As per case facts, Hygiene Biomed Services, which had obtained environmental clearance for a Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF), challenged the relocation proposal of Safe Environ Private Limited, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
HIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH
****
WRITPETITIONNo.16280of2025
Between:
M/s.HygieneBiomedServices,
Vijayawada,rep.byitsProprietor,
SriBallaDurgaPrasad
….PETITIONER
AND
StateofAndhraPradesh,
DepartmentofEnvironment,Forest,
ScienceandTechnology(Sec.VI)Rep.byitsSpecial
ChiefSecretary,Secretariat,Velagapudi,
Amaravatiand5others
.....RESPONDENTS
DATEOFJUDGMENTRESERVED :18.09.2025
DATEOFJUDGMENTPRONOUNCED:22.01.2026
DATEOFJUDGMENTUPLOADED :22.01.2026
SUBMITTEDFORAPPROVAL:
THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI
&
THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM
1.WhetherReportersofLocalnewspapers
maybeallowedtoseetheJudgments?
Yes/No
2.Whetherthecopiesofjudgmentmaybe
markedtoLawReporters/Journals
Yes/No
3.WhetherYourLordshipswishtoseethe
faircopyoftheJudgment?
Yes/No
_______________________
RAVINATHTILHARI,J
__________________________
MAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM,J
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
2
*THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI
&
THEHON'BLESRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM
+WRITPETITIONNo.16280of2025
%22.01.2026
Between:
M/s.HygieneBiomedServices,
Vijayawada,rep.byitsProprietor,
SriBallaDurgaPrasad
….PETITIONER
AND
StateofAndhraPradesh,
DepartmentofEnvironment,Forest,
ScienceandTechnology(Sec.VI)Rep.byitsSpecial
ChiefSecretary,Secretariat,Velagapudi,
Amaravatiand5others
.....RESPONDENTS
!CounselforthePetitioner :SriS.V.S.S.Sivaram
CounselforRespondentNos.2to4:SriY.SomaRaju
CounselforRespondentNo.5 :SriMekaRahulChowdary
<Gist:
>HeadNote:
?CasesReferred:
1.(1996)5SCC647
2.(2019)18SCC494
3.(2022)12SCC401
4.2022SCCOnLineSC639
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
3
THEHON’BLESRIJUSTICERAVINATHTILHARI
&
THEHON’BLSRIJUSTICEMAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM
WRITPETITIONNo.16280of2025
JUDGMENT:(perHon’bleSriJusticeRaviNathTilhari)
HeardSriS.V.S.S.Sivaram,learnedcounselforthepetitioner,SriMeka
RahulChowdary,learnedcounselforthe5
th
respondentandSriY.SomaRaju,
learnedcounselforrespondentsNo.2to4.
2.ThepresentwritpetitionhasbeenfiledunderArticle226ofthe
ConstitutionofIndiatoadjudgeanddeclaretherecommendationsofthe3
rd
respondentinits263
rd
meetingdated30.05.2025videitsminutesdated
03.06.2025toissueStandardTermsofReference(ToR)tothe5
th
respondent
forrelocationofitsBioMedicalWasteTreatmentFacilityfrom
DharmavarappaduThanda,JaggayapetaMandal,NTRDistrict(UnitOne)to
IndustrialDevelopmentArea(IDA),Kondapalli,NTRDistrict,asillegal,arbitrary,
irrationalwithoutjurisdiction,contrarytotheBioMedicalWasteManagement
Rules2016(inshort‘WasteManagementRules2016’),theRevisedGuidelines
forCommonBio-MedicalWasteTreatmentandDisposalFacilities2025(inshort
‘RevisedGuidelines2025’)asalsoTheEnvironmentProtectionAct,1986,Water
(PreventionandControlofPollution)Act1974andAir(PreventionandControl
PollutionAct)1981,besidesbeingviolationoftheprinciplesofnaturaljustice
andArticles14and19(1)(g)oftheConstitutionofIndia.
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
4
I.Facts:
3.Thepetitioner–M/s.HygieneBiomedServices,Vijayawada,a
ProprietorconcernintendedtoestablishaCommonBioMedicalWaste
TreatmentFacility(inshort‘CBMWTF’)andpurchasedanextentofland
admeasuringAc.2.00inSy.No.112-1,Loyavillage,G.KondurMandal,Krishna
District,AndhraPradeshforasumofRs.70,00,000/-andobtained
EnvironmentalClearance (EC)vide Proceedings in Order
No.SEIAA/AP/KRI/IND/08/2017/384-421,dated22.08.2020,validfor7years.
Thesubsequentprocessofexaminingfeasibilityforestablishmentofthefacility
waskeptunderholdbycitingpendencyofGapAnalysisReport(GAR).
4.Thepetitioner’scaseisthatthe5
th
respondent–M/s.SafeEnviron
PrivateLimited,representedbyitsDirector,anexistingCBMWTFoperator,at
Sy.No.164/1A,DharmavarapupaduThandavillage,JaggaiahpetMandal,Krishna
District(inshort‘theUnitone’)andhavingitsanotherunitatS.No.4A&B
Chinakakanivillage,MangalagiriMandal,GunturDistrict,consistentlyopposed
theestablishmentofnewfacilities,claimingsufficiencyofexistingfacility.The
5
th
respondentobstructedthenewapplicationsforinitiatingproceedingsbefore
differentForums,thoughseveralirregularitiesandviolationsitselfwereonthe
partofthe5
th
respondent,viz.,unauthorizedinstallationandenhancementof
incineratorcapacitiesatitsUnitsofGunturandKrishnaanditenhanced
EffluentTreatmentPlant(ETP)capacitieswithoutrequisiteapprovalsunderthe
EnvironmentProtectionAct,AirAct,WaterAct,BMWRulesandGuidelines.
Thepetitioner’scaseisthatthe5
th
respondentwasinitiallypermittedfor
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
5
establishmentofCBMWTFwith70kg/hrincineratorcapacityatGuntur,buton
07.05.2007the5
th
respondentinstalleda200kg/hrincineratorwithout
obtainingpriorapprovalandalsosoreflecteditinsubsequentConsentfor
Operations(CTOs).Similarly,inCTOofKrishnaFacilityon15.11.2006Consent
toEstablish(CTE)applicationwasmadewithinstalledcapacityofincineratorat
70kg/hrwhichwasapprovedin2007withprojectcostofRs.45lakhs.Butin
theyear2009,inhisCTOapplication,the5
th
respondentmentionedthetotal
treatablewastecapacityoftheunitas270kg/hrcontrarytoitsCTEapplication
approvedfor70kg/hrcapacity.TheEnvironmentalEngineeralsomentioned
theincineratorcapacityas270kg/hrinhisreportdated30.11.2009despite
inspection.Further,inCTOrenewaldated26.05.2014the5
th
respondent
mentionedtheincineratorcapacityas100kg/hralternatedbetween270kg/hr
and100kg/hr(2009,2011,2014,2017renewals)whichshowthe
manipulations.In2018,the5
th
respondentsoughtcorrectionofitsCTOstating
thattheincineratorcapacitywaserroneouslyrecordedas100kg/hrintheCTO
renewalof2014insteadof270kg/hr,whichwassaidtobeatypographical
error.Inviewofsuchirregularities,theJointChiefEnvironmentEngineer
(JCEE)recommendedthatthe5
th
respondentshouldobtainfreshEnvironment
Clearance.ButtheConsentforOperationCommittee(inshort‘Committee’)
failedtoconsiderthesameandrecommendedforcorrectionofCTO.The5
th
respondent’swaterconsumptionquantitiesforeffluenttreatmentwasalso
alteredandincreasedfrom0.65KLDto2.0KLDwithoutsecuringanyprior
permission.The5
th
respondentalsoexpandeditsoperationswithoutfollowing
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
6
themandatorystatutoryproceduresandwithoutgrantofnecessarypermission
forsuchexpansion.Thoseillegalitiesandirregularitieswerealsonotreported
bytheEnvironmentalEngineerthoughhewasdutyboundtodoso.The5
th
respondentwasthusallowedtocontinuewithunauthorizedexpansionand
continuanceofthefacility.
