A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case primarily addresses the legality and environmental compliance of the operation of a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) at Baner, Pune, as challenged by Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the closure of the GPP, citing violations of environmental norms, including the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. However, the Supreme Court examined the NGT’s observations in light of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2000, and found substantial procedural compliance by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and its Concessionaire. The apex court noted the public interest in operating the GPP and reversed the NGT’s closure directive, emphasizing compliance with environmental guidelines and odor mitigation mechanisms.

Keywords

Garbage Processing Plant, Public Interest, Environmental Clearance, Municipal Solid Waste Management, Right to Clean Environment

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:

Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

ii) Case Number:

Civil Appeal Nos. 258-259 of 2021

iii) Judgement Date:

12 September 2024

iv) Court:

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:

B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

vi) Author:

Justice B.R. Gavai

vii) Citation:

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 374; 2024 INSC 682

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

1. Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000
2. Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016
3. Environment Protection Act, 1986

ix) Judgments Overruled:

National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, orders dated 27.10.2020 and 22.12.2020

x) Case is Related to:

Environmental Law, Public Health, Administrative Law, Urban Development

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from a challenge by Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, representing residents near Baner, Pune, against a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP). The National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed the closure of the GPP based on alleged non-compliance with environmental norms. The PMC and its concessionaire, Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP, filed appeals before the Supreme Court, arguing procedural compliance and public interest considerations in operating the plant. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the plant’s establishment adhered to legal standards under the 2000 Rules and considered the 2016 Rules’ applicability retrospectively.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Development Plan Reservation: The GPP site, Survey No. 48/2/1, was designated for a GPP in the 2002 Draft Development Plan and sanctioned in 2008 by the Maharashtra Government.
2. Environmental Clearance and Authorization: The Concessionaire received clearance and authorization in 2015 under the 2000 Rules.
3. Project Timeline: The GPP became operational in 2016 before the 2016 Rules were notified.
4. NGT Proceedings: The NGT, based on complaints from residents, found the GPP to be violating norms, including buffer zone requirements and environmental safeguards.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the GPP violated environmental norms under the 2016 Rules.
2. Whether the NGT erred in directing closure despite procedural compliance with the 2000 Rules.
3. Whether the GPP’s operation served public interest.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Compliance with 2000 Rules: The GPP complied with the 2000 Rules, as the 2016 Rules were not applicable retroactively.
2. Public Interest: The plant processed organic waste locally, reducing transportation and associated public nuisance.
3. Environmental Clearance Validity: Environmental clearance and consent to operate were obtained from relevant authorities.
4. NGT’s Erroneous Observations: The NGT misinterpreted buffer zone requirements applicable to landfill sites and not waste processing plants.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Environmental Violations: The plant caused foul odor and public nuisance, violating the right to a clean environment.
2. Buffer Zone Requirements: The 2003 checklist mandated a 500-meter buffer zone around such facilities.
3. Procedural Lapses: The PMC failed to secure necessary consent under the Air Act, 1981, and the Water Act, 1974.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Applicability of 2000 Rules: The GPP’s establishment was governed by the 2000 Rules, and the 2016 Rules could not be applied retrospectively.
2. Buffer Zone Misinterpretation: Buffer zones apply to landfill sites, not waste processing plants, as clarified in the Schedules of the 2000 Rules.
3. Public Interest Prevails: Closure of the GPP would hinder waste management in Pune, adversely affecting public health and urban sanitation.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Strict Compliance Measures: The PMC and Concessionaire were directed to implement odor control systems and address residents’ grievances.
2. Environmental Audits: Biannual environmental audits were mandated to ensure ongoing compliance.

c. Guidelines

1. Odor Control Mechanisms: Install odor control systems and misting setups.
2. Infrastructure Enhancements: Construct roads, sheds, and green cover around the GPP.
3. Environmental Safeguards: Follow NEERI’s recommendations and maintain compliance with environmental norms.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment emphasizes a balanced approach to environmental compliance and public interest. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of adhering to applicable laws without retroactive imposition and recognized the necessity of decentralized waste management in urban centers. By overturning the NGT’s directive, the Court safeguarded Pune’s waste management framework while mandating stricter environmental safeguards.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh [2002] 1 SCR 1060; (2002) 3 SCC 481
2. Bhavya Height Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (2019) SCC OnLine Bom 1075

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000
2. Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016
3. Environment Protection Act, 1986