2022 Supreme(SC) 961

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
D. Swamy – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3132 of 2018
Decided On : 22-09-2022

IMPORTANT POINT
Environmental Clearance – Where adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto approval outweigh consequences of regularization of operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and establishment concerned otherwise conforms to requisite pollution norms, ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law.

Headnote:

(A) General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 21 – Power to amend, vary or rescind any notification, order, rule or bye-law – Power under Section 21 of General Clauses Act to amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws can be exercised from time to time having regard to exigency. (Paras 23 and 36)

(B) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – National Green Tribunal Act 2010 – Section 18(1) read with Section 14 – Closure of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility – Alleged non-compliance of provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 – Observation of Division Bench that a one time relaxation was permissible, is not to be construed as a finding that relaxation cannot be made more than once – A statement made by Counsel in Court would not prevent authority concerned from making amendments and/or modifications provided such amendments and/or modifications were as per procedure prescribed by law – Ex post facto Environmental Clearance (EC) should not ordinarily be granted, and certainly not for the asking – At the same time ex post facto clearances and/or approvals and/or removal of technical irregularities in terms of a Notification under EP Act cannot be declined with pedantic rigidity – EP Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance – Grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where projects are in compliance with, or can be made to comply with environment norms, is not impermissible – Court cannot be oblivious to economy or need to protect livelihood of hundreds of employees and others employed in project and others dependent on project, if such projects comply with environmental norms. (Paras 36, 40, 41 and 49)

(C) National Green Tribunal Act 2010 – Section 18(1) read with Section 14 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Closure of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility – Alleged non-compliance of provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 – Need to comply with requirement to obtain Environmental Clearance is non-negotiable – A unit can be set up or allowed to expand subject to compliance of requisite environmental norms – EC is granted on condition of suitability of site to set up unit, from environmental angle and also existence of necessary infrastructural facilities and equipment for compliance of environmental norms – To protect future generations and to ensure sustainable development, it is imperative that pollution laws be strictly enforced – Under no circumstances can industries, which pollute, be allowed to operate unchecked and degrade environment – Where adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto approval outweigh consequences of regularization of operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and establishment concerned otherwise conforms to requisite pollution norms, ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law – Closure of facility only on the ground of want of prior Environmental Clearance would be against public interest – NGT rightly found that when Bio-Medical Waste Treatment facility of Appellant was being operated with requisite consent to operate, it could not be closed on the ground of want of prior Environmental Clearance – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 46, 47 and 50)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal, under Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act 2010, is against a final order dated 10th May 2017 passed by National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, dismissing 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, whereby the Appellant had prayed for a direction for closure of the Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility run by Respondent No.3, on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006.

Findings of Court:

There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order of NGT in appeal as rightly argued by KSPCB and the Respondent No.3. The appeal is barred by delay. In any case, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law.

Result : Appeal dismissed.