5.The5
th
respondentbyapplicationdated19.04.2024soughtrelocation
ofitsfacilityfromDharmavarappaduThanda,JaggayyapetaMandal,NTR
DistricttoIndustrialDevelopmentArea(IDA),Kondapalli,NTRDistrict.Its
proposedfacilityisonly2.8kmfromthelocationofthepetitioner’sproposed
newfacility,forwhichthepetitionerhadfiledapplicationforestablishmentat
Sy.No.112-1,Loyavillage,G.KonduruMandal,KrishnaDistrict.Thepetitioner
thereforemaderepresentationdated07.05.2024opposingtherelocation
proposalofthe5
th
respondentunitonefollowedbyrepresentation,including,
dated06.05.2025and14.05.2025.ThepetitioneralongwithAndhraPradesh
PollutionControlAssociation(inshort‘Association’)beingaMemberofthat
Associationalsosubmittedtherepresentation/complainttorespondentsNo.2to
4.However,despitetherepresentationsandtheobjections,the3
rd
respondent-
StateLevelEnvironmentImpactAssessmentAuthority(SEIAA)actingonthe
recommendationsofthe4
th
respondentStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommittee
(SEAC)proceededtorecommendforissuanceofTermsofReference(ToR).
The3
rd
respondenttreatedtheproposalofthe5
th
respondentasrelocation
assertingthetherewasnochangeincoveragearea,bedstrength,videits
recommendationsintheMinutesofMeetingdated03.06.2025(Ex.P1).
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
7
Counteraffidavitofthe2
nd
Respondent:
6.The2
nd
respondent-AndhraPradeshPollutionControlBoard(APPCB)
hasfiledthecounteraffidavitwithrespecttoitsrole,thestandinteraliaisas
pertheGuidelineNo.6ofRevisedGuidelinesforCommonBio-medicalWaste
TreatmentandDisposalFacilities,“thelocationshallbedecidedinconsultation
withtheStatePollutionControlBoard(SPCB)/PollutionControlCommittee
(PCC).The2
nd
respondentreviewedtheissueinitsCTEcommitteemeeting
dated01.05.2025andaspercommitteerecommendations,therespondent
No.2addressedalettertothe5
th
respondentandcommunicatedthe
complianceoflocationcriteriawhichwascompliedbythe5
th
respondentasper
RegionalOffice&ZonalOfficereportforestablishment/relocationofnew
CBWTFaspertheCPCBguidelinesforCBWTFsdated12.04.2025.Withrespect
tothepetitioner,interalia,itwassubmittedthatthepetitionerobtainedEC
videletterdated22.08.2020toestablishacommonBiomedicalWaste
TreatmentFacilityatLoya(V),G.Konduru(M),NTRDistrictwithvalidityperiod
of7years.The2
nd
respondentinformedthatthe3
rd
respondent/4
th
respondent
shalltakesuitabledecisionontheproposedsiteforrelocationoftheCBWTFof
5
th
respondentwithsamecoverageareaandtreatmentcapacities,subjectto
outcomeofcourtcasesifany,infuture.
Counteraffidavitofthe5
th
Respondent:
7.The5
th
respondenthasalsofiledcounteraffidavit.Hehasraisedthe
contentionthatthewritpetitionisliabletobedismissedbeingpre-matureas
nofinaldecisionhasbeentaken.Ithasbeensubmittedthatasperthe
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
8
directionNo.7oftheEIAnotification,2006,dated14.09.2006,therearefour(4)
stagesandpresentlythecaseisatthe2
nd
stage.Thedecisionisyettobe
taken.Alternatively,thereisequallyefficaciousalternativestatutoryremedy
underSection16oftheN.G.TAct,iftherecommendationsatthe2
nd
stageare
tobetakenasfinaldecision.Thepetitionerhasnolocusstandi.The5
th
respondentsubmittedthatthecounterisbeingfiledonlywithrespecttothe
preliminaryobjectionsonthemaintainabilityofthewritpetitionandreserving
therighttofileanadditionalcounteraffidavitonthemeritsofthecontentionsif
theoccasionsoarises.
8.The5
th
respondenthasalsofiledamemodated04.08.2025annexing
additionalmaterialpapers,interalia,thecopyofsomeofthecitations.Hehas
alsoannexedthecopyoftheorderdated12.06.2025ofgrantoftermof
reference,alongwithstandardtermsofreferenceforCBWTFacilities.
ReplyaffidavitofthePetitioner:
9.Thepetitionerhasfiledreplyaffidavittothecounterofthe5
th
respondent.Thestandasinthewritpetitionhasbeenreiterated.Further,
withrespecttothecontentionofthe5
th
respondentthatthewritpetitionis
premature,ithasbeensubmittedthattherecommendationitselfiswithout
jurisdiction.Thepetitionerisnotathirdparty.Thepetitionerisaproject
proponentwhohasinvestedhugeamountsforpurchaseofthelandtoestablish
aBiomedicalWasteTreatmentFacilities.Thepetitionerhadappliedfor
environmentalclearance.Inprinciplepermissionwasgrantedon07.02.2018
whichwaschallengedbythe5
th
respondentinW.P.No.11250of2018.That
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
9
writpetitionwasdisposedof,holdingthatthepermissiongrantedinprinciple
wasnotapermissiontoestablishBWTFanddirectedtheA.P.PollutionControl
BoardtoconsiderthefeasibilityforestablishmentofBWTFstrictlybyadhering
totheguidelinesissuedbytheCentralPollutionControlBoard.Subsequentto
thatorderthepetitionerappliedforenvironmentalclearancefortheproposed
projectwhichwasgrantedon22.08.2020afterthepublichearingwas
conductedbythecompetentauthorityon20.06.2019,whichisvalidfor7years.
TheGapanalysisreporthasbeenrecentlysubmittedandtheactionplanis
underconsideration.Withrespecttothepleaofalternativeremedy,thestand
takenbythepetitioneristhattheimpugnedproceedingsarenotamenableto
challengeundertheN.G.TActatthisstageandalternatively,evenifthe
remedybethere,thealternativeremedyisnotanabsolutebartothewrit
petitionasthereareissuesoflackofjurisdictionandviolationoftheprinciples
ofnaturaljustice.
II.Submissionsofthelearnedcounselforthepetitioner:
10.SriS.V.S.S.Sivaram,learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitted
thatthechallengeisonthegroundofviolationoftheprinciplesofnatural
justiceinasmuchastheobjectionsraisedbythepetitioner,viderepresentation
dated14.05.2025,werenotconsidered.HesubmittedthataspertheMinutes
ofCFECommitteedated18.02.2022nonewCBMWTF/ECapplicationscanbe
considereduntilGapAnalysisStudyiscompleted.Thesamewouldapplyfor
relocationalso.Hencetheproposalofthe5
th
respondenttorelocatealsocould
notbeprocessedwithoutcompletionofGapAnalysisStudy.Hesubmittedthat
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
10
acomplaintdated20.03.2025againstthe5
th
respondentwithrespecttoerrors
inincineratorcapacityfiledbeforetheCPCB,APPCBandSEIAAisstillpending
enquiry.Iftheallegationsinthecomplaintareproved,stringentactionmust
betakenagainstthe5
th
respondentandsountilcompletionoftheenquiryinto
thoseirregularities,neitherestablishmentofnewfacilitiesinfavourofthe5
th
respondentnorrelocationofitsunitone,couldberecommendedandbasedon
suchrecommendations,ToRcouldnotbepermitted.
