Gujarat HC Dismisses PIL Against Sarigam Industry as Frivolous, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost on Petitioner
The Division Bench found the petitioner's pollution allegations against a paper manufacturer false and misleading after GPCB inspection reports showed ambient air, noise, and water standards were being met.
The High Court of Gujarat has dismissed a public interest litigation that sought the closure of a paper manufacturing unit in Sarigam, District Valsad, on allegations of air, noise, and water pollution. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, leading the Division Bench with Justice D.N. Ray, found the petition to be motivated and filed by a busybody who had made false and misleading assertions about the industry. The Bench imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner for misuse of the court's process and directed that the amount be used for tree plantation benefiting orphan and tribal children in the area, through the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. The judgment, delivered on 18 August 2026, turned on a detailed affidavit filed by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, which the petitioner failed to specifically deny.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner, a resident of Sarigam engaged in a manpower supply business, filed the PIL claiming personal affectation because he visits the vicinity of the plant daily. He also asserted that he was espousing the cause of tribal residents and others living near the plant, who, according to him, were unwilling to come forward owing to threats to their livelihoods.
The industry in question — Respondent No. 8 — manufactures finished paper products for domestic and international markets. The petitioner described it as a standalone unit located approximately 100 metres from tribal homes, with four schools within 500 to 700 metres of the plant.
The reliefs sought were sweeping: an investigating committee to examine all environmental violations, immediate stoppage of night-time noise, cessation of operations of a plastic waste-fired boiler, and temporary suspension of the Environmental Clearance dated 29 January 2019 granted by the Gujarat State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority.
Notice was not issued to the private respondent after the GPCB filed its detailed reply. The Bench decided the petition on that reply alone, finding no substance in the petitioner's contentions even at that stage.
What the Petitioner Alleged
The petitioner's case rested on several distinct grievances. He contended that the industry had originally obtained Environmental Clearance in 2018 as a Zero Liquid Discharge unit but later changed its process and began discharging treated effluent into the Common Effluent Treatment Plant at Sarigam. A fresh Environmental Clearance dated 29 January 2019 was granted by SEIAA Gujarat for a pulp and paper unit and a 30 MW captive power plant, subject to 120 conditions — conditions the petitioner claimed were routinely flouted.
On the boiler issue, the petitioner alleged that since 2024 the unit had been operating a 34.5 TPH boiler powering a 7.5 MW captive power plant fuelled entirely by non-recyclable plastic waste, including petroleum-based plastic, at approximately 2,20,000 kg per day. He argued this activity violated the EIA Notification, 2006 as well as Sections 7 and 8 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, because no fresh Environmental Clearance had been obtained for it. He further contended that GPCB's grant of a Consent to Establish for the power plant in May 2024 was itself illegal.
On air quality, a 2023 test by Eco Clean Consulting Services was cited to show that ambient air quality did not meet prescribed standards. On noise, the petitioner alleged substantial night-time noise around 10:00 p.m. On the green belt condition (Condition No. 50 of the EC), he claimed that no green belt had been developed despite the requirement, and that satellite imagery showed no trees, contradicting the industry's own claim of having planted more than 15,000 trees.
GPCB's Reply and Inspection Record
GPCB filed a detailed affidavit dated 28 July 2026 through the Unit Head, Sarigam. The board addressed two broad categories of allegation: the industry's alleged pollution, and the supposed inaction by regulatory authorities.
On location, GPCB flatly contradicted the petitioner's description of the unit as a standalone industry in a residential area. Its affidavit placed the industry on a 100-acre spread in Sarigam village, with Enem Industrial Park adjacent to it (five operational units), Ananta Industrial Park at 450 metres (two units), GIDC Sarigam at 400 metres with 491 industrial units, and large facilities such as Bioaltus Pharmaceuticals, Jainex Electricals, and Pidilite Industries within 500 metres.
GPCB listed nine inspections between January 2025 and June 2026: 31 January 2025, 30 May 2025, 21 July 2025, 13 October 2025, 29 October 2025, 7 November 2025, 2 February 2026, 9 April 2026, and 10 June 2026. Several were triggered by the petitioner's own complaints.
On water pollution, the inspection of 30 May 2025 confirmed that the logbook data for treated effluent discharge from the industry matched the corresponding data in the CETP logbook, ruling out any diversion. Groundwater samples collected from three locations on 30 May 2025 and 9 April 2026 showed no contamination.
