M/S PUNAHCHAKRAN PRIVATE LIMITED v. INDOTECH WASTE SOLUTION & ORS
2026 INSC 956 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7367 OF 2024
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice Manoj Misra
Headnote
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — s.8 — Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 — EIA, 2006 — Revised Guidelines, 2016 — Publication of guidelines — Land requirement — Terms of Reference —
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — s.8 — Publication of guidelines — Official Gazette not a sine qua non —
Held: Guidelines issued under a statutory power do not lose their mandatory character for want of publication in the Official Gazette where neither the parent statute nor the rules prescribe a mode of publication. A reasonable mode, such as the official website, is sufficient. (¶50, 54)
Revised Guidelines, 2016 — Clause 7 — Relaxation of land requirement —
Held further: The one-acre land requirement for a common bio-medical waste treatment facility may be relaxed only for land within municipal limits of over 25 lakh population or in a rural area, and only in consultation with the CPCB with additional control measures. (¶57, 62)
EIA, 2006 — Clause 6 — Form 1 application — Land allotment not a condition precedent —
Held further: An application in Form 1 may be made after the identification of prospective site(s); land allotment is not a condition precedent either for that application or for the grant of a Consent to Establish. (¶70, 89)
EIA, 2006 — Terms of Reference — Effect of an environmental clearance being set aside —
Held further: Setting aside an environmental clearance does not, as a mechanical rule, invalidate the Terms of Reference on which it was granted. Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment set aside. (¶95, 108, 112)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 57It could, therefore, be said that the grant of relaxation has a pre-condition and is also subject to certain mandatory accompanying conditions. The pre-condition relates to the location of the proposed site(s) i.e., it must be within municipal limits having more than 25 lakh population or within rural limits. The accompanying conditions are that: (i) consultation with the CPCB is mandatory and, (ii) additional control measures must be imposed.
Paragraph 62Aniruda Panwar (supra) emphasized that setting up a CBWTF on land admeasuring one acre was the rule and relaxation of this land requirement was the exception. Relaxation must not be granted as a matter of right and in a casual manner. On this, we are in agreement. However, in the present case, relaxation was granted after due consultation with the CPCB and the prescription of additional control measures which took into account the operational effectiveness of the appellant’s plant in a smaller area. Therefore, the fact that the investment already made by the appellant was also a factor which was considered by the UPPCB and the CPCB respectively, would not be sufficient to indicate that there was malice in law. Similarly, while we agree that the representation made by the UPPCB vide letter dated 16.10.2023 to the CPCB was wrong in stating that the first EC and first CTE respectively were only null and void and not illegal, this does not seem to have affected the actual grant of relaxation by the CPCB in any manner. The mandate under Clause 7 of the RG, 2016 was strictly followed and the CPCB has not acted in ignorance of the law. It is not the respondent no. 1’s case that the additional control measures which ultimately came to be imposed were not sufficient or adequate in some way.
Paragraph 110A conspectus of the aforesaid discussion is as follows: i. The RG, 2016 is mandatory in nature. It must be scrupulously followed by the relevant authorities and the project proponents alike during the process of obtaining/grant of permissions for the establishment of a CBWTF. Its non-publication in the Official Gazette could not be said to have affected its mandatory nature. The decision of this Court in B.K. Srinivasan (supra) had clarified that when a strict mode of publication has not been prescribed, either by the parent statute or the subordinate legislation, a reasonable mode of publication may be sufficient. Neither the EP Act nor the BMWM Rules prescribe a strict mode of publication for the RG, 2016. Therefore, publication in the Official Gazette, although the general rule, cannot be said to be a sine qua non. The publication of such technical guidelines on the official website of the CPCB was reasonably sufficient. ii. Moreover, the RG, 2016 lays down crucial standards which form the foundation for the grant of EC and CTE/CTO respectively to a CBWTF and are so deeply embedded in the existing authorisation mechanism. All project proponents are sufficiently made aware of its existence whilst commencing the process for obtaining different clearances. Therefore, it cannot be argued that they do not constitute enforceable standards for the grant as well as revocation of permissions. Any reliance on the ratio in Gulf Goans (supra) would, therefore, be misplaced. iii. As per Clause 7 of the RG, 2016, the land requirement of one acre prescribed for setting up a CBWTF may be relaxed upon the fulfilment of one of the two pre-conditions i.e., the land must be situated either within municipal limits with a population of more than 25 lakh or within a rural area. Additionally, consultation with the CPCB and the imposition of additional control measures is mandatory. The appellant’s CBWTF is located within Village Noorpur and is therefore, in a rural area. Relaxation was granted only after due consultation with the CPCB and the imposition of additional control measures which took into account the operational effectiveness of the CBWTF in a smaller area. Therefore, the grant of relaxation cannot be faulted. iv. Clause 6 of the EIA, 2006 states that an application in Form 1 can be made after the identification of prospective site(s). Therefore, land allotment cannot be said to be a pre-condition for the making of an application under Form 1. v. The O.M. dated 07.10.2014 issued by the MoEF&CC clarifies that, at the stage of appraisal of the EC i.e., at Stage IV, some credible document showing the intent of the land owner(s) to sell the land for the proposed project must be obtained in case the land is being acquired through private negotiations. In the context of the present case, such a credible document would either be a successful allotment in favour of the appellant for the establishment of a CBWTF or, if the allotment is not in vogue, then a provisional allotment/acknowledgment issued by the UPSIDA for the establishment of a CBWTF. vi. A perusal of the order dated 20.09.2021 issued by the MoEF&CC as well as Section 25 of the Water Act and Section 21 of the Air Act respectively, indicate that (a) the applicability of the EIA, 2006 and the necessity of obtaining prior EC must simply be ascertained/identified by the SPCB/PCC at the time of grant of CTE and, (b) prior EC must be obtained before a CTO can be granted by the SPCB/PCC. Therefore, when the chronology is rightly understood, a CTE can be issued before the issuance of a prior EC upon a mere assessment of the applicability of the EIA, 2006. In that case, when the identification of prospective site(s) is the land acquisition requirement for making a Form 1 application under the EIA, 2006, then successful land allotment for the CBWTF cannot be made a condition precedent, both for the making of an application for CTE and the grant of CTE respectively. Having said so, relaxation in land requirement, if any, in accordance with Clause 7 of the RG, 2016 must be granted by the SPCB/PCC in consultation with the CPCB before they can issue a CTE for land admeasuring less than one acre. vii. Clause 2 of the RG, 2016 does not make land procurement or land allocation a strict pre-requisite for initiating the process of obtaining both the EC and CTE respectively. viii. The second EC and second CTE were both granted in favour of the appellant on 20.12.2023 after land was allotted to it by the UPSIDA on 19.09.2022 and after relaxation was granted by the CPCB on 17.11.2023. Therefore, as far as the fulfilment of land acquisition conditions are concerned, the second EC and second CTE was not vitiated. ix. The setting aside of the first EC by the decision of the Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar (supra) did not have the consequence of rendering the first ToR invalid. There was no deliberate concealment or non-disclosure of material information which affected the Form 1 application or the issuance of the first ToR. Therefore, the first ToR was intact. Considering that the first ToR was also valid for a period of four years, the grant of the second EC on the basis of the first ToR could not be said to be wrong.