Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal arising from a judgment and order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No. 04 of 2024. The NGT had set aside an Environmental Clearance dated 20.12.2023 and a Consent to Establish dated 20.12.2023 granted in favour of the appellant for establishment of a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility. The dispute concerned compliance with the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. Initially, a CBWTF did not require prior Environmental Clearance, but the Schedule of the EIA, 2006 was amended on 17.04.2015 to include bio-medical waste treatment facility. The appellant, a private limited company, applied for allotment of plots E-25 and E-26 in UPSIDC Industrial Area, Babrala, District Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh for establishing a CBWTF. Its initial allotment applications were rejected, but after applying for a different industrial purpose (fabrication of industrial equipment), the land was allotted on 15.09.2021. The appellant submitted a Form 1 application on 11.08.2021 for Terms of Reference, and the UP SEIAA issued the first ToR on 17.08.2021. The UPPCB granted a conditional Consent to Establish on 26.04.2022, and the UP SEAC recommended Environmental Clearance on 16.06.2022, which was granted on 13.07.2022. These were challenged before the NGT in Original Application No. 622 of 2022. The NGT vide judgment dated 31.07.2023 set aside the first CTE and first EC as illegal, null, void, holding that Clause 2 of RG, 2016 requires procurement of land as a condition precedent and Clause 7 requires a minimum one-acre plot, while the appellant's plot was 0.89 acres without proper relaxation. Liberty was granted to re-apply after procuring additional land or seeking relaxation. The appellant then pursued adjacent plot E-27, submitted a fresh Form 1 on 07.08.2023, obtained a second ToR on 10.08.2023, and sought relaxation from CPCB, which was granted on 17.11.2023 with additional control measures. Second EC and CTE were granted on 20.12.2023. Respondent No. 1, a competitor in biomedical waste treatment, challenged these before the NGT in Appeal No. 04 of 2024, which set them aside on 05.07.2024. The Supreme Court framed issues on mandatory nature of RG, 2016, authentication under Article 77, permissibility of relaxation, stage of land acquisition, and validity of second ToR. The provided excerpt does not include the Supreme Court's final analysis and decision.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Mandatory Nature of Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 - Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016, Clause 2 - The Supreme Court considered whether RG, 2016 is mandatory and whether non-publication in Official Gazette affects its mandatory nature. The NGT had held that Clause 2 of RG, 2016 makes procurement of land a condition precedent for EC and CTE applications. (Paras 1-19) B) Environmental Law - Land Requirement - Relaxation of Minimum One-Acre Plot Requirement - Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016, Clause 7 - The NGT held that a CBWTF must be set up in plot size not less than one acre and relaxation may be granted only after fulfilling criteria and imposing additional control measures; the appellant's plot of 0.89 acres required explicit relaxation. CPCB later granted relaxation on 17.11.2023 with specific measures. (Paras 16-19) C) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance Process - Stage of Land Acquisition - Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, Clause 6 and O.M. dated 07.10.2014; Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016, Clause 2 - The Supreme Court framed issue of whether land acquisition is required at Form 1 stage, appraisal stage, or CTE stage under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981. (Paras 1-19) D) Administrative Law - Terms of Reference - Validity of Second ToR and EC Based on First ToR - Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - The Supreme Court considered whether grant of second EC on basis of first ToR is permissible after NGT set aside first EC/CTE, and the validity period of ToR. (Paras 14-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 are mandatory; whether non-publication in Official Gazette affects their mandatory nature; permissibility of relaxation in land requirement; status of land acquisition at different stages; validity of second EC based on first ToR
Law Points
- Environmental Clearance required for bio-medical waste treatment facility under EIA Notification 2006
- Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities 2016 mandatory
- Land procurement condition precedent for EC and CTE
- Relaxation of one-acre land requirement subject to criteria and additional control measures
- Terms of Reference validity
- Authentication under Article 77 of Constitution
