2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 287

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, Afroza Ahmad, JJ
Amardeep – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Original Application|OA 36/2024

The tribunal held that non-compliance with solid waste management, CTO/CTE provisions, and EC conditions, including failure to install STP, violated environmental laws; it imposed environmental compensation under the Polluter Pays principle and ordered remediation and strict compliance timelines.

Headnote:

(A) Laws and sections relevant to the case: - "This Tribunal is empowered to impose environmental compensation in view of the provisions contained in Section 15 read with Section 20 of NGT Act, 2010, by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays'." (para 32) - "Clause 9 of Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'EIA 2006')." (para 29) - "the period of EC was only 05 years." (para 29) - "The installation of the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) should be certified by an independent expert and a report in this regard should be submitted to the Ministry before the project is commissioned for operation. Discharge of treated sewage shall conform to the norms & standards of the Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board." (paras 26-29) - "Neither any such STP has been installed by the Developer nor there is anything to show that such report was submitted to MoEF&CC before the project is commissioned for operation." (para 27) - "Environment Protection Act, 1986" (paras 29, 29) - "Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016" (para 24) - "Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974" and "Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981" (paras 6-7, 16) - "Consent to Establish (CTE)" and "Consent to Operate (CTO)" obligations (paras 3-7, 41-42) - EC dated 16.01.2008 and its specific conditions (paras 26-31) - Environment Impact Assessment Notification and related statutory framework (para 29) - Go to the broader eco-legal framework including the Environmental laws cited in the discussion (paras 29-41)

(B) Key legal principles or points of law discussed (with supporting phrases): - "Environment belongs to everyone and its protection is everybody’s responsibility." (para 20) - "suo-moto jurisdiction of Tribunal has been recognized by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401." (para 20) - "No project proponent can claim that even if it violates environmental laws and norms and causes damage to environment still the complaint against it should not be proceeded." (para 21) - "In environmental matters, nobody’s personal property or otherwise rights are involved for protection whereof individuals or collective bodies come before Tribunal." (para 20-21) - "This Tribunal is empowered to impose environmental compensation ... by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays'." (para 32) - "The project proponent has violated environmental laws as discussed above." (para 30) - "The EC period was five years and there is no renewal/renewal of EC shown; execution/construction after expiry is a violation of EIA 2006 read with EP Act, 1986." (para 29) - "The installation of the STP should be certified by an independent expert and a report ... submitted to the Ministry before the project is commissioned for operation; discharge of treated sewage shall conform to norms." (paras 26-29) - "Mutual arrangement between Developer and MDA cannot have the effect of any alteration in the Statutory condition provided in EC dated 16.01.2008 and the condition of EC would prevail." (para 28) - "No third party rights shall be created by respondent 6 in respect of any property, in project in question, unless and until it obtains CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981." (para 38) - "The Tribunal may require remediation and compensation; compliance reports and deadlines are to be supervised by authorities such as CPCB/UPPCB/District Magistrate." (paras 32-42) (Facts of the case): - This Letter Petition dated 02.07.2023 was received complaining about non-disposal of solid waste in the society by the developer, registered as OA under the National Green Tribunal Act. (introductory para) - Joint Committee inspected the site on 15.03.2024; the township is developed in stages, Sector-7A, with 171 plots, 28 houses complete, 04 under construction; CT E dated 11.09.2008; completion and handover to Municipal Corporation yet to be obtained. (Joint Committee Report excerpt and paras 3-4) - The report notes that the colony is in a developing stage; external development work including STP and other services were due to be completed by MDA; maintenance services were not proper in Sector-7A. (paras 2-4, 9) - UPPCB notes that CTOs were not obtained and show-cause notices were issued. (paras 6-7) - Respondent 6 asserts that project is under development, with external STP connectivity to MDA’s STP; maintenance charges and financial constraints hinder service delivery; EC/CTE were obtained but CTO was not. (paras 7-12) - The project is not complete and has not been handed over to local municipal authorities; the developer is responsible for public services during development. (paras 17-25) (Findings of Court): - "Joint Committee Report clearly shows that solid waste has not been effectively handled, managed and disposed of in the project in question." (para 24) - "There is deficiency on the part of the Developer in observance of environmental laws" and the illegality of operating without CTO. (paras 25-26) - "The Developer could not have allowed discharge of sewage outside the project unless it meets the prescribed standards." (para 27) - "EC dated 16.01.2008... there is a condition that the STP should be installed and certified; discharge should meet norms before commissioning." (paras 26-27) - "The execution/construction of the project even after expiry of EC was in violation of the provisions of EIA 2006 read with EP Act, 1986." (para 29) - "We answer Issues I, II and III against respondent 6 and hold that it has violated environmental laws as discussed above." (para 30) - "This Tribunal is empowered to impose environmental compensation in view of the provisions contained in Section 15 read with Section 20 of NGT Act, 2010, by application of principle of 'Polluter Pays'." (para 32) - Damages: "the project proponent should pay environmental compensation of Rs.10.9 Crores and deposit the same with UPPCB within two months" and related directions. (paras 33-37) - "No third party rights shall be created by respondent 6 ... unless and until it obtains CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981." (para 38) - "Compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 till the project is completed and handed over to MCM" (para 39) - "The Tribunal shall ensure compliance by directing remediation and monitoring; an Environmental Remediation Plan to be prepared within 3 months and executed in the next 3 months." (paras 42-43) - OA is disposed of with these directions. (para 43) (Issues): - (I) Whether there is non-compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in regard to disposal of solid waste in the project in question? - (II) Whether respondent 6 has committed violation of environmental laws by operating the project without obtaining CTO under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 and by carrying out construction activities after expiry of EC? - (III) Whether the occupants have been denied public services with regard to handling, management and disposal of solid and liquid waste by MCM due to inaction on the part of respondent 6 in not obtaining Completion Certificate and handover to MCM? - (IV) What effective orders are required for remediation and compliance? (Ratio Decidendi): - There is clear contravention of the EC conditions and statutory norms; the project was not complete at inspection, EC had expired, and STP was not installed as required by EC and independent certification. The arrangement with external authorities cannot alter statutory conditions. (paras 26-29) - The Tribunal recognized its suo-motu jurisdiction to address environmental violations, holding that environment belongs to everyone and that enforcement is not dependent on a private complaint. (paras 20-21) - The Tribunal applied the Polluter Pays principle to impose environmental compensation due to non-compliance, setting the quantum at Rs.10.9 Crores (5% baseline, adjusted for circumstances) and directing remediation. (paras 32-37) (Result): - OA disposed of with directions: pay environmental compensation, obtain CTO, complete STP installation and connect drains, ensure SWM compliance, and submit remediation and compliance reports within prescribed timelines; compliance report due by 15.07.2025 and remediation plan within 3 months, executed in 3 more months. No third party rights until CTO is obtained. (paras 36-43)