On air quality, the board stated that ambient air quality appeared normal and that no significant increase in pollution attributable to the plant was found. The online continuous emission monitoring system was showing a stagnant value of 503.83 mg/Nm³ against the prescribed standard of 600 mg/Nm³. A direction notice was issued on 28 November 2025; the industry reported a malfunctioning SO₂ sensor, which was then repaired. Values were subsequently verified physically and matched online system data. Third-party Schedule-II Environmental Auditors conducting annual monitoring during 2022–23, 2023–24, and 2024–25 found results within National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
On noise, noise testing on 9 April 2026 showed compliance with ambient standards. In the final inspection on 10 June 2026, the unit was found compliant with all operating conditions and had commenced installation of an acoustic enclosure on the blower house.
GPCB acknowledged that Sarigam is close to Vapi, a designated non-attainment city with an Air Quality Index often above 250 ppm. It noted that the air quality issue in the Vapi industrial belt is already before the National Green Tribunal in three separate original applications, in which GPCB is a party and the Tribunal is monitoring the situation and overseeing implementation of action plans.
On the green belt, during the October 2025 inspection the industry was found to have sown about 12,000 trees and plants, including Miyawaki forestation. By April 2026, 2,000 additional trees had been planted near the Effluent Treatment Plant. A plantation action plan under CPCB guidelines had been submitted.
On the boiler question, GPCB relied on an Office Memorandum dated 23 January 2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (No. F-No.22-24/2018-IA-III), which clarifies that captive power plants employing Waste Heat Recovery Boilers without auxiliary fuel in existing industries having potential for heat recovery do not attract the EIA Notification, 2006. GPCB stated that Respondent No. 8 had obtained Environmental Clearance for a captive power plant using a waste heat boiler without auxiliary fuel, and that a Consolidated Consent and Authorization dated 1 April 2025 had been granted for the 34.5 TPH boiler generating 7.5 MW by receiving 220 metric tonnes per day of non-recyclable plastic waste as fuel.
How the Petitioner Responded — and Why the Bench Rejected It
The petitioner filed a rejoinder, but the Bench found it wanting. None of the specific paragraphs of the GPCB affidavit were specifically denied; instead, the rejoinder offered explanatory statements about ambient air quality methodology and how industrial areas are notified.
On the boiler exemption, the petitioner's rejoinder argued at length that the Office Memorandum of 23 January 2019 could not apply. The rejoinder pointed out that the Memorandum exempts plants employing Waste Heat Recovery Boilers “without using any auxiliary fuel” in industries having potential for heat recovery, and that a boiler burning 220 tonnes per day of externally procured plastic waste is not a waste heat recovery boiler but a combustion device. It further argued that Condition No. 32 of the EC dated 29 January 2019 specified the fuel for the steam boiler as imported coal plus de-inking sludge, and that no clearance existed for plastic waste as fuel. The rejoinder also contended that pulp and paper manufacture is not among the industry categories listed in the Memorandum.
The Bench, however, took the view that the GPCB's categorical stand — that the industry held the relevant exemption — had not been specifically denied in the rejoinder. The court found that vague and misleading assertions had been made in both the writ petition and the affidavit-in-rejoinder. The assertion that no action had been taken by GPCB was found to be false in light of the inspection record.
The Bench concluded that the petitioner — a businessman in the manpower supply trade — appeared to have “targeted the respondent no.8 – industry” for reasons best known to him, by making false statements about the industry operating without clearance, being a standalone unit in a residential area, and causing pollution.
The court noted that it had nevertheless required GPCB to file a detailed reply because the matter concerned the environment, and it wanted to ensure that no actual violations were being overlooked. Having received that reply and examined the inspection records, the Bench was satisfied that ambient air quality, noise standards, and water quality were all meeting prescribed norms.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed R/Writ Petition (PIL) No. 24 of 2026 as a motivated and frivolous petition filed by a busybody. A cost of ₹1,00,000 was imposed on the petitioner for misuse of the court's process and wastage of judicial time. The cost is to be deposited within three weeks before the Registrar General of the High Court, who will transmit it to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for use in planting trees in an area chosen by the Authority, for the benefit of orphan and tribal children under its programmes.
The Civil Application for Joining Party, filed alongside the PIL, did not survive the dismissal and was disposed of accordingly.