“Closure Would Be Detrimental To Public Interest”: SC issues Directions For Continued Operation of Pune Municipal Corporation's Garbage Processing Plant
The Supreme Court has allowed the continued operation of Pune Municipal Corporation’s Garbage Processing Plant while observing that the closure of the same would be detrimental to the public interest.
The Court quashed the judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which directed the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) to close the Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) operated by Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP (Concessionaire) and to shift the same to an alternate location in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “We are therefore of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the OA of the respondent No. 1 and directing closure of the GPP. Apart from that, we find that the closure of the GPP in question rather than subserving the public interest, would be detrimental to public interest. If the GPP in question is closed, the organic waste generated in the western part of Pune city would be required to be taken all the way throughout the city to Hadapsar which is in the eastern part of the city. This will undoubtedly lead to foul odour and nuisance to the public.”
Senior Advocates K. Parameshwar and A.N.S. Nadkarni represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik and ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the respondents.
A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by the Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch (Trust), a registered trust that was established to protect the interests of the citizens residing in certain areas of Pune. The Trust challenged the operation of the GPP, alleging that it had been established without following the procedure prescribed by law.
The NGT directed the closure of the GPP citing violations of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (2016 Rules). The NGT granted liberty to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCP) to recover environmental compensation based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle from the GPP.
The PMC had argued that the GPP would be covered by the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (2000 Rules), while the Trust contended that the same would be covered by the 2016 Rules.
The Supreme Court clarified that the Preamble of the 2016 Rules stated that though the 2016 Rules were in supersession of the 2000 Rules, they would apply except “as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession.”
The Court noted that all necessary authorisations, including the environmental clearance granted by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and MPCB, were in place before the 2016 Rules came into effect. The Court also noted that the buffer zone rule, mandating a 500-meter no-development zone around landfill sites, did not apply to a waste segregation and processing plant like the GPP.
“We further find that the finding of the learned Tribunal that initially the plot where GPP was constructed was reserved for Bio-diversity Park is also erroneous and factually incorrect. As discussed hereinabove, the plot in question has been reserved for the GPP since inception and it is only the adjoining plot which was reserved for the Bio-diversity Park,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of the NGT and cautioned the PMC and Concessionaire to take necessary steps so that the residents residing in the nearby buildings would not suffer on account of foul odour.
The Bench further explained that the “2016 Rules also give preference to the on-site processing of the waste. It also emphasizes preference to be given to decentralized processing to minimize transportation cost and environmental impact.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 682)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates K. Parameshwar and A.N.S. Nadkarni; AOR Aman Varma and Nishtha Kumar; Advocates Dhaval Mehrotra, Rahul Garg, Adith Deshmukh, Aditi Desai, Riya Wasade, Rahul Garg, Shrom Sethi, Pallavi Mohan, S.S. Rebello, Deepti Arya and Arzu Paul
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik; ASG Aishwarya Bhati; AOR Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, Shashank Singh, Avijit Roy and Gurmeet Singh Makker; Advocates Ninad Laud, Saurabh Kulkarni, Ivo D’Costa, Guru Prasad Naik, Ishani Shekhar, Mukesh Verma, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Kamal Kumar Pandey, Vatsala Tripathi, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Devanshu Gupta, Krishna Prakash Dubey, Swarupma Chaturvedi, Piyush Beriwal, Mohdd. Akhil, Ishaan Sharma, Ruchi Kohli and Rohan Gupta
