Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a final order dated 10 May 2017 by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, which dismissed Application No.169 of 2016 (SZ) filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) read with Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The appellant had sought a direction for closure of a Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility operated by the third respondent, alleging non-compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 as amended. The facility had obtained consent from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, valid from 24 November 2012. Previous litigation involved appeals by another operator, M/s Shree Consultant, which were dismissed, and a judgment by the National Green Tribunal on 28 November 2013 requiring environmental clearance for such facilities. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change amended the 2006 Notification on 17 April 2015 to include this requirement. The respondent applied for consent to operate, which was granted and renewed. The key legal issue was the validity of Notification S.O. 804(E) dated 14 March 2017, issued under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, which provided for ex post facto environmental clearance for projects commenced without prior clearance. The appellant argued for closure due to non-compliance, while the respondents relied on the notification and consent orders. The court analyzed the statutory framework, noting that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the power to issue notifications includes the power to amend them, as upheld in Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others. The Madras High Court had previously refused to interfere with the 2017 notification, holding it did not compromise environmental purity. The Supreme Court found the notification valid and that the facility's operation was subject to compliance with environmental norms. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the NGT's order and the validity of the ex post facto clearance mechanism.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Ex Post Facto Clearance - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Sections 3(1), 3(2)(v) and Rule 5(3)(d) - The Central Government issued Notification S.O. 804(E) dated 14 March 2017 allowing ex post facto environmental clearance for projects commenced without prior clearance - The notification was challenged but upheld by courts as a valid exercise of statutory power under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Held that the notification does not compromise environmental purity and provides a mechanism for regularization subject to compliance (Paras 21-24). B) Environmental Law - Statutory Notifications - Amendment Power - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 21 - The power to issue notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 includes the power to amend, vary, or rescind them under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - This power can be exercised from time to time based on exigencies, as established in precedent - Held that the authority had the power to issue the 2017 notification amending earlier notifications (Paras 22-23). C) Environmental Law - Bio-Medical Waste Treatment - Consent and Clearance Requirements - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 - Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities require consent under water and air pollution acts and environmental clearance under the 2006 EIA Notification as amended - The respondent obtained consent from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the issue of environmental clearance was addressed through the ex post facto notification - Held that the facility's operation was subject to compliance with these requirements (Paras 3-4, 8-11, 16). D) Procedural Law - Appeal Dismissal - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Sections 14, 18(1), 22 - The appellant filed an application under Sections 14 and 18(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 seeking closure of the facility, which was dismissed by the NGT - The Supreme Court heard the appeal under Section 22 of the same Act - Held that the NGT's dismissal was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed (Paras 1, 25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Green Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for closure of the Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility on grounds of non-compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006, and the validity of the ex post facto environmental clearance notification dated 14 March 2017
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the National Green Tribunal and the validity of Notification S.O. 804(E) dated 14 March 2017
Law Points
- Ex post facto environmental clearance is permissible under statutory notifications
- power to amend notifications includes power to add provisions
- statutory notifications are valid if issued under proper authority
- compliance with environmental norms is mandatory for operation of facilities
