(A) Constitution of India — Article 226 — Maintainability — Locus standi — Competing project proponent — Challenge to issuance of Terms of Reference (ToR) at Scoping stage under EIA Notification, 2006 — Petitioner’s application for CBMWTF pending — Objections rejected — Held, petitioner is “person aggrieved” — Writ petition maintainable.
Paras 24, 45
Where the petitioner had already obtained Environmental Clearance and its application for establishment of a Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility was pending consideration, and the relocation of the 5th respondent’s facility was within 2.8 km affecting petitioner’s proposed site and coverage area, the petitioner could not be treated as a stranger. Rejection of petitioner’s representation conferred locus to challenge the recommendations.
Held, petitioner has locus standi and writ petition is maintainable.
(B) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 — EIA Notification, 2006 — Stage of “Scoping” — Issuance of Terms of Reference (ToR) — Nature of ToR — Whether final decision — Held, ToR is not environmental clearance — Merely procedural stage — Final decision yet to be taken.
Paras 18, 30, 43
Issuance of ToR under Stage-II (Scoping) is part of four-stage process (Screening, Scoping, Public Consultation, Appraisal). It is only a determination of scope of EIA study and not grant of environmental clearance.
Held, recommendations for ToR do not amount to final decision.
(C) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Sections 14, 16, 22 — Alternative remedy — Whether bars writ jurisdiction — Held, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 not ousted — But Court may decline interference at pre-decisional stage.
Relied on:
• Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha
• Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation
• Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India
Paras 26–30
Though NGT has wide environmental jurisdiction and appellate powers, High Court’s power under Article 226 forms part of basic structure and is not ousted. However, where statutory process is incomplete and final decision is pending, High Court may decline to interfere.
(D) Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities — Revised Guidelines, 2016 — Relocation of existing CBMWTF — Compliance requirement — Whether permissible — Held, relocation requires compliance with EIA Notification and relevant provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Paras 33–35
Guideline 5.3(c) specifically provides that relocation of existing CBMWTF requires compliance with relevant provisions notified under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Relocation not per se barred, but subject to statutory compliance.
(E) Natural Justice — Consideration of objections — Stage of Appraisal — Duty of regulatory authority — Reasoned order mandatory.
Paras 41, 46
Where petitioner alleged non-consideration of objections at Scoping stage, Court held that objections may be raised again at Stage-IV (Appraisal). Regulatory authority must:
• Provide due opportunity of hearing to both parties
• Consider applicability of Public Consultation stage
• Decide whether proposal is “relocation” or “new project”
• Pass reasoned order in accordance with Guidelines, 2016
(F) Public Consultation — Exemption — Industrial estate projects — Requirement of recording reasons.
Para 42
Even if exemption under Stage-III (Public Consultation) is claimed, regulatory authority must examine applicability and record cogent reasons for exemption.
(G) Environmental Jurisprudence — Precautionary Principle — Sustainable Development — Regulatory authority must apply balancing approach.
Relied on:
• Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India
Para 44
Precautionary principle and sustainable development are integral to environmental decision-making. Regulatory authority must balance industrial development with environmental protection while passing final order.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Issuance of ToR at Scoping stage is not final environmental clearance.
-
Competing project proponent affected by relocation within prohibited radius has locus standi.
-
Writ jurisdiction not barred by availability of NGT remedy, but interference at pre-decisional stage is unwarranted.
-
Regulatory authority must independently decide at Appraisal stage after hearing parties and passing reasoned order.
FINAL ORDER
Writ petition disposed of.
Regulatory authority directed to:
• Take final decision under Stage-IV (Appraisal)
• Consider objections of petitioner and 5th respondent
• Examine applicability of Public Consultation stage
• Determine whether proposal is relocation or new project
• Pass reasoned order in accordance with Bio-Medical Waste Guidelines, 2016
• Complete exercise within six months
No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment