2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4155

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BHOPAL (CENTRAL ZONE BENCH)
Sheo Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Rajeev Nayan Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Original Application No.65/2024(CZ)|I.A.No.96/2024|I.A.No.116/2024|I.A.No.125/2024

CBWTFs must strictly comply with bio-medical waste rules; violations like improper storage, outdated incinerators, data tampering justify closure, environmental compensation with interest, and alternate disposal until full remediation.

Headnote:(A) Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 - Violations by Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 33; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 5 - Extensive violations including indiscriminate storage of waste beyond 48 hours, outdated incinerator lacking 2-second residence time and bag filters, manual feeding, simulated real-time monitoring data, excess autoclave capacity without fresh consent, poor record-keeping, inadequate pollution control devices, lack of bar-coding and GPS tracking - Closure order upheld; operation prohibited until full compliance including new incinerator installation - Environmental compensation of Rs. 30,81,250/- with 6% interest from violation date; additional compensation from closure date to be calculated - Principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle, polluter pays, absolute liability for hazardous activities applied - Alternate arrangements for waste disposal mandated till compliance. (Paras 8, 15, 59)

(B) Environmental Law - Monitoring and Enforcement - Statutory regulators must ensure strict compliance; independent committees for verification; repeated violations despite prior notices warrant punitive action - CPCB guidelines for CBWTFs (site selection, buffer zones, coverage area, land requirement) mandatory - No operation without environmental clearance for capacity changes; real-time data tampering constitutes gross violation. (Paras 20, 24, 27-28, 59)

(C) Restitution and Compensation - Compound interest on environmental compensation; liability for all damages caused by improper handling - Litigation delaying compliance not permitted; courts to impose costs to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 37-59)

Facts of the case:
Application alleging violations of bio-medical waste rules by CBWTF involving long-term storage causing health risks; reports from PCB, CPCB, and Tribunal-constituted committees confirmed multiple serious lapses including tampered monitoring data, structural modifications without clearance, pathetic storage conditions, and non-compliance with treatment timelines; unit closed by PCB; project proponent sought permission claiming partial remedies but committees found persistent deficiencies.

Findings of Court:
CBWTF in gross violation; incinerator non-compliant and unsafe; closure maintained; environmental compensation payable with interest; waste collection/storage allowed only with electronic proof and disposal at authorized alternate facilities; time-bound compliance plan required.

Issues: Whether CBWTF complied with bio-medical waste rules; validity of closure order; quantum of environmental compensation; need for alternate waste disposal arrangements.

Ratio Decidendi: Hazardous waste facilities owe absolute non-delegable duty to community for highest safety standards; violations necessitate closure, compensation under polluter pays, and remedial action; statutory regulators to enforce strictly with independent verification; no operation till full rule compliance including modern equipment and clearances.

Result: Original Application disposed with directions for punitive action, payment of compensation, continued closure of incineration, alternate disposal, and compliance monitoring.

Table of Content
1. bio-medical waste storage violations causing infections. (Para 1 , 2)
2. initial pcb reports highlight incinerator deficiencies. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. tribunal constitutes committee for site inspection. (Para 6 , 7)
4. committee finds multiple bmw rules violations. (Para 8)
5. project proponent claims compliances and operations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 15)
6. pcb justifies closure for non-compliances. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17)
7. ongoing violations persist despite notices. (Para 18 , 19)
8. cpcb guidelines mandate cbwtf compliances. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
9. proper bmw management prevents disease spread. (Para 22)
10. apply sustainable development and polluter pays. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
11. unit exceeds coverage without upgrades. (Para 35)
12. absolute liability for hazardous activities. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
13. restitution via compound interest for delays. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
14. impose costs for evading environmental compliance. (Para 58)
15. enforce closure, compensation, and remediation. (Para 59 , 60 , 61)

ORDER

1. The issues raised in this applications are the violation of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules by M/s Indo Water Management and Pollution Control Corporation at Badkheda, Tehsil Uchehara District Satna where the Bio Medical Waste are stored for months and are not disposed within a time frame prescribed in the rules, causing infection and spreading the various kind of disease among the local residents

2. A factual and action taken report was called by this Tribunal and in compliance of the order, the State Pollution Control Board has filed the report, which is on record.

3. The report reveals the violations on the point of incinerator and it has been narrated that :-

i. The incinerator is of very old technology and it does not even have a bag house to control air pollution and the biomedical waste was being fed manually, hence there is a need for up gradation in this incinerator or modern Technology incinerator should be installed.

ii. Where unloading of biomedical waste that it should be in covered shed.

iii. Sufficient height of the Boundary walls should be constructed remaining area of the premises.

iv. One stand-by incinerator should be install at the time of any maintenance of the present incinerator.

4. In the meantime, on assembly question, the State PCB has constituted an independent team to submit the report. There are two reports. With regard to second report, the PCB has submitted that considering the aspect of verifying the monitoring compliance by the CBWTF, the Technical Section of the MPPCB had referred the matter to the ERC Officer of the board to examine the allegations of non-compliances by the CBWTF.

5. It is further submitted that for lack of coordination, two reports have been filed which has been submitted to the Tribunal. The inspection report dated 28.05.2024 has highlighted various lapses on part of the CBWTF and show-cause notice was issued under Section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Reasons have been submitted that an assembly question vide Sl. No. 171 was raised in the assembly and the board was directed by the higher authorities to submit the correct report. Since, the State PCB is statutory body and responsibility to implement the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and implement the environmental rules are with the State PCB, thus, being statutory body, the State PCB is at liberty to inspect the unit when it is required.

6. The matter was again taken up by this Tribunal on 20.11.2024 on an application/I.A. No. 116/2024 moved by the project proponent, the matter was considered and this Tribunal observed as follows :-

i. In light of the above facts, the applicant has moved an interim application No. 116/2024 with the prayer to permit its operation on the ground of followin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document