Table of Content
1. environmental complaint supported by joint inspection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. tribunal's procedural management and notices. (Para 4 , 5)
3. locus standi and compliance defenses. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. stp/cto responsibilities and inter-agency coordination. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. environmental standing and public-interest focus. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. findings of non-compliance with ec and related norms. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. polluter pays principle and enforcement authority. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
8. assessment of damages and project-cost reference. (Para 34 , 35)
9. remedial orders and final disposal of oa. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This Letter Petition dated 02.07.2023 was received from Amardeep, President, Ansal Sushant City Sector-7A, Residential Welfare Society, complaining about non-disposal of solid waste in the above society by the developer and, thereby, causing damage to environment, and, registered as Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’) in exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401 .

2. Tribunal’s Order dated 20.02.2024: Tribunal looked into the grievance on 20.02.2024 and for verification of facts, constituted a Joint Committee comprising representatives of Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPPCB’); Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Meerut; and District Magistrate, Meerut. The Committee was directed to visit the site, look into the grievances of the applicant and representative of project proponent, verify the factual position, suggest appropriate remedial action and submit factual and action taken report within one month.

Joint Inspection Report filed on 05.04.2024:

3. Consequently, vide letter dated 05.04.2024 sent by Regional Officers, UPPCB, Meerut, Joint Committee Report has been submitted which shows that the site was inspected on 15.03.2024 in the presence of complainant. The Report has said that Ansal Sushant City is developed by M/s. Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd., Ansal Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and situated at Vedvyaspuri Meerut, spread in 121.41 hectares area. The township was developed in the year 2007 in several sectors (stage wise) and Sector-7A is one of them. 171 plots were developed and sold in Sector-7A. At the time of joint inspection, 28 houses were complete and utilized for residential purposes and 04 were under construction. Consent to Establish (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTE’) was granted by UPPCB vide letter dated 11.09.2008. Secretary, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut vide letter dated 03.12.2005 informed that in Vedvyaspuri project, external development work which includes Sewage Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as ‘STP’), zonal roads, drains and external electrification are due which have to be completed by Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘MDA’). The observations, findings and remedial actions suggested by Joint Committee, stated in the report, read as under:

“During inspection only plastic waste in very less quantity has been found left and spread in the premises on vacant land. During inspection direction given to representative to remove scattered waste from vacant land of colony. Colony is under developing stage. Completion Certificate from Meerut Development Authority has not been obtained and Colony is not handed over to Municipal Corporation, Meerut.

Representative of the developer Mr. Santosh Sharma, Dy. Project Manager (Services) informed in this regard that garbage is being collected by the service provider staff and handed over to Municipal Vehicles operating in other sectors. Provisions for Common Dust Bin have been made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document