The Supreme Court has set aside a National Green Tribunal order that had annulled the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent to Establish (CTE) granted to a proposed Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) in Uttar Pradesh.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, in Punahchakran Pvt Ltd v. Indotech Waste Solution, held that the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016, framed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), have mandatory force and must be complied with by all concerned authorities and project proponents.
The Court also clarified that the absence of publication of the 2016 Guidelines in the Official Gazette does not, by itself, render them unenforceable. Since neither the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 nor the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 prescribe a particular mode of publication for the Guidelines, their publication on the CPCB’s official website was held to constitute a reasonable mode of dissemination.
The dispute concerned a proposed CBWTF at the UPSIDC Industrial Area in Babrala, Sambhal district, Uttar Pradesh. Punahchakran Private Limited had proposed setting up the facility on two plots measuring approximately 0.89 acres.
The company had submitted its Form 1 application for environmental clearance in August 2021. Although its initial request for allotment of the land for a bio-medical waste treatment facility was rejected, the plots were subsequently allotted for fabrication of industrial equipment.
The first Terms of Reference (ToR) was issued in August 2021, followed by a Consent to Establish in April 2022 and Environmental Clearance in July 2022.
The approvals were subsequently challenged before the NGT in Aniruda Panwar v. MoEF&CC. The Tribunal set aside the first EC and CTE in July 2023, holding, among other things, that procurement of land was a prerequisite under the 2016 Guidelines and that the project did not satisfy the one-acre land requirement.
The NGT, however, permitted the project proponent to approach the authorities afresh after either securing additional land or obtaining an appropriate relaxation.
Following this liberty, the CPCB granted relaxation of the one-acre requirement in November 2023, subject to several additional environmental safeguards. These included zero-liquid-discharge measures, enhanced stack height, stricter emission standards, odour-control mechanisms, installation of an Online Continuous Emission Monitoring System and restrictions on the initial incinerator capacity.
A second EC and CTE were thereafter granted in December 2023. These approvals were again challenged before the NGT by Indotech Waste Solution.
The NGT subsequently set aside the second EC and CTE in July 2024, holding that the relaxation contemplated under Clause 7(b) of the 2016 Guidelines was unavailable in the circumstances and that the authorities had acted mechanically in granting the approvals.
The Supreme Court has now reversed that determination.
On the question of the minimum land requirement, the Court examined Clause 7(b) of the 2016 Guidelines, which permits relaxation in specified circumstances where a CBWTF is situated either within a municipal area having a population exceeding 25 lakh or in a rural area.
After examining revenue and administrative records, including the District Magistrate’s report, the Court found that the industrial area in question was situated within Noorpur Gram Panchayat and approximately 2.6 kilometres from the boundary of Babrala Nagar Panchayat.
The Court consequently held that the project fell within the rural-area category contemplated under Clause 7(b). The CPCB’s decision to relax the one-acre requirement after consultation with the competent authorities and subject to additional safeguards was therefore not liable to be interfered with.
The Bench further clarified that securing final allotment of land is not a prerequisite for submitting a Form 1 application under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
At the initial screening stage, identification of prospective sites is sufficient. A credible document indicating the status of land acquisition becomes necessary at the appraisal stage, the Court held.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the first ToR automatically ceased to have legal effect once the first Environmental Clearance was quashed.
The Bench explained that the validity of a ToR has to be assessed in light of the nature of the defect that resulted in the EC being set aside. Where the infirmity relates to the appraisal stage rather than the original Form 1 application, the ToR does not automatically perish.
In the present case, the Court found that the defect identified by the NGT concerned the appraisal stage and did not invalidate the original ToR. The first ToR accordingly continued to remain available within its prescribed validity period.
The Court also addressed the relationship between environmental clearance and consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
It held that the EC and CTE processes operate on separate regulatory tracks and are not mutually dependent at the stage of obtaining consent to establish. While a Consent to Operate cannot be granted in the absence of the requisite Environmental Clearance, prior allotment of land cannot be treated as an inflexible precondition for obtaining a CTE.
The judgment therefore restores the environmental approvals granted to Punahchakran, while reiterating that the mandatory requirements contained in the 2016 Guidelines must be strictly observed.
The ruling is significant for the regulation of common bio-medical waste treatment facilities, as the Supreme Court has simultaneously recognised the binding character of the CPCB’s siting and operational safeguards and clarified the procedural stages at which different requirements under the environmental-clearance regime must be satisfied.
The judgment thus sets aside the NGT’s order and permits the project to proceed subject to compliance with the applicable environmental safeguards and conditions imposed by the competent regulatory authorities.
The post Supreme Court revives Environmental clearance for bio-medical waste facility, upholds 2016 CPCB guidelines appeared first on India Legal.