Supreme Court allows operation of Pune Garbage Processing Plant: Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch (2024) INSC 682 (12 September 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 682
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a garbage processing plant, established with due authorization under older regulations, be shut down due to newer rules and complaints about pollution? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a plant in Pune. The core issue revolved around whether the plant, set up under the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, should adhere to the newer Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and whether a buffer zone was required for a GPP. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, with the opinion authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The case revolves around a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) in Baner, Pune. In 2002, the Pune Municipal Corporation (appellant-Corporation) designated land in Baner for a GPP as part of its Development Plan. This plan was sanctioned by the Maharashtra State Government in 2008. Over the years, several residential buildings were constructed near the earmarked land. In 2015, the appellant-Corporation entered into a Concession Agreement with Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP (respondent-Concessionaire) to set up an organic waste processing plant on the designated land. The plant was intended to process pre-segregated organic waste, converting it into a slurry for biogas production at a facility in Talegaon. The respondent-Concessionaire obtained environmental clearance and authorization from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) to operate the plant.

In 2019, Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch (respondent No. 1), a registered trust representing local residents, filed an Original Application (OA) before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), challenging the operation of the GPP. They argued that the plant was established without following due procedure and violated environmental norms. The NGT directed the closure of the GPP, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: This act provides the framework for environmental protection in India.
• The Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000: These rules governed solid waste management before the 2016 rules.
• The Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: These rules superseded the 2000 rules and introduced new requirements for solid waste management.
• The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: This act governs town planning and development in Maharashtra.
• The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This act established the National Green Tribunal for environmental dispute resolution.
• Section 28 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: This section deals with inviting and hearing objections to the Draft Development Plan.
• Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section prescribes the limitation period for filing appeals before the NGT.
• Rule 20 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: This rule pertains to the standards for waste processing and disposal.
• Rule 1 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: Sub-rule (2) of this rule specifies the date of effect of the rules.
• Rule 22 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: This rule specifies the time frame for establishing infrastructure for implementation of the rules.
• Rule 4 of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000: Sub-rule (2) of this rule specifies the application for authorization.
• Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: This rule specifies the duties and responsibilities of local authorities.
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: This act provides for the prevention and control of water pollution.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: This act provides for the prevention and control of air pollution.

The Supreme Court had to determine which set of rules applied to the GPP and whether the plant was in violation of these rules. The Court also examined the procedural aspects of obtaining authorization and consent for operating the plant.

Arguments

Appellant (Pune Municipal Corporation and Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP) Arguments:

• The GPP was established on land reserved for this purpose in the Development Plan of 2002, sanctioned in 2008, after inviting and hearing objections under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. No objections were raised at that time.
• The Concession Agreement was entered into on 30th March 2015, and the Waste Segregation Unit is within Pune city limits, while the Processing Plant is outside the city limits in Talegaon.
• The MPCB granted authorization on 2nd December 2015, and Environmental Clearance was issued on 1st February 2016.
• The Original Application (OA) was filed belatedly on 2nd March 2019, almost three years after the grant of EC, exceeding the limitation period under Section 16 of the NGT Act.
• The NGT mixed up the facts, as the GPP is in Plot No. 48/2/1, while the Bio-diversity Park is in Plot No. 49, an adjoining plot.
• The residential buildings came up much later than the reservation for the GPP in the Draft Development Plan.
• The GPP was set up and commenced in 2016 when the 2000 Rules were in force. The 2016 Rules provided a two-year period for migration and upgrading of existing plants, and the provisions regarding buffer zones came into force in 2017.
• The current location of the GPP conforms to the 2016 Rules, as it only processes waste from surrounding areas.
• The MPCB was not issuing separate “consent to establish” under the Water Act, 1974 or the Air Act, 1981, but was issuing a composite authorization to “set up and operate.”
• The MPCB authorization was renewed on 4th May 2017, and again on 3rd August 2022, valid till 31st July 2027. Consent to operate was also obtained on 1st November 2022, renewed till 30th September 2025.
• The Joint Inspection Committee erroneously applied the 2016 Rules, which did not apply to the GPP.
• The 500-meter buffer zone is for landfill sites, not waste segregation plants.
• The continuation of the project is in the larger public interest, as it processes organic waste from the western part of the city, preventing transportation to the eastern part, which caused foul odors.
• The appellant-Corporation is installing portable compactors and constructing a shed to cover the reject area, which would be completed by December 2024.

Respondent (Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch) Arguments:

• The checklist prescribed by the MPCB in 2003 applies to waste processing facilities, not just landfill sites, and prescribes a 500-meter no-development zone for Municipal Solid Waste Processing Plants.
• A mere reservation in municipal land does not absolve the appellant-Corporation of its environmental obligations.
• The appellant-Corporation sanctioned the plans of the buildings where the residents of respondent No. 1 reside and cannot avoid its duty to prevent pollution.
• The MPCB was only granting authorization and not consent under the Water Act, 1974 or the Air Act, 1981.
• The Joint Inspection Committee Report revealed the prevalence of odor and open transportation of segregation rejects.
• Suggestions by the National Engineering and Environment Research Institute (NEERI) have not been implemented.
• If the GPP is allowed to continue, stringent directions should be issued to prevent pollution.