11.Hesubmittedthatthepetitionerhadclearlystatedinthe
representationdated14.05.2025thattheAPPCBhasbeenrenewing
CTO/HWA/BMW/authorizationbasedsolelyontheannualreportsofthefacility
insteadofmakingactualinspection,whichisnotthecorrectprocedure.From
actualinspectiononlytheirregularitieswouldcometothenotice.Hesubmitted
thattheBioMedicalWasteCommitteemeetingdated30.04.2025failedto
considerthecomplaintandCPCB/SEIAAdirectionsandtherefore,its
recommendationshouldnotbeaccepted.Therelocationproposalofthe5
th
respondentwasinfactintendedtoavoidlegalscrutinyandtolegitimizethe
illegallyacquiredcapacities.
12.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerfurthersubmittedthatthe
petitioner’sspecificcasewasthattherevisedguidelinesforCBMWTF2016
mandatesminimum75kmdistancebetweenthevariousCBMWTFfacilities.So,
thepetitionerhadpurchasedthelandasaforesaidintheproposedlocationfor
establishmentofnewfacilityforwhichhashadappliedafterascertainingthat
nootherCBMWTFwasbeingoperatedwithinaradiusof75kmfromthe
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
11
petitioner’spurchasedlandlocality.Therecommendationforthe5
th
respondentforrelocationofitsexistingunitonefromtheplaceofitsexistence
tothenewplacewouldadverselyaffectthepetitioner’srightofconsiderationin
establishinganewfacilityinasmuchasnowthedistancefromthenewlocation
ofthe5
th
respondentfacilityUnitOne,ifallowed,wouldbeonly2.8kmfrom
thepetitioner’splacewhereheintendstoestablishthefacility.Hesubmitted
thataccordingtotheGuidelineNo.8(a)oftheRevisedGuidelines,2016,a
facilitycanoperateuptoaradialdistanceof75kmfromitsunit.So,ifthe5
th
respondentisallowedforrelocation,anyothernewfacilitywillhavetobe
locatedoutsidetheradiusof75km.Thenthepetitionerwouldnotbeallotted
anycoveragearea,asthatareawouldthenalreadybecoveredbythe5
th
respondent.Butthesaidobjectionraisedspecificallyhasnotbeenproperly
dealtwithinthelightoftheRevisedGuidelineNo.8(a)oftheGuidelines2016.
13.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatconsideringthe
complaintofthepetitionerdated20.03.2025,the3
rd
respondenthadrequested
the2
nd
respondenttoverifythefactsandtakenecessaryactionandfurnishthe
actiontakenreport,uponwhichthe2
nd
respondentformedaCommitteeto
enquireintothecomplaintsofthepetitionerandbeforetheCommitteethe
petitionerandthe5
th
respondentappearedon09.09.2025,butthesaidenquiry
isstillpendingfinalization.InsteadofwaitingforthereportoftheCommittee,
inahastymanner,ToRhadbeenpermittedtothe5
th
respondent.
14.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatinfactthe5
th
respondent’sapplicationisfornewproject,asisevidentfromthecopyofthe
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
12
application,butoverlookingthosefactsandcontrarytothestatutorymandate,
theTermsofReferencehasbeenissuedontherecommendationofthe
Committee.LearnedcounselsubmittedthataccordingtotheEIAnotification,
whenanapplicantseekspriorEnvironmentClearanceasprescribedunder
Form-1theapplicationundergoesfourstages,viz.,(1)Screening;(2)Scoping;
(3)PublicConsultation;and(4)Appraisal.Theapplicationofthe5
th
respondentisatthesecondstage,i.e.,atthestageofScopingandatthis
stage,theTermsofReferencehavetobeconveyedtotheapplicantwhich
generallyincludesonlytreatmentcapacitiesbutnotbedstrengthandcoverage
area.So,theTermsofReference(ToR)issuedbythe5
th
respondentisbeyond
thescopeofthesecondstage,andtheTermsofReference(ToR),infactare
onthepremisethattheapplicationofthe5
th
respondentisonlyforrelocation,
whereasitisforanewproject.Thestagefortakingadecisiononcoverage
areaorbedstrengthortreatmentcapacitiesisonlyafterissuanceofConsent
forEstablishment(CFE).
15.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatthe3
rd
respondent
issuedtheMinutesofMeetingdated03.06.2025incorrectlyobservingthatthe
objectionsraisedintherepresentationdated14.05.2025wereraisedpreviously
viderepresentationswhichwerealreadyaddressed.Hesubmittedthatthe
objectionsraisedintherepresentationdated14.05.2025weresubstantially
differentfromthepreviousobjectionsandevenifsomeoftheprevious
objectionswererepeated,theCommitteewasunderobligationtohave
consideredatleastthosesubstantiallydifferentobjections.Hepointedout
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
13
duringargumentsthedifferenceintheobjectionsraisedvidevarious
representations,referringtotherepresentationdated14.05.2025andthe
previousone.Hesubmittedthatoneofthemainobjectionsofthepetitioner
wasthatthe5
th
respondentwithoutfollowingthestatutoryprocedureenhanced
itsincineratorcapacitiesandEffluentTreatmentPlantCapacitiesandwith
respecttothesametheenquirywasbeingconductedbythe2
nd
respondent
SEIAAandtherefore,thepetitionerrequestedforawaitdecisiononthe
proposalofthe5
th
respondentforrelocationofitsunitone,tillcompletionof
enquiry.
16.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerfurthersubmittedthatthe3
rd
respondent-SEIAAhadnojurisdictiontoconsidertheapplicationofthe5
th
respondentforrelocationforissuanceofTermsofReference(ToR).He
submittedthattheEIAnotificationdoesnotprovideforrelocationandonly
statesthatEnvironmentClearancehastobesecuredforNewProjector
ExpansionorModernizationofExistingProjects.Neitherthestatutenorthe
EIANotificationprovideforproceduretorelocateanexistingfacility.So,inthe
absenceofspecificprocedure,the5
th
respondenthadtoapplyforfresh
EnvironmentClearance(EC)asanewfacility,withoutrelyingonitsexisting
capacities,coveragearea,ConsentforEstablishment(CTE)andConsentfor
Operation(CTO).Thesubmissionadvancedisthatforrelocationofthefacility,
theexistingcapacities,coveragearea,CTEandCTOcannotberelieduponbut
thereshouldbefreshEC,asthelocationisbeingchanged,andECshouldbe
withrespecttothatarea.
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
14
17.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerplacedrelianceonthejudgmentof
theHon’bleApexCourtinVelloreCitizensWelfareForumv.Unionof
India
1
andcontendedthattheprecautionaryprincipleisetchedintothe
environmentallawofthecountryandthattheStateGovernmentandStatutory
Authoritiesmustanticipate,preventandattackthecausesofenvironmental
degradationandthatwhentherearethreatsofseriousandirreversible
environmentaldamage,lackofscientificcertaintyshouldnotbeusedasa
reasonforpostponingmeasurestopreventenvironmentaldegradation.Placing
ontheaforesaidjudgment,hissubmissionisthat,the3
rd
respondentcannotbe
casualinitsapproachinissuanceofToRnortheCommitteecouldmakethe
recommendations,whichinfactarethreatstotheenvironmentandmayresult
inenvironmentaldegradation.
III.Submissionsofthelearnedcounselforthe5
th
Respondent:
18.SriMekaRahulChowdary,learnedcounselforthe5
th
respondent,
submittedthatthewritpetition,challengingthedecisionofthe3
rd
respondent
atits263
rd
meetingheldon30.05.2025toissuetermsofreferencetothe5
th
respondentforrelocationofitsBioMedicalWasteTreatmentFacilityfrom
DharmavarappaduThanda,JaggayyapetaMandal,NTRDistricttoIndustrial
DevelopmentArea,Kondapalli,NTRDistrict,isprematureandisnot
maintainable.HesubmittedthatasperdirectionNo.7(i)oftheEIANotification,
dated14.09.2006,issuanceofapriorenvironmentalclearanceisa4-stage
processi.e.,Screening,Scoping,PublicConsultationandAppraisal.He
1
(1996)5SCC647
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
15
submittedthatthedecisiontoissuetermsofreferencefortheproposed
relocationbythe5
th
respondentispartofthesecondstageoftheprocess.In
thesaidprocessofScoping,theStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommittee(SEAC)
determinedetailedandcomprehensiveTermsofReference(ToR)addressingall
relevantenvironmentalconcernsforthepreparationofanEnvironmental
ImpactAssessment(EIA)Reportinrespectoftheproject,forwhichprior
environmentalclearanceissought.HesubmittedthatTermsofReference(ToR)
isachecklistoutliningvariousaspects,andthatbyitselfisnotanenvironment
clearancenoradocumentpermittingaprojectproponenttoestablishor
operate,creatingarightonthe5
th
respondent.Itisonlyastandardized
documentencapsulatingthescopeofEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA)
study.Therefore,hesubmittedthatthewritpetitionisfiledatapre-decisional
stage.Challengingmereissuanceofstandardtermsofreferenceispremature
andliabletobedismissedonthisground.
19.Learnedcounselforthe5
th
respondentfurthersubmittedthateven
ifthetermsofreferenceistobeconsideredasafinaldecisiongranting
permissiontorelocateorestablishoroperateaproject,thesamewasmadein
termsoftheprovisionsoftheEnvironmentProtectionAct,1986readwithEIA
Notification,2006dated14.09.2006andtherefore,ifthepetitionerisaggrieved
bysuchadecisionhehasanefficaciousandalternativeremedyavailablein
termsofSection16oftheNationalGreenTribunalAct,2010.So,inthe
presenceofthestatutoryremedy,thepetitionercannotinvokeextraordinary
jurisdictionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia.
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
16
20.Learnedcounselforthe5
th
respondentfurthersubmittedthatthe
petitionerhasalsonolocusstanditomaintainthewritpetitiontochallengeToR.
Hesubmittedthatthepetitionerisathirdpartyandhehasnovestedrightsin
respectoftheapplicationmadebythe5
th
respondentforissuanceofprior
environmentalclearanceandthereisnoquestionofinfringementof
fundamentalrightsofthepetitioner,andtherefore,grantoffinaldecision,ifso
madebygrantingenvironmentalclearancetothe5
th
respondentatthe
proposedrelocationoftheexistingfacilityUnitOne,thepetitionercannot
maintainthewritpetition.Hesubmittedthatthepetitioner’scaseisthathe
intendstoestablishacommonBioMedicalWasteTreatmentFacility,which
intentioncouldnotbeconsideredasgivinganyrighttothepetitionertoassail
thetermsofreferenceissuedtothe5
th
respondent.
21.Learnedcounselforthe5
th
respondentplacedrelianceinMantri
Techzone(P)Ltd.v.ForwardFoundation
2
andMunicipalCorpn.of
GreaterMumbaiv.AnkitaSinha
3
insupportofhiscontentions.
IV.Pointsforconsideration:
22.Thefollowingpointsariseforourconsideration:
A.Whetherthepetitionercanmaintainthewritpetition?
B.Whethertheimpugnedrecommendationsdeservetobeinterfered
withatthisstageoftheproceedingsintheexerciseoftheWrit
Jurisdiction?
2
(2019)18SCC494
3
(2022)12SCC401
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
17
V.Analysis/Consideration:
23.Wehaveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissionsadvancedbythe
learnedcounselsforthepartiesandperusedthematerialonrecord.
Point‘A’:
24.Weareoftheviewthatinteraliatheaspects,thatthepetitionerhad
alreadyappliedforestablishmentoftheCBWTfacilitieswhichisunder
considerationattheplacewhichthepetitionerpurchased;itsdistancefromthe
site,wheretherelocationhasbeenrequestedbythe5
th
respondent,andthe
effectoftheimpugnedrecommendationsonthepetitionerpendingapplication
forCBWTfacilities,cannotbedisputed.Further,oncethepetitioner’s
representationwasrejectedandhiscontentionisthathisrepresentationhas
notbeenproperlyconsideredwhilemakingtherecommendationsinfavourof
the5
th
respondent,weareoftheviewthatitcannotbesaidthatthepetitioner
isnotapersonaggrievedfromtherecommendationsmadeinfavourofthe5
th
respondenttreatingitacaseofrelocationorthatthepetitionerhasnorightof
hearingornolocustomaintainthewritpetition.
25.Itisadifferentaspectthat,challengingtherecommendationsmade,
thiscourtmaynotinterfereintheexerciseofWritJurisdictionwiththe
recommendationsatthisstageoftheproceedingsifthepetitionerhasgotthe
opportunitytoraisethechallengetothoserecommendationsandtoraisehis
grievancesbeforetheCompetentAuthoritiesunderthesameNotification2016.
26.InMunicipalCorpn.ofGreaterMumbai(supra)theHon’bleApex
CourthasheldthattheNGTisnotjustanadjudicatorybodybuthastoperform
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
18
widerfunctionsinthenatureofprevention,remedyandamelioration.The
NGThassuomotupowersindischargeofitsfunctionsandthatthefunctionsof
NGTanditsroleisdifferentfromvariousotherTribunals.TheNGTisa
specializedForumnotonlyasalikesubstituteforcivilCourtsbutmore
importantlytotakeitsenvironmentalcases.Italsoexercisesroleasan
appellateauthorityandisconferredwiththeresponsibilitiestodischargethe
roleofsupervisorybodyanddecidethesubstantialquestionsrelatingto
environment.
27.ThelawiswellsettledasintheaforesaidcaseofMunicipalCorpn.
OfGreaterMumbai(supra)citedbythelearnedcounselforthe5
th
respondent.Atthesametime,itisalsowellsettledthatthejurisdictionofthis
CourtunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiaisnottakenawaybyany
Tribunal,includingtheNGT.Referencemaybemadetothejudgmentof
MadhyaPradeshHighCourtAdvocatesBarAssociationvsUnionof
India
4
,inwhichtheHon’bleApexCourtclearlylaiddownthattheNational
GreenTribunalunderSection14and22oftheNGTActdoesnotoustthe
jurisdictionoftheHighCourtunderArticles226and227oftheConstitutionof
India.
28.Paragraph-45ofMadhyaPradeshHighCourtAdvocatesBar
Association(supra)isasfollows:
“45. Inconsequenceoftheaboveanalysis,ourconclusionsare,
4
2022SCCOnLineSC639
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
19
A.TheNationalGreenTribunalunderSections14&22oftheNGT
ActdoesnotousttheHighCourt’sjurisdictionunderArticle226&227asthe
sameisapartofthebasicstructureoftheConstitution.”
