Read Time: 06 minutes
The Bench was of the opinion, "This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the operation of a Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility is in the interest of prevention of environmental pollution. The closure of the facility only on the ground of want of prior Environmental Clearance would be against public interest".
A Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari, on Thursday, dismissed an appeal on not raising any substantial question of law, and being barred by delay. The matter challenged an impugned order of the National green Tribunal (NGT), where the Tribunal was of the opinion, that a Bio-Medical Treatment Facility could not be closed down for want of an Environment Clearance (EC).
The Bench was of the opinion,
"...This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the operation of a Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility is in the interest of prevention of environmental pollution. The closure of the facility only on the ground of want of prior Environmental Clearance would be against public interest".
In the present matter an appeal was filed under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, against an order by the NGT, Southern Zone, Chennai. The appellant sought for a direction for closure of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility run by the Respondent, on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006.
NGT in its order was of the opinion, that when a Bio-Medical Waste Treatment facility was being operated with the requisite consent to operate, it could not be closed on the ground of want of prior Environmental Clearance.
The Bench while considering the impugned order, was of the opinion that it did not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the NGT, and further held that, the EP Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance.
The Court underlined words from, Electrosteel Steels Limited v. UOI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1247, that said 'ex post facto clearances in terms of the EP Act cannot be declined with pedantic rigidity, oblivious of the consequences of stopping the operation of mines, running factories and plants'.
On the fact of ex post facto EC, the Bench opined that, "The EP Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance. Grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance with, or can be made to comply with environment norms, is in our view not impermissible. The Court cannot be oblivious to the economy or the need to protect the livelihood of hundreds of employees and others employed in the project and others dependent on the project, if such projects comply with environmental norms".
An array of judgments were referred to, which raised and reemphasised the proposition of law, that was under scrutiny, and was vehemently objected to by the appellant.
However, the Court did underline the importance to obtain EC, and the requirement being non-negotiable. And also the need to establish necessary infrastructural facilities and compliances of environmental reforms, to protect the future generations along with sustainable development. Further, it stated that no industry is to be allowed that degrade the environment with unchecked standards.
CASE TITLE: D Swamy vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Others
Please Login or Register
