Back
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BHOPAL (CENTRAL ZONE BENCH)
Sheo Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Tahir Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. state pcb notification exempts ec for regularized back period. (Para 1) |
| 2. notification violates polluter pays and precautionary principles. (Para 2 , 3 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. rspcb procedures for back period fees and specific cases. (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. consent requirements under air and water acts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. cpcb report opposes retrospective consent regularization. (Para 13) |
| 6. order exceeds jurisdiction, violates environmental laws. (Para 26) |
| 7. appeal allowed; modify order per cpcb guidelines. (Para 27 , 28) |
ORDER
1. The State Pollution Control Board Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 02.01.2024, issued a notification as follows:-
“ d. No Environmental Compensation would be levied for the Back Period for which Consent to operate has been regularised.
e. …..
f….
g….
it is further clarified that this dispensation would also be applicable in case where demand of Environmental Compensation raised on account of “Back Period” is yet to be deposited”
2. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant are that the above notification is in violation of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention and C
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