29.InMantriTechzone(P)Ltd.(supra),uponwhichalsolearned
counselforthe5
th
respondentplacedreliance,theHon’bleApexCourtheldthat
theNGTActbeingbeneficiallegislation,thepowerbestowedupontheTribunal
wouldnotbereadnarrowly.Aninterpretationwhichfurtherstheinterestsof
environmentmustbegivenabroaderreadingratherthanonetakingawaythe
jurisdiction.
30.WearenottakingawaythejurisdictionoftheNationalGreen
Tribunalbymakinganyinterpretationsoastooustitsjurisdictionconferredon
NGT.Accordingtothelearnedcounselforthe5
th
respondenthimself,the
presentisacaseofconsiderationatthesecondstageandthefinaldecisionis
yettobetakenandinhissubmissionaswell,atpresenttherewouldbeno
remedybeforetheNationalGreenTribunal,butitisonlyifthe
recommendationsaretobetakenasdecision,theremedywouldbebeforethe
NationalGreenTribunal.Wearenottakingtherecommendations,asfinal
decisionsofthecompetentAuthority.
Point‘B’:
31.Fromtheaforesaid,itisevidentthatthepetitionerwasgranted
environmentalclearanceon22.08.2020foraperiodofsevenyears,whichhas
yetnotexpired.Further,onthepetitioner’sapplicationtoestablisha
BiomedicalWasteTreatmentFacilitiesatthesitewhichthepetitionerpurchased,
thematterispendingconsideration,inwhichthegapanalysisreporthasbeen
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
20
submitted,asperthereplyaffidavit(para.4)(c).The5
th
respondentfiledthe
applicationforreallocationofitsunitonetotheplaceneartositepurchasedby
thepetitioner.ThelocationofunitoneoftherespondentNo.5isataplace
whichasperthepetitioner’scaseiswithintheradiusof75kms.
Recommendationhasbeenmadeinfavourofthe5
th
respondenttreatingitasa
caseofrelocation.
32.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatitisnotacaseof
relocation,astheAct,Rules,notificationsdonotprovideforrelocationand
providesonlyfortheenvironmentalclearancefornewproject,expansionor
modernizationoftheexistingprojects.Hereferredtotheapplicationofthe5
th
respondenttopointoutthatitdoesnotmentionrelocation.Learnedcounsel
forthe5
th
respondentsubmittedthatitisacaseofrelocation,butthereisno
columnofrelocationintheformatandconsequentlythe5
th
respondentapplied
aspertheformat.Hesubmittedthattherelocationispermissible.
33.Learnedcounsels,however,aftersomearguments,asaforesaid,are
notatissuewithrespecttotherevisedguidelinesforcommonBiomedical
WasteTreatmentFacilities,whichprovidethatifanexistingprojectintendsto
relocateitsfacilitiescomplianceoftherelevantprovisionsnotifiedunderthe
EnvironmentalProtectionAct,1986havetobecompliedwith.
34.RevisedGuidelinesforBiomedicalWaterTreatmentFacilitiesdated
21.12.2016,GuidelineNo.5Point.3readasunder:
“5)Environmentallawsapplicableforcommissioningoroperation
ofaCBWTF:
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
21
OperationofaCBWTFleadstoairemissionsaswellaswastewater
generationasincaseofanindustrialoperation.Mostcommonsourcesofwaste
watergenerationinCBWTFsarevehiclewashing,floorwashing,andscrubbed
liquideffluentfromairpollutioncontrolsystemsattachedwiththe
incinerator/plasmapyrolysis.IncinerationaswellasDGSetisthegeneral
sourceofairemissions.
5.1…..
5.2……
5.3EnvironmentalClearanceunderEIANotification2006:
MinistryofEnvironment,Forest&ClimateChange(MoEF&CC),
notifiedamendmenttotheEIANotification2006andpublishedvideMoEF&
CCNotificationofS.O.1142(E)datedApril17,2015.Accordingtothis
notification,the‘bio-medicalwastetreatmentfacility’iscategorizedunderthe
Item7(da)intheschedule,requiring‘environmentalclearance’fromtheState
EnvironmentImpactAssessmentAuthority(SEIAA).Therefore,theCBWTF
operatorisalsorequiredtoobtain‘EnvironmentalClearance(EC)’fromthe
respectiveSEIAAorMinistryofEnvironment,Forest&ClimateChange
(MoEF&CC),asthecasemaybe,beforeanyconstructionwork,orpreparation
oflandbytheprojectsmanagement,whichincludethefollowing:
a)Allnewprojectsoractivitiespertainingtothebio-medicalwastetreatment
facility;and
b)Expansionandmodernizationwithadditionaltreatmentcapacityofexisting
bio-medicalwastetreatmentfacility(excludingaugmentationofincineration
facilityforcompliancetotheresidencetimeaswellasDioxinsandFurans
withoutenhancingtheexistingtreatmentcapacity).
c)Anyexpansionormodificationinthetreatmentcapacityorrelocationof
theexistingCBWTF(requirescompliancetotherelevantprovisions
notifiedundertheEnvironment(Protection)Act,1986bytheMoEF&
CC.”
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
22
35.TheRevisedGuidelinesforCommonBioMedicalWasteTreatment
Facilitiesprovidethatifanexistingprojectintendstorelocateitsfacility,
complianceoftherelevantprovisionsnotifiedundertheEnvironmentProtection
Act,1986havetobecomplied.
36.Atthisstage,wewouldrefertothenotificationdated14.09.2006on
thesubjectofgrantofpriorenvironmentalclearance.Wewouldreferto
paragraphs6,7and8inparticularoftheNotificationdated14.09.2006,for
readyreference,whicharereproducedasunder:
“6.ApplicationforPriorEnvironmentalClearance(EC):-
Anapplicationseekingpriorenvironmentalclearanceinallcasesshall
bemadeintheprescribedForm1annexedherewithandSupplementaryForm
1A,ifapplicable,asgiveninAppendixII,aftertheidentificationofprospective
site(s)fortheprojectand/oractivitiestowhichtheapplicationrelates,before
commencinganyconstructionactivity,orpreparationofland,atthesitebythe
applicant.Theapplicantshallfurnish,alongwiththeapplication,acopyofthe
pre-feasibilityprojectreportexceptthat,incaseofconstructionprojectsor
activities(item8oftheSchedule)inadditiontoForm1andtheSupplementary
Form1A,acopyoftheconceptualplanshallbeprovided,insteadofthepre-
feasibilityreport.”
7.StagesinthePriorEnvironmentalClearance(EC)Processfor
NewProjects:-
7(i)Theenvironmentalclearanceprocessfornewprojectswillcomprise
ofamaximumoffourstages,allofwhichmaynotapplytoparticularcasesas
setforthbelowinthisnotification.Thesefourstagesinsequentialorderare:-
•Stage(1)Screening(OnlyforCategory‘B’projectsandactivities)
•Stage(2)Scoping
•Stage(3)PublicConsultation
•Stage(4)Appraisal
I.Stage(1)-Screening:
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
23
IncaseofCategory‘B’projectsoractivities,thisstagewillentailthe
scrutinyofanapplicationseekingpriorenvironmentalclearancemadeinForm
1bytheconcernedStatelevelExpertAppraisalCommittee(SEAC)for
determiningwhetherornottheprojectoractivityrequiresfurther
environmentalstudiesforpreparationofanEnvironmentalImpactAssessment
(EIA)foritsappraisalpriortothegrantofenvironmentalclearancedepending
uponthenatureandlocationspecificityoftheproject.Theprojectsrequiring
anEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentreportshallbetermedCategory‘B1’and
remainingprojectsshallbetermedCategory‘B2’andwillnotrequirean
EnvironmentImpactAssessmentreport.ForcategorizationofprojectsintoB1
orB2exceptitem8(b),theMinistryofEnvironmentandForestsshallissue
appropriateguidelinesfromtimetotime.
II.Stage(2)-Scoping:
(i)“Scoping”:referstotheprocessbywhichtheExpertAppraisal
CommitteeinthecaseofCategory‘A’projectsoractivities,andStatelevel
ExpertAppraisalCommitteeinthecaseofCategory‘B1’projectsoractivities,
includingapplicationsforexpansionand/ormodernizationand/orchangein
productmixofexistingprojectsoractivities,determinedetailedand
comprehensiveTermsOfReference(TOR)addressingallrelevant
environmentalconcernsforthepreparationofanEnvironmentImpact
Assessment(EIA)Reportinrespectoftheprojectoractivityforwhichprior
environmentalclearanceissought.TheExpertAppraisalCommitteeorState
levelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcernedshalldeterminetheTermsof
Referenceonthebasisoftheinformationfurnishedintheprescribed
applicationForm1/Form1AincludingTernsofReferenceproposedbythe
applicant,asitevisitbyasub-groupofExpertAppraisalCommitteeorState
levelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcernedonlyifconsiderednecessaryby
theExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommittee
concerned,TermsofReferencesuggestedbytheapplicantiffurnishedand
otherinformationthatmaybeavailablewiththeExpertAppraisalCommittee
orStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcerned.Allprojectsand
activitieslistedasCategory‘B’inItem8oftheSchedule
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
24
(Construction/Township/CommercialComplexes/Housing)shallnotrequire
ScopingandwillbeappraisedonthebasisofForm1/Form1Aandthe
conceptualplan.
(ii)TheTermsofReference(TOR)shallbeconveyedtotheapplicant
bytheExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommittee
asconcernedwithinsixtydaysofthereceiptofForm1.InthecaseofCategory
AHydroelectricprojectsItem1(c)(i)oftheScheduletheTermsofReference
shallbeconveyedalongwiththeclearanceforpreconstructionactivities.Ifthe
TermsofReferencearenotfinalizedandconveyedtotheapplicantwithinsixty
daysofthereceiptofForm1,theTermsofReferencesuggestedbythe
applicantshallbedeemedasthefinalTermsofReferenceapprovedfortheEIA
studies.TheapprovedTermsofReferenceshallbedisplayedonthewebsiteof
theMinistryofEnvironmentandForestsandtheconcernedStateLevel
EnvironmentImpactAssessmentAuthority.
(iii)Applicationsforpriorenvironmentalclearancemayberejectedby
theregulatoryauthorityconcernedontherecommendationoftheEACor
SEACconcernedatthisstageitself.Incaseofsuchrejection,thedecision
togetherwithreasonsforthesameshallbecommunicatedtotheapplicantin
writingwithinsixtydaysofthereceiptoftheapplication.
III.Stage(3)-PublicConsultation:
(i)“PublicConsultation”referstotheprocessbywhichtheconcernsof
localaffectedpersonsandotherswhohaveplausiblestakeintheenvironmental
impactsoftheprojectoractivityareascertainedwithaviewtotakinginto
accountallthematerialconcernsintheprojectoractivitydesignasappropriate.
AllCategory‘A’andCategoryB1projectsoractivitiesshallundertakePublic
Consultation,exceptthefollowing:-
(a)modernizationofirrigationprojects(item1(c)(ii)oftheSchedule).
(b)allprojectsoractivitieslocatedwithinindustrialestatesorparks
(item7(c)oftheSchedule)approvedbytheconcernedauthorities,andwhich
arenotdisallowedinsuchapprovals.
(c)expansionofRoadsandHighways(item7(f)oftheSchedule)which
donotinvolveanyfurtheracquisitionofland.
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
25
(d)AllBuildingorConstructionprojectsorAreaDevelopmentprojects
andTownships(item8).
e)allCategory‘B2’projectsandactivities.
f)allprojectsoractivitiesconcerningnationaldefenceandsecurityor
involvingotherstrategicconsiderationsasdeterminedbytheCentral
Government.
(ii)ThePublicConsultationshallordinarilyhavetwocomponents
comprisingof:-
(a)apublichearingatthesiteorinitscloseproximity-districtwise,to
becarriedoutinthemannerprescribedinAppendixIV,forascertaining
concernsoflocalaffectedpersons;
(b)obtainresponsesinwritingfromotherconcernedpersonshavinga
plausiblestakeintheenvironmentalaspectsoftheprojectoractivity.
(iii)thepublichearingat,orincloseproximityto,thesite(s)inallcases
shallbeconductedbytheStatePollutionControlBoard(SPCB)ortheUnion
territoryPollutionControlCommittee(UTPCC)concernedinthespecified
mannerandforwardtheproceedingstotheregulatoryauthorityconcerned
within45(fortyfive)ofarequesttotheeffectfromtheapplicant.
(iv)incasetheStatePollutionControlBoardortheUnionterritory
PollutionControlCommitteeconcerneddoesnotundertakeandcompletethe
publichearingwithinthespecifiedperiod,and/ordoesnotconveythe
proceedingsofthepublichearingwithintheprescribedperioddirectlytothe
regulatoryauthorityconcernedasabove,theregulatoryauthorityshallengage
anotherpublicagencyorauthoritywhichisnotsubordinatetotheregulatory
authority,tocompletetheprocesswithinafurtherperiodoffortyfivedays,
(v)Ifthepublicagencyorauthoritynominatedunderthesubparagraph
(iii)abovereportstotheregulatoryauthorityconcernedthatowingtothelocal
situation,itisnotpossibletoconductthepublichearinginamannerwhichwill
enabletheviewsoftheconcernedlocalpersonstobefreelyexpressed,itshall
reportthefactsindetailtotheconcernedregulatoryauthority,whichmay,after
dueconsiderationofthereportandotherreliableinformationthatitmayhave,
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
26
decidethatthepublicconsultationinthecaseneednotincludethepublic
hearing.
(vi)Forobtainingresponsesinwritingfromotherconcernedpersons
havingaplausiblestakeintheenvironmentalaspectsoftheprojectoractivity,
theconcernedregulatoryauthorityandtheStatePollutionControlBoard
(SPCB)ortheUnionterritoryPollutionControlCommittee(UTPCC)shall
inviteresponsesfromsuchconcernedpersonsbyplacingontheirwebsitethe
SummaryEIAreportpreparedintheformatgiveninAppendixIIIAbythe
applicantalongwithacopyoftheapplicationintheprescribedform,within
sevendaysofthereceiptofawrittenrequestforarrangingthepublichearing.
Confidentialinformationincludingnon-disclosableorlegallyprivileged
informationinvolvingIntellectualPropertyRight,sourcespecifiedinthe
applicationshallnotbeplacedonthewebsite.Theregulatoryauthority
concernedmayalsouseotherappropriatemediaforensuringwidepublicity
abouttheprojectoractivity.Theregulatoryauthorityshall,however,make
availableonawrittenrequestfromanyconcernedpersontheDraftEIAreport
forinspectionatanotifiedplaceduringnormalofficehourstillthedateofthe
publichearing.Alltheresponsesreceivedaspartofthispublicconsultation
processshallbeforwardedtotheapplicantthroughthequickestavailable
means.
(vii)Aftercompletionofthepublicconsultation,theapplicantshall
addressallthematerialenvironmentalconcernsexpressedduringthisprocess,
andmakeappropriatechangesinthedraftEIAandEMP.ThefinalEIAreport,
soprepared,shallbesubmittedbytheapplicanttotheconcernedregulatory
authorityforappraisal.Theapplicantmayalternativelysubmitasupplementary
reporttodraftEIAandEMPaddressingalltheconcernsexpressedduringthe
publicconsultation.
