworks and compliance mechanisms.
In conclusion, the CPCB assured the NGT of its readiness to implement any further directives and pledged continued efforts to enhance transparency and accountability in pollution control measures. As the nation grapples with the dual demands of economic growth and environmental sustainability, cases like these underscore the need for robust regulatory systems and proactive monitoring to safeguard public health and the environment.