MPCB Arguments:

• At the time the GPP commenced, the MPCB was granting authorization, not consent.
• The MPCB started granting consent after its circular dated 6th September 2021.
• The first consent was granted on 1st November 2022, and the second on 16th March 2024.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the GPP is governed by the 2000 Rules or the 2016 Rules.
2. Whether the GPP required separate consent under the Water Act, 1974 or the Air Act, 1981.
3. Whether a buffer zone is required for a GPP as per the 2000 Rules.
4. Whether the NGT was correct in directing the closure of the GPP.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh (2002) 3 SCC 481 [Supreme Court of India]: This case was cited to interpret the term “things done” under a repealed statute, holding that it includes not only the actions but also the legal consequences.
• Hasan Nurani Malak v. S.M. Ismail, Asstt. Charity Commr., Nagpur [AIR 1967 SC 1742] [Supreme Court of India]: This case was cited to explain the object of a saving clause, which is to save what has been previously done under the statute repealed.
• Universal Imports Agency v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [AIR 1961 SC 41] [Supreme Court of India]: This case was cited for the interpretation of the term “things done” to include the effect of the legal consequences flowing therefrom.
• Bhavya Height Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1075 [Bombay High Court]: This case was cited to highlight the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) principle, where residents object to facilities near their homes while accepting them elsewhere.

Legal Provisions:

• Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: These sections provide the central government with the power to take measures to protect and improve the environment.
• The Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000: These rules were in force before the 2016 rules and were applicable to the GPP at the time of its establishment.
• The Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: The 2016 Rules superseded the 2000 Rules and introduced new requirements for solid waste management.
• Section 28 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: This section deals with inviting and hearing objections to the Draft Development Plan.
• Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This section prescribes the limitation period for filing appeals before the NGT.
• Rule 20 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: This rule pertains to the standards for waste processing and disposal.
• Rule 1 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: Sub-rule (2) of this rule specifies the date of effect of the rules.
• Rule 22 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: This rule specifies the time frame for establishing infrastructure for implementation of the rules.
• Rule 4 of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000: Sub-rule (2) of this rule specifies the application for authorization.
• Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: This rule specifies the duties and responsibilities of local authorities.
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: This act provides for the prevention and control of water pollution.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: This act provides for the prevention and control of air pollution.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh [CITATION] to interpret the term “things done” under a repealed statute. The Court held that the term includes not only the actions but also the legal consequences.
• The Supreme Court referred to Hasan Nurani Malak v. S.M. Ismail, Asstt. Charity Commr., Nagpur [CITATION] to explain the object of a saving clause, which is to save what has been previously done under the statute repealed.
• The Supreme Court cited Universal Imports Agency v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [CITATION] for the interpretation of the term “things done” to include the effect of the legal consequences flowing therefrom.
• The Court cited Bhavya Height Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Others [CITATION] to highlight the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) principle.
• The Court used the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as the basis for environmental regulations.
• The Court determined the applicability of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 based on the timeline of the GPP’s establishment.
• The Court referred to Section 28 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to understand the procedure for sanctioning the Development Plan.
• The Court used Section16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to understand the limitation period for filing appeals before the NGT, though it did not explicitly rule on the limitation issue.
• The Court referred to Rule 20 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 to understand the standards for waste processing and disposal.
• The Court referred to Rule 1 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 to understand the date of effect of the rules.
• The Court referred to Rule 22 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 to understand the time frame for establishing infrastructure for implementation of the rules.
• The Court referred to Rule 4 of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 to understand the application for authorization.
• The Court referred to Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 to understand the duties and responsibilities of local authorities.
• The Court used the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to understand the regulations for water and air pollution.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation and Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP. The NGT’s order directing the closure of the GPP was set aside. The Court held that the GPP is governed by the 2000 Rules, and a buffer zone is not required for waste processing plants under these rules. The Court directed the appellant-Corporation to take measures to mitigate pollution and nuisance at the GPP. The Court also directed the appellant-Corporation to complete the installation of portable compactors and the construction of a shed to cover the reject area by December 2024.

Flowchart of the Case

Ratio Decidendi

The key legal principles established by the Supreme Court in this case are:

1. When a statute is repealed, the term “things done” includes not only the actions but also the legal consequences flowing therefrom.
2. The object of a saving clause is to save what has been previously done under the statute repealed.
3. The Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, apply to a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) established before the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, came into force.
4. Under the 2000 Rules, a buffer zone is not required for waste processing plants, but only for landfill sites.
5. The MPCB was issuing composite authorizations before 2021 and was not issuing separate consents under the Water Act, 1974 or the Air Act, 1981.
6. The “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) principle should not be allowed to hinder projects that are in the larger public interest.

Ratio Table

Sentiment Analysis

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case can be viewed as having a mixed sentiment:

• Positive: The judgment allows the operation of the GPP, which is in the larger public interest, as it processes waste locally and prevents transportation to other parts of the city. The Court also acknowledged the validity of the authorization granted to the GPP under the 2000 Rules.
• Neutral: The Court acknowledged the MPCB’s practice of issuing composite authorizations before 2021. The Court also acknowledged that the 2016 Rules were not applicable to the GPP.
• Negative: The Court acknowledged the concerns of the local residents regarding pollution and nuisance caused by the GPP. The Court directed the appellant-Corporation to take measures to mitigate pollution and nuisance.

Sentiment Table