IV.Stage(4)-Appraisal:
(i)AppraisalmeansthedetailedscrutinybytheExpertAppraisal
CommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeoftheapplicationand
otherdocumentsliketheFinalEIAreport,outcomeofthepublicconsultations
includingpublichearingproceedings,submittedbytheapplicanttothe
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
27
regulatoryauthorityconcernedforgrantofenvironmentalclearance.This
appraisalshallbemadebyExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpert
AppraisalCommitteeconcernedinatransparentmannerinaproceedingto
whichtheapplicantshallbeinvitedforfurnishingnecessaryclarificationsin
personorthroughanauthorizedrepresentative.Onconclusionofthis
proceeding,theExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisal
Committeeconcernedshallmakecategoricalrecommendationstothe
regulatoryauthorityconcernedeitherforgrantofpriorenvironmentalclearance
onstipulatedtermsandconditions,orrejectionoftheapplicationforprior
environmentalclearance,togetherwithreasonsforthesame.
(ii)Theappraisalofallprojectsoractivitieswhicharenotrequiredto
undergopublicconsultation,orsubmitanEnvironmentImpactAssessment
report,shallbecarriedoutonthebasisoftheprescribedapplicationForm1and
Form1Aasapplicable,anyotherrelevantvalidatedinformationavailableand
thesitevisitwhereverthesameisconsideredasnecessarybytheExpert
AppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcerned.
(iii)TheappraisalofanapplicationshallbecompletedbytheExpert
AppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcerned
withinsixtydaysofthereceiptofthefinalEnvironmentImpactAssessment
reportandotherdocumentsorthereceiptofForm1andForm1A,where
publicconsultationisnotnecessaryandtherecommendationsoftheExpert
AppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeshallbe
placedbeforethecompetentauthorityforafinaldecisionwithinthenextfifteen
days.TheprescribedprocedureforappraisalisgiveninAppendixV;
7(ii).PriorEnvironmentalClearance(EC)processforExpansionor
ModernizationorChangeofproductmixinexistingprojects:
Allapplicationsseekingpriorenvironmentalclearanceforexpansion
withincreaseintheproductioncapacitybeyondthecapacityforwhichprior
environmentalclearancehasbeengrantedunderthisnotificationorwith
increaseineitherleaseareaorproductioncapacityinthecaseofmining
projectsorforthemodernizationofanexistingunitwithincreaseinthetotal
productioncapacitybeyondthethresholdlimitprescribedintheScheduleto
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
28
thisnotificationthroughchangeinprocessandortechnologyorinvolvinga
changeintheproduct–mixshallbemadeinFormIandtheyshallbe
consideredbytheconcernedExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpert
AppraisalCommitteewithinsixtydays,whowilldecideontheduediligence
necessaryincludingpreparationofEIAandpublicconsultationsandthe
applicationshallbeappraisedaccordinglyforgrantofenvironmentalclearance.
8.GrantorRejectionofPriorEnvironmentalClearance(EC):
(i)Theregulatoryauthorityshallconsidertherecommendationsofthe
EACorSEACconcernedandconveyitsdecisiontotheapplicantwithinforty
fivedaysofthereceiptoftherecommendationsoftheExpertAppraisal
CommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcernedorinother
wordswithinonehundredandfivedaysofthereceiptofthefinalEnvironment
ImpactAssessmentReport,andwhereEnvironmentImpactAssessmentisnot
required,withinonehundredandfivedaysofthereceiptofthecomplete
applicationwithrequisitedocuments,exceptasprovidedbelow.
(ii)Theregulatoryauthorityshallnormallyaccepttherecommendations
oftheExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommittee
concerned.IncaseswhereitdisagreeswiththerecommendationsoftheExpert
AppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcerned,
theregulatoryauthorityshallrequestreconsiderationbytheExpertAppraisal
CommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcernedwithinforty
fivedaysofthereceiptoftherecommendationsoftheExpertAppraisal
CommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcernedwhilestating
thereasonsforthedisagreement.Anintimationofthisdecisionshallbe
simultaneouslyconveyedtotheapplicant.TheExpertAppraisalCommitteeor
StateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcerned,inturn,shallconsiderthe
observationsoftheregulatoryauthorityandfurnishitsviewsonthesame
withinafurtherperiodofsixtydays.Thedecisionoftheregulatoryauthority
afterconsideringtheviewsoftheExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevel
ExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcernedshallbefinalandconveyedtothe
applicantbytheregulatoryauthorityconcernedwithinthenextthirtydays.
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
29
(iii)Intheeventthatthedecisionoftheregulatoryauthorityisnot
communicatedtotheapplicantwithintheperiodspecifiedinsub-paragraphs(i)
or(ii)above,asapplicable,theapplicantmayproceedasiftheenvironment
clearancesoughtforhasbeengrantedordeniedbytheregulatoryauthorityin
termsofthefinalrecommendationsoftheExpertAppraisalCommitteeorState
LevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcerned.
(iv)Onexpiryoftheperiodspecifiedfordecisionbytheregulatory
authorityunderparagraph(i)and(ii)above,asapplicable,thedecisionofthe
regulatoryauthority,andthefinalrecommendationsoftheExpertAppraisal
CommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeconcernedshallbe
publicdocuments.
(v)Clearancesfromotherregulatorybodiesorauthoritiesshallnotbe
requiredpriortoreceiptofapplicationsforpriorenvironmentalclearanceof
projectsoractivities,orscreening,orscoping,orappraisal,ordecisionbythe
regulatoryauthorityconcerned,unlessanyoftheseissequentiallydependenton
suchclearanceeitherduetoarequirementoflaw,orfornecessarytechnical
reasons.
(vi)Deliberateconcealmentand/orsubmissionoffalseormisleading
informationordatawhichismaterialtoscreeningorscopingorappraisalor
decisionontheapplicationshallmaketheapplicationliableforrejection,and
cancellationofpriorenvironmentalclearancegrantedonthatbasis.Rejectionof
anapplicationorcancellationofapriorenvironmentalclearancealready
granted,onsuchground,shallbedecidedbytheregulatoryauthority,after
givingapersonalhearingtotheapplicant,andfollowingtheprinciplesof
naturaljustice.”
37.Brieflystated,asperpara-6oftheNotification,dated14.09.2006,an
applicationseekingpriorenvironmentalclearanceinallcasesshallbemadein
theprescribedForm1annexedwiththeNotificationandSupplementaryForm
1A,ifapplicable,asgiveninAppendixII.Asperpara-7(i)oftheNotification,
whichdealswithenvironmentalclearanceprocessforNewProjects,thereare
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
30
fourstages.Para-7(ii)dealswithpriorenvironmentalclearanceprocessfor
expansionormodernizationorchangeofproductmixinexistingprojects.
Para-7(ii),alsoprovidesforApplicationsinForm-I,considerationbythe
concernedExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisal
Committee,includingpreparationofEnvironmentImpactAssessment(EIA)and
publicconsultationsandappraisals.
