SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 765

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Pune Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 258-259 of 2021, Civil Appeal Nos. 265-266 of 2021
Decided on : 12-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Parmeshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Aman Varma, AOR Ms. Aditi Desai, Adv. Ms. Riya Wasade, Adv. Mr. A.N.S. Nadhkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Garg, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Kumar, AOR Mr. Shrom Sethi, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Mohan, Adv. Mr. S. S. Rebello, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ninad Laud,Adv. Ivo D’Costa,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni,Adv. Ms. Rashika Narain,Adv. Ms. Ishani Shekhar,Adv. Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Devanshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Prakash Dubey, Adv. Mr. Akash Alex, Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr.Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Mohdd. Akhil, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. K Parmeshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Aman Varma, AOR Ms. Aditi Desai, Adv. Ms. Riya Wasade, Adv.

The court established that environmental regulations applicable to waste processing facilities depend on the timeline of their establishment and that prior compliance with earlier rules is sufficient.

Headnote:

Environmental - Garbage Processing Plant - NGT Act, MRTP Act, 2000 Rules, 2016 Rules - The court analyzed the applicability of environmental regulations and the validity of the GPP's operations, ultimately ruling that the GPP was compliant with the relevant laws and should continue operations.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves appeals against a National Green Tribunal order directing the closure of a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) in Pune, which was established under a sanctioned Development Plan. The Tribunal found the GPP violated environmental norms, prompting the appeals from the Pune Municipal Corporation and the GPP operator.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the GPP was established in compliance with the relevant environmental laws and that the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding the applicability of the 2016 Rules and the necessity of consent under the Water and Air Acts.

Issues: The main issues were whether the GPP was operating in violation of environmental laws and whether the Tribunal's order for closure was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the GPP was compliant with the applicable 2000 Rules and that the 2016 Rules did not retroactively apply to the GPP, which was established prior to their enactment.

Result: The appeals are allowed, and the Tribunal's orders are quashed, allowing the GPP to continue operations.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. These Civil Appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 27th October 2020 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi1[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’.] in Original Application2[Hereinafter referred to as OA] No. 210 of 20203[Earlier OA No. 34 of 2019 (WZ). Initially the OA was preferred before the Tribunal, Western Zone, and was subsequently transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi.] wherein the Tribunal disposed of the OA preferred by the Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, Respondent No. 1 herein, by directing the Pune Municipal Corporation4[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant-Corporation’.] to close the Garbage Processing Plant5[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘GPP’.] operated by Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP6[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent-Concessionaire’.], at Baner, Pune and to shift the same to an alternate location in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board7[Hereinafter referred to as the “CPCB”.], within 4 months from the date of the order. Having directed the closure of the GPP, the Tribunal further granted liberty to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board8 [Hereinafter referred to as the “MPCB”.] to recover environmental compensation on the basis of ‘polluter pays’ principle from the GPP for the entirety of the period during which the environmental norms were violated by the GPP. Seeking a review of the aforesaid order, the respondent-Concessionaire, the operator of the aforementioned GPP, filed a Review Application being No. 49 of 2020 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 22nd December 2020. The said order is also under challenge in these present appeals.

2. We have two Civil Appeals before us. The first set of Civil Appeals being CA Nos. 258-259 of 2021 have been filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation. The second set of Civil Appeals being CA Nos. 265-66 of 2021 have been filed by Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP. For the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion, the parties will be referred to according to their positions in the first set of civil appeals.

3. The facts which give rise to the present appeals are as under:

3.1. Upon the municipal limits of the appellant-Corporation being extended to include Baner Balewadi, a Development Plan was drawn up in 2002 wherein land situated at Survey No. 48/2/1 in Baner Balewadi, Pune was reserved for the purpose of a GPP. In 2004, a public hearing was conducted for the purpose of drawing up a new development plan, subsequent to which, the Planning Committee of the appellant-Corporation submitted its report on 30th December 2004 to the General Body of the appellant-Corporation earmarking the aforesaid land for a GPP in the Draft Development Plan of 2005. The said Plan was submitted to the Government of Maharashtra on 29th November 2005 whereafter the Plan came to be sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification dated 18th September, 2008.

3.2. In the interregnum, while the aforesaid Plan was pending approval, in 2005, permission was sought for constructing a residential building being Tarai Heights at a site which was approximately 100 metres away from the earmarked land in Survey No. 48/2/1 and subsequently, in 2008, permission was sought for constructing another residential building being 52 Green Woods at a site which was approximately 140 metres away from the aforesaid earmarked land. In said fashion, over the years, permission for construction of similar such residential projects were sought in and around the earmarked portion of land. The last such permission was sought in 2019 for the construction of a residential building being Platinum 9.

3.3. Subsequent to the Development Plan of 2005 being sanctioned, the appellant-Corporation and the respondent- Concessionaire, Respondent No. 7 in the first appeal, entered into a Concession Agreement on 30th March 2015 for setting up an Organic Waste Processing Plant at

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top