The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan ruled that shutting down the Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) would negatively impact public interest by increasing foul odours and causing inconvenience. Before the Supreme Court verdict, two appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in October 2020. The order had directed the Pune Municipal Corporation to close the GPP at Baner, Pune, and shift the same to an alternate location in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board.
Having directed the closure of the GPP, the NGT had further granted liberty to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to recover environmental compensation on the basis of “polluter pays” principle from the GPP for the entirety of the period during which the environmental norms were violated by the GPP. Seeking a review of this order, the plant operator filed a review application which was also dismissed by the NGT. The Pune Municipal Corporation and the plant operator then approached the Supreme Court.
The GPP was established by the Pune Municipal Corporation and a concessionaire (plant owner) following a concession agreement in 2015. The plant aimed to process organic waste and generate biogas. The Pune Municipal Corporation and the concessionaire obtained necessary environment clearances and authorizations from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. However, a local trust filed a complaint in the NGT, alleging that the plant was operating without following proper procedures. The NGT then constituted an expert committee to inspect the plant and submit a report. Based on the report, the NGT ordered the shutdown of the plant, citing violations of statutory norms and the right to a clean environment.
The Land Use Map (2002) and Draft Development Plan (2005) reserved plots in Balewadi, Baner, for public purposes (GPP and bio-diversity park). The Maharashtra government sanctioned the plan in 2008. Commencement certificates for buildings were granted after 2008. The Court noted that all buildings were constructed after the plots were designated for public purposes, indicating that the developments occurred after the plans were officially notified and sanctioned.
The NGT, however, found that the General Public Purpose project violated Rule 20 of the 2016 Rules. However, the Corporation argued that the 2000 Rules apply, while the respondent claimed the 2016 Rules apply. The Court further noted that:
- The 2016 Rules were notified on April 8, 2016, and apply from that date.
- All relevant events (application, authorization, environment clearance and project commencement) occurred before April 8, 2016.
- The Preamble of the 2016 Rules states they superseded the 2000 Rules, except for things done before supersession.
- Supreme Court precedents (State of Punjab vs Harnek Singh) indicate that “things done” include legal consequences flowing from prior actions.
The top court held that the NGT erred in applying the 2016 Rules to the GPP project. Since all relevant events occurred before the 2016 Rules came into force, the 2000 Rules apply. The saving clause in the 2016 Rules’ Preamble also supports this conclusion, as it explicitly exempts things done before supersession. Therefore, the GPP project is governed by the 2000 Rules, and the NGT’s finding of a violation of Rule 20 of the 2016 Rules is incorrect. The Court’s decision was based on the timing of events, the language of the 2016 Rules, and relevant legal precedents.
With regard to the issue of consent under the Water Act and Air Act for a garbage processing plant in Pune, the apex court noted that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board had been granting authorization under the 2000 Rules, which covered all aspects of consent, and did not grant separate consent for processing plants.
However, in a circular dated September 6, 2021, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board stated that it would not grant consent for solid waste management facilities, but would instead grant authorization under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The Board later decided to grant Consent to Establish/Operate for Solid Waste Management facilities in its 176th meeting held on February 25, 2021.
The Supreme Court found that the NGT had failed to consider the Board’s changed practice of granting consent after September 6, 2021. The NGT had ordered the shutdown of the plant, citing lack of consent, but the Supreme Court set aside this finding. The Court noted that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board had granted Consent to Operate to the plant on November 1, 2022, and renewed it till September 30, 2025. The authorization to set up and operate the plant was also granted till July 31, 2027.
The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the 2003 Board’s checklist applies to the GPP, requiring a 500-meter buffer zone. The checklist only pertains to landfill sites, not waste processing facilities like the GPP. The 2000 Rules also differentiate between landfill sites and waste processing facilities, with no buffer zone requirement for the latter.
The Court found that the plot for the GPP was always reserved for that purpose, not for a Bio-diversity Park, contrary to the NGT’s finding. Closing the GPP would harm public interest as organic waste would need to be transported across the city causing foul odours and nuisance. The Court was also of the view that the NGT erred in directing the closure of the GPP. The GPP is a necessary facility for processing organic waste, and its closure would lead to environmental and health issues.
The Court referred to the 2016 Rules, which emphasize on-site waste processing and decentralized processing to minimize environmental impact. The Corporation has established 48 decentralized processing facilities in Pune, segregating organic waste and producing biogas for public transport buses.
The respondent’s opposition was deemed a “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) approach, prioritizing personal interests over environmental benefits. The Court cited a similar case, Bhavya Height Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Others, where the High Court had rejected a NIMBY argument.
The Court concluded that the NGT’s judgment should be quashed, and the appeals are allowed. The NEERI, in its Report, had made the following recommendations:
“Plant A:
- The slurry making area needs proper cover in the hopper area to reduce odour/foul smell.
- A suitable odour control system/misting system (e.g carbon filters, etc) needs to be installed immediately.
- Better material of construction and design could be employed to avoid corrosion problems and frequent shutdowns.
- The space is too congested for capacity enhancement. PMC may think of additional/alternative space.
- The food bags need to be stored properly before using them.
- Slurry sampling and analysis needs to be done frequently to understand the decomposition of food waste and control it to the level so that maximum methane can be produced in the Talegaon plant.
- The technology provider must also look into reducing the transporting cost between slurry making facilities at Baner and Talegaon plant by finding an optimum slurry density.”
The top court issued several directions to ensure environmental compliance and improve waste management at the GPP in Pune. These are:
1. The appellant-Corporation and respondent-Concessionaire (the operator of the GPP) must comply with all suggestions made by NEERI.
2. The Corporation must install portable compactors with hook mechanisms by December 31, 2024, to prevent reject waste from touching the ground.
3. The Corporation must construct a bitumen road to the Waste Segregation Plant and concrete the reject area by December 31, 2024, to enhance clean waste transfer and prevent water accumulation.
4. The Corporation and Concessionaire must construct a shed to cover the rejected area by December 31, 2024.
5. The Corporation and Concessionaire must carry out plantations with thick density to cover three sides of the GPP, excluding the side reserved for the Bio-diversity Park.
6. The State Government must consider growing Miyawaki forests in the Bio-diversity Park to provide green lungs to nearby areas.
7. NEERI must conduct an environmental audit of the GPP every six months, and the appellant-Corporation and respondent-Concessionaire must comply with the suggestions made in the audit.
In May this year , the Supreme Court had expressed shock at the sordid state of affairs in managing the rising levels of untreated solid waste in Delhi and the National Capital Region. A bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, had said that it was horrifying that this was happening in the national capital while authorities continued to remain indifferent. The Court was hearing a case dealing with the deteriorating air quality in the national capital and stubble burning in nearby states, which is said to be one of the biggest contributors to air pollution.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau