TNPCB defends Rs six crore penalty on ‘repeat offender’ CPCL
CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) has strongly defended its decision before the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to levy `6.24 crore as environmental compensation on the Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (CPCL) for repeated emission violations at its Manali facilities.
In a reply affidavit submitted recently, the TNPCB said the compensation was computed strictly in line with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines, using data from the Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) installed at CPCL’s own stacks and connected to the board’s servers. The TNPCB argued that exceedances recorded over months across multiple units were undisputed.
According to the TNPCB, CPCL’s various plants, including Refinery I, II and CPP, Refinery III, the Propylene Plant, Resid Upgradation Project and DHDS Plant, together recorded hundreds of days of excess emissions between April 2019 and December 2020. Based on this, the board worked out a total compensation of `6.24 crore.
It told the tribunal that it had first issued directions on October 27, 2020, requiring CPCL to revamp its pollution control equipment and ensure strict compliance. However, the violations continued, leading to the February 24, 2025 order directing the company to remit the compensation. “It is the duty of the occupier to operate pollution control systems efficiently round the clock. Failure to do so amounts to negligence,” the affidavit said. The TNPCB stressed that the levy was not arbitrary but backed by technical data and statutory powers under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
On the other hand, CPCL has contested the penalty, telling the tribunal that occasional exceedances were inevitable in a complex refinery operation. The company attributed many of the incidents to process disturbances, power supply fluctuations and unavoidable upsets, and insisted that these were not wilful or sustained violations.
CPCL said it had invested heavily in emission control and monitoring systems, including flue gas desulphurisation units, electrostatic precipitators and upgraded the CEMS, and was working continuously with the TNPCB to improve performance. It also pointed out that it had already deposited `3.12 crore — 50% of the compensation amount — as directed by the tribunal while seeking interim relief.
The NGT is now examining whether CPCL’s explanations mitigate liability and the balance amount should be recovered.