Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 – Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, respondent No. 1 sought to restrain the respondent-Concessionaire from operating the GPP at Survey No. 48/2/1 at Baner, Pune since the same had been established without following the procedure prescribed by law. Held: A perusal of the proposed Land Use Map for village Balewadi, Baner which was notified on 31.12.2002 would reveal that in the said Plan, Plot No. 48/2/1 was reserved for GPP – The commencement certificates insofar as all other buildings are also after the Draft Development Plan was sanctioned by the State Government – It is clear that the commencement certificates in respect of all the buildings are after the date on which the Plot was reserved for GPP – In the instant case, the application for authorization, the grant of authorization, the grant of Environment Clearance by the SEIAA and the commencement of the GPP all have taken place prior to 08.04.2016 i.e. the date on which the 2016 Rules came into force – As such, the Tribunal has grossly erred in observing that the GPP in question was covered by the 2016 Rules – A perusal of the Minutes of the 11th Consent Committee Meeting of 2015* Author
16 held on 09.11.2015 would clearly reveal that the MPCB was following the practice of granting authorization under the 2000 Rules which covers all the aspects of the consent – The MPCB started granting Consent only after 06.09.2021 and prior to that, it was only issuing a composite authorization – The Tribunal has failed to take this into consideration – Also, a perusal of the Checklist issued by the MPCB which was published in 2003 would reveal that the requirement of no-development zone or a buffer zone is only with regards to landfill sites – The contention of the respondent No. 1 that under the 2000 Rules, a buffer zone is required to be maintained for GPP is without substance – The finding of the Tribunal that initially the plot where GPP was constructed was reserved for Bio-diversity Park is also erroneous and factually incorrect – As discussed, 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 – Apart from 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 – Therefore of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside – However, the appellant-Corporation as well as the respondent-Concessionaire is cautioned that they should take necessary steps so that the residents residing in the nearby buildings do not have to suffer on account of foul odour – The appellant-Corporation and the respondent-Concessionaire are directed to ensure that all the suggestions/recommendations made by NEERI should be strictly complied with. [Paras 26, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 50]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.