The National Green Tribunal allowed an application filed raising grievance against respondent no. 1 M/s Medical Pollution Control Committee, Agra, Uttar Pradesh in respect of contravention of various statutes, rules and guidelines relating to the environment.
The order dated 27.07.2023 granting consolidation consent to operate and authorization by CEO-1 has also been questioned. The respondent no. 1 is a company involved in treatment of Bio-Medical Waste and has set-up a facility at village Samwai referred to as “Bio-Medical Waste Unit”. The unit is stated to be set-up very close to the residential houses of the villagers which allegedly has resulted into creation of unhygienic and unsanitary living conditions for the villagers. It is alleged that the unit does not treat the effluents carefully and leaves it open in the nearby area causing foul smell and the villagers are facing immense problems resulting in health hazards due to various emissions.
As per the stand of counsel for the respondent no. 1 , the Consent to Establish was granted on 15.03.2004 and Consent to Operate was granted on 15.10.2004 and the same expired on 24.11.2011, therefore the unit had stopped operating and again consent to operate was granted in 2023.
The respondent no. 1 had made an application dated 29.05.2023 for grant of consolidated consent to operate and/or authorization. The said application was duly considered by authorized officer “Pradeep Sharma CEO 4” (Chief Environment Officer-Circle 4) and by order dated 13.07.2023 noting the violations and deficiencies the CEO 4 had refused the consolidated consent to operate with a direction to respondent no. 1 to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. Respondent no. 1 immediately thereafter had moved another application and within 14 days. The said application was considered by “Vivek Roy CEO-1” and he had granted the consolidated consent to operate and Authorization(referred as CCA) to the respondent no. 1.
The issue has been raised that the CEO-1 who has granted the CCA vide order 27.07.2023 had no jurisdiction to grant the CCA, hence the Tribunal by order dated 07.08.2023 had issued notice to all the respondents permitting them to file the reply within 6 weeks. Respective replies have been accordingly filed.
The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the applicant is that the CCA has been granted to respondent no. 1 by order dated 27.07.2023 by CEO-1 which had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent no. 1 as the competent jurisdictional officer was CEO-4 who had earlier rejected the application. He has further submitted that the environment clearance is necessary for operating such a unit.
The Counsel for the respondent no. 1 has opposed the original application by submitting that it’s a motivated petition being filed by a competitor and that the order of the CEO-1 is an appealable order. The stand of the other official respondent is as against the grant of CCA by the CEO-1 to the respondent no. 1.
The respondent no. 7, Regional Officer, UPPCB in its reply before the Tribunal has also taken the stand that the CTO and authorization was issued by respondent no. 6 (Vivek Roy) without inspection report/recommendation of the Regional Officer, UPPCB.
The respondent no. 2, Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change has also disclosed in its reply before the Tribunal that the consolidated consent and authorization granted by UPPCB dated 27.07.2023 was incomplete as principle regulation for grant of authorization to CBWTF operator is Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and not Hazardous and Other Waste (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016. The respondent no. 2 in its reply before the Tribunal has pointed out the following illegalities in the impugned CCA dated 27.07.2023.
It is noted by the BEnch that the CCA dated 27.07.2023 has been granted by the respondent no. 6 exceeding his jurisdiction and in contravention with the laws. Since, the issue is in respect of passing of an illegal order by an authority exceeding his jurisdiction, therefore it can very well be examined in the present O.A. The allegation that the petition is a motivated petition or remedy of appeal is available does not come in the way of examining such a gross illegality by the Tribunal. That apart we find that the allegation of motivated petition in the light of the present facts remains unsubstantiated.
In spite of an opportunity, the respondent no. 6-CEO-1 has not filed any reply before the Tribunal and has not disclosed as to how he had pulled out the application from the portal and decided it by granting CCA to respondent no. 1 , the principal bench of Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Dr. A. Senthil Vel noted.
From the reply of the respondent no. 5 , the NGT observed that the letter of explanation was issued to respondent no. 6 on 30.08.2023 but no satisfactory reply has been submitted. In the said circumstances, if the authorities are prima facie satisfied about misconduct then they should not hesitate in initiating departmental action against the respondent no. 6
In view of the above analysis, the NGT found that the Consolidated Consent to Operate and/ or authorization dated 27.07.2023 issued by the respondent no. 6 to the respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.