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 regularizes back period consents without ec. (Para 1) |
| 2. notification violates polluter pays and precautionary principles. (Para 2 , 3 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. back period fees rationalize dual penalties, regularize consents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. cte/cto mandatory; retrospective regularization violates law. (Para 13) |
| 5. strict compliance with consent laws and cpcb ec methodology required. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. pcb order exceeds jurisdiction, contravenes environmental principles. (Para 26) |
| 7. quash pcb order; direct compliance with 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 Env
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