38.Asperpara-7,theapplicationsatStage-Iwillbescreened.InStage-
II,thereisscopingwhichreferstotheprocessbywhichtheExpertAppraisal
Committee(EAC)inthecaseofCategory‘A’projectsoractivities,andState
LevelExpertAppraisalCommittee(SEAC)inthecaseofCategory‘B’projectsor
activities,includingapplicationsforexpansionand/ormodernizationand/or
changeinproductmixofexistingprojectsoractivities,determinedetailedand
comprehensiveTermsOfReference(TOR)addressingallrelevant
environmentalconcernsforthepreparationofanEnvironmentImpact
Assessment(EIA)Reportinrespectoftheprojectoractivity,forwhichprior
environmentalclearanceissought.Thedetailedprocessofscopingis
prescribed.Stage-IIIofPublicConsultation,inthisStage,interalia,thepublic
consultationhavetwocomponents.Apublichearingforascertainingconcerns
oflocalaffectedpersons,andalsoobtainingresponsesinwritingfromthe
concernedpersonshavingaplausiblestageintheenvironmentalaspectsofthe
projectoractivity.ThepublichearingistobeconductedbytheStatePollution
ControlBoard(SPCB)ortheUnionTerritoryPollutionControlCommittee
(UTPCC)concernedinthespecifiedmanner,whichhastoforwardthe
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
31
proceedingstotheregulatoryauthorityconcerned.Thedetailedprocedurefor
publicconsultationhasbeenspecifiedandaftercompletionofthepublic
consultation,theappraisalismadeinStage-IVbytheExpertAppraisal
Committeeinthemannerlaiddown.
39.Theregulatoryauthority,thereafter,hastoconsiderthe
recommendationsofExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpert
AppraisalCommitteeconcernedandfollowthefurtherprocedure.Thoughas
perpara-8(ii)theregulatoryauthorityshallnormallyacceptthe
recommendationsoftheExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpert
AppraisalCommitteeconcerned,butthatisthenormally.Inourview,therole
oftheregulatoryauthorityshallnotbeboundbytherecommendationsofthe
ExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommittee.The
regulatoryauthoritymayalsodisagreewiththerecommendationsoftheExpert
AppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpertAppraisalCommitteeforthereasons
recorded,andthentheExpertAppraisalCommitteeorStateLevelExpert
AppraisalCommitteehastoconsidertheobservationsoftheregulatory
authorityandfurnishitsviewsonthesame.ThedecisionoftheRegulatory
Authorityshallbefinal.TheRegulatoryAuthorityhasalsogotthepowerunder
Para-8(vi)that,incaseofdeliberateconcealmentand/orsubmissionoffalseor
misleadinginformationordatawhichismaterialtoscreeningorscopingor
appraisalordecisionontheapplication,torejecttheapplicationandalsoto
cancelthepriorenvironmentalclearance,ifgranted.
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
32
40.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatattributingexisting
coverageareaandbedstrengthtothe5
th
respondentinthenewlocationwill
haveseriousimplicationonthepetitioner’sfacilityinasmuchasthe5
th
respondentispresentlycateringtocoverageareaof140km,andbyattributing
thesameexistingcoveragearea,the5
th
respondentwillcontinuetooperate
theentireareaofKrishnaDistrictleavingthepetitionerwithnothing.Therefore,
the3
rd
respondentoughtnottohaveattributedcoverageareaatthestageof
TermsofReference(ToR).
41.Thematterispendingbeforethecompetentauthorityfor
appropriatedecision.Aspertheguidelinesasreproducedabovethestage
No.4‘appraisal’isyettobereached.Inthatstagealso,thepetitionerwillhave
theopportunityofhearing.Thecontentionsasraisedbeforetheauthority
rejectingtherepresentationandmakingtherecommendationsinfavourofthe
5
th
respondent,maybere-agitatedatthe4
th
stagebeforethecompetent
authority.Additionally,anyotherobjectionaspermissibleunderthelawcan
alsobetakenbeforethesaidauthority.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthose
objectionsarerequiredtobeconsideredbythecompetentauthoritybefore
takingafinaldecision,independentlyandinconsonancewiththeprinciplesof
naturaljusticei.edueopportunityofhearingtothepetitioneraswellastothe
5
th
respondentandbypassingareasonedorder.Thegrievanceofthepetitioner
thatalltheobjectionsraisedintherepresentationswerenotconsideredwhile
makingtherecommendationsinfavourofthe5
th
respondent,ifitbeso,they
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
33
canalsobeconsideredandre-consideredinthe4
th
stagebythecompetent
authority.
42.Thoughboththelearnedcounselssubmittedthatthe3
rd
stageof
publicconsultationisnotrelevantforthereasonsthatthethirdstageisapublic
consultationforallthecategories–AandCategory-B1projectoractivitiesbut
exceptinthecasesexemptedasmentionedunder‘thethirdstage’itself,inter
aliainClause-Bthatalltheprojectsoractivitieslocatedwithintheindustrial
estatesorpartsItem7(c)oftheScheduleapprovedbytheconcerned
authoritiesandwhicharenotdisallowedinsuchapprovals,butweareofthe
viewthatsuchaspectoftheapplicabilityofthe3
rd
stage‘thepublic
consultation’whichisanimportantstageunderthenotification,shouldalsobe
consideredbythecompetentauthorityiftheexemptionthereunderisattracted
ornottothepresentcaseandforsuchexemptionof‘PublicConsultation’,if
applicable,cogentreasonsshouldalsoberecorded.
43.Learnedcounselforboththesidessubmittedthattherearefour
stagesunderthenotificationandthepresentisatthe2
nd
stage.So,the
recommendationsarenotthefinaldecision.Thefinaldecisionisyettobe
taken.
44.Therecannotbeanydisputeonprinciplesorthepropositionoflaw,
aslaiddownbytheHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofVelloreCitizens’
WelfareForum(Supra)relieduponbythelearnedcounselforthepetitioner,
that,whiletheindustriesarevitalforcountry’sdevelopment,buthavingregard
topollutioncausedbythem,principleofsustainabledevelopmenthastobe
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
34
adoptedasabalancingconcept,andthataspectcanalsobeseenbythe
competentauthority.
VI.Conclusions:
45.Weholdthatthepetitionerhasthelocusandbeingaggrievedfrom
therecommendationsmadeinfavourofthe5
th
respondentcanmaintainthe
writpetition.But,asthereisalternativeremedytoraisehisgrievance,atthis
stage,andthefinaldecisionisyettobetakenbytheauthorityunderthe4
th
stage,inwhichthepetitionershallhavetheopportunityofhearingintermsof
thenotificationitself,wearenotinclinedtoenterintothemeritsofthe
recommendationsmadeforToR,atthisstageoftheproceedings,buttomeet
theendsofjustice,Weareinclinedtodisposeofthewritpetitionfinallywith
certaindirections.
VII.Result:
46.Intheresult,thecompetent/regulatoryauthorityshalltake
appropriatedecisioninaccordancewithlawinthependingmatter,considering
theobjectionsofthepetitionerasalsoofthe5
th
respondent,withdue
opportunityofhearingtothemincludingtheconsiderationifthestage3of
‘publicconsultation’wouldbeattractedorexemptedunderthenotification.It
shallalsokeepinviewwhetheritisacaseofestablishmentofanewfacilityat
theinstanceofthe5
th
respondentoritisacaseofrelocationofitsunitone,
andineithercasetopassareasonedOrder,ontherelevantconsiderations
interaliatheGuidelinesforBio-MedicalWasteTreatmentandDisposalFacilities,
2016.
RNT,J&MRK,J
WPNo.16280of2025
35
47.Thedecisionshallbetakenwithinaperiodof6(six)monthsfrom
today.
48.Thewritpetitionisdisposedofwiththeaforesaidobservationsand
directions.Noorderastocosts.
Pendingmiscellaneouspetitions,ifany,shallstandclosedin
consequence.
_______________________
RAVINATHTILHARI,J
______________________________
MAHESWARARAOKUNCHEAM,J
Date:22.01.2026
Dsr
Note:
LRcopytobemarked
B/o
Dsr
Legal Notes
Add a Note....