Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Public Interest Must Prevail Over NIMBY Protests: Supreme Court Overturns NGT Order on Closure of Pune Garbage Processing Plant

12 September 2024 7:57 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Local Authorities Directed to Implement NEERI Recommendations to Mitigate Odor and Environmental Concerns. On September 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of India quashed an order by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directing the closure of a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) in Baner, Pune. In Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, the Court held that the NGT erred in applying the 2016 Solid Waste Management Rules to a plant established under the 2000 Rules. Additionally, the Court highlighted the public interest in keeping the plant operational, rejecting objections raised by local residents about environmental nuisances.

The case arose from a dispute between the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), Noble Exchange Environment Solution LLP (the plant operator), and a local residents' group, Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch. The dispute centered around the Baner GPP, which was set up under a 30-year concession agreement between PMC and Noble Exchange in 2015. The plant processes organic waste from several regions in Pune and generates biogas used for public transportation.

Despite receiving the required environmental clearance and authorization, the residents' group filed a case before the NGT in 2019, claiming the plant caused environmental hazards, including foul odors, and demanded its closure.

The main point of contention was whether the GPP should be regulated under the 2000 Rules, which were in force when the plant was established, or the 2016 Rules, which came into effect after the plant became operational.

The residents argued that the plant violated statutory environmental norms, particularly buffer zones meant to protect residential areas from waste processing sites.

The PMC and Noble Exchange contended that shutting down the plant would have a severe negative impact on the city's waste management system, which would far outweigh the residents' grievances.

The Court ruled that the NGT had wrongly applied the 2016 Rules to the GPP, which was established before the new regulations came into effect. As per legal precedent, the plant’s operations were governed by the earlier 2000 Rules, and any obligations under the 2016 Rules could not be imposed retrospectively.

The Court stated: "The application for authorization, grant of clearance, and establishment of the GPP all took place before the 2016 Rules came into force. Therefore, the NGT's reliance on the 2016 Rules was a grave error" (Para 34-35).

Addressing the buffer zone issue, the Court clarified that the 500-meter buffer zone requirement applied only to landfill sites, not to waste processing plants like the one in Baner. Furthermore, the Court found that the plot had been reserved for a GPP as far back as 2002, and the residential projects were constructed much later.

The Court emphasized that public interest must prevail over localized objections. It referenced a previous judgment to highlight that such protests are often motivated by a desire to shift environmental burdens away from one’s immediate surroundings. The judgment stated:

"The approach of the respondents seems to be that such a facility could exist anywhere but in their backyard. This attitude cannot be allowed to derail projects of public importance" (Para 45-46).

While overturning the closure order, the Supreme Court directed the PMC and Noble Exchange to take specific steps to address the environmental concerns raised by residents. These included installing odor control systems, covering waste materials to prevent foul smells, constructing roads, and ensuring better waste handling practices.

The Court directed: "All the recommendations made by the National Engineering and Environment Research Institute (NEERI) must be implemented to ensure that the local residents are not subjected to foul odor or environmental harm" (Para 50).

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s orders, emphasizing that the Baner GPP was crucial for Pune's waste management and aligned with environmental protection standards in place when it was established. The Court’s ruling ensures the continued operation of the plant, while mandating strict compliance with environmental safeguards to protect the interests of nearby residents.

 

Date of Decision: September 12, 2024

Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch

 

Latest Legal News