Back
Supreme Court: Punahchakran Not Required to Have Land Allotted for Environmental Clearance
In a significant ruling on environmental regulatory procedures, the has clarified that prior allotment or legal possession of land is not a mandatory precondition for submitting a application to seek under the . The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the ’s (NGT) decision to quash the environmental permissions granted to for its proposed Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal District.
The ruling also affirmed the binding nature of the ’s (RG, 2016) despite their , and upheld the validity of a land‑area relaxation granted for a facility located in a rural area.
Background: A Twisted Path to Clearance
Punahchakran applied to the (UPSIDA) in July 2021 for two adjoining plots (E‑25 and E‑26, totalling 0.89 acres) in the UPSIDC Industrial Area, Babrala, to set up a CBWTF. Before allotment was finalised, it submitted a application to the (UP SEIAA) and obtained a standard ToR on .
UPSIDA initially rejected the CBWTF allotment but later allotted the plots for “fabrication of industrial equipment.” After a change in land use was approved, the UPPCB granted a in April 2022, and UP SEIAA issued an in July 2022. These were challenged before the NGT by a competitor, , and set aside in Aniruda Panwar v. () on the ground that land procurement was a under and that the one‑acre land requirement under Clause 7 had not been met. The NGT, however, granted liberty to re‑apply after procuring additional land or seeking relaxation.
Pursuing that liberty, Punahchakran obtained land‑area relaxation from the CPCB on , which reduced the requirement from one acre to 0.89 acres subject to stringent additional control measures. On , a second EC and second CTE were granted based on the original ToR. Indotech again challenged them, and the NGT set them aside on , finding that the relaxation was invalid as Babrala did not qualify as a rural area and that the authorities had acted with .
Land Relaxation Valid: Site Located in Rural Village Noorpur
The Supreme Court relied on a factual report from the , which confirmed that the UPSIDC Industrial Area falls within Village Noorpur, under the , and is situated about 2.6 km from the boundary of . A gazette notification under the also identified the area as being in Village Noorpur.
The court held that the precondition for relaxation under —either location within municipal limits with population over 25 lakh or within a rural area—was satisfied because the site is in a rural area. The relaxation, granted after consultation with the CPCB and accompanied by additional control measures including zero liquid discharge, increased stack height, and real‑time emission monitoring, was therefore legally sound.
Application: Identification Sufficient, Not Allotment
Interpreting and the MoEF&CC Office Memorandum dated , the court drew a clear distinction between the requirements at different stages of the clearance process. It observed:
“ states that an application in can be made after the . Therefore, land allotment cannot be said to be a pre-condition for the making of an application under .”
The court explained that at the stage, the applicant need only identify a prospective site for the proposed project. A credible document showing the status of land acquisition becomes necessary only at the (Stage IV). Legal possession through a sale deed or lease deed is not required either before or at appraisal.
The court also held that does not make land procurement a strict prerequisite for initiating the EC or CTE process. The expressions “” and “” must not be interpreted to impose a higher standard than what the EIA Notification prescribes.
ToR Survives Quashing of First Clearance
The respondent argued that once the first EC was set aside, the underlying ToR automatically became invalid. Rejecting this, the court held that whether the process must restart from depends on the nature of the defect that led to the cancellation. If the defect relates only to the and not to the or ToR itself, the ToR remains valid.
“Hence, when the EC is set-aside in such cases, the applicant must not be required to mechanically restart the process, particularly when going to the starting line virtually adds nothing to the procedure and is purely redundant,” the court noted.
Since there was no or in the original that affected the ToR, and the ToR remained within its four‑year validity period under MoEF&CC OMs dated and , the second EC could validly be based on the first ToR.
Key Observations from the Court
- On the binding nature of RG, 2016 despite non‑publication in the Official Gazette: “Publication of such technical guidelines i.e. the RG, 2016, on the official website of the CPCB was reasonably sufficient.”
- On the requirement of land acquisition at the stage: “Land allotment cannot be said to be a pre-condition for the making of an application under .”
- On the effect of quashing an EC on the ToR: “When the EC is set-aside in such cases, the applicant must not be required to mechanically restart the process, particularly when going to the starting line virtually adds nothing to the procedure and is purely redundant.”
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s judgment of and restored the second EC and second CTE granted on . The court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the NGT for circulation to all its benches.
