Supreme Court Quashes NGT Order To Shut Down Garbage Plant In Pune; Directs PMC To Address Foul Odour Concerns

The Supreme Court today (September 12) quashed the National Green Tribunal's order to shut down a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) in Baner, Pune observing that shutting it down will be detrimental to public interest.

“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”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan, however, directed the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and operator of the plant to take measures to ensure that the residents of the nearby buildings do not suffer due to foul odour.

“we find it necessary to caution the appellant-Corporation as well as the respondent-Concessionaire 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 Court stated.

A local residents' group had approached the NGT claiming that the plant emitted foul odours, contributed to air and water pollution, and was located too close to residential neighbourhoods, violating the residents' fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment.

Further, it was claimed that the land on which the GPP was located was originally designated as a site for a biodiversity park in the city's 2005 development plan.

The NGT constituted a joint inspection committee, which reported that the GPP was causing pollution and foul odours. The NGT on October 27, 2020, directed the closure of the plant and ordered its relocation. The tribunal further directed that the land originally designated for a biodiversity park should be used for that purpose. The operator's subsequent review application was also rejected by the NGT.

PMC and Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP (plant operator) filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the NGT's decision.

The tribunal had ruled that the GPP violated Rule 20 (criteria and actions to be taken for solid waste management in hilly areas) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. However, the Supreme Court noted that the application for grant of authorization, grant of authorization, grant of Environment Clearance and the commencement of the project was all prior to the date on which the 2016 Rules came into force.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the Preamble of the 2016 Rules clarifies that while these rules supersede the 2000 Rules, they do not affect actions already taken under the 2000 Rules.

The Supreme Court noted that the plant was not subject to the new buffer zone regulations outlined in the 2016 rules. The Court noted that the plant was operating within the framework of the 2000 rules, which were applicable when the project was conceived and initiated.

The Court also pointed out that at the time of the plant's establishment, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) was issuing composite authorizations for solid waste management facilities, rather than separate consents under the Water Act and the Air Act. This practice was standard until a new circular was issued in 2021, following which individual consents were required, the Court noted.

The Supreme Court further held that the 500-meter buffer zone requirement under the 2000 Rules only applied to landfill sites, not to waste processing or composting facilities like the GPP. The Court also set aside Tribunal's finding that the plot where the GPP was constructed was originally reserved for a Bio-diversity Park. The land had been reserved for the GPP from the inception, with only the adjacent plot designated for the Bio-diversity Park, the Court concluded.

The Supreme Court held that the NGT erred in ordering the closure of the GPP. The Court stressed the importance of decentralized waste processing to minimize transportation costs and environmental impact, as provided in Rule 15 of the 2016 rules.

The Court allowed the appeal, rejecting the "Not In My Backyard" argument from nearby residents. “The approach of respondent No. 1 appears to be that such a Facility though could be established in the vicinity of the other buildings, it should not be established in their backyard”, the Court observed.

The Court directed PMC and the GPP operator to implement several recommendations made by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). NEERI suggested that the slurry-making area should be covered properly, an odour control system or misting system (such as carbon filters) should be installed immediately, and better materials should be used in the plant's design to avoid corrosion and frequent breakdowns.

The Court directed the PMC to construct a shed to cover the reject area and install portable compactors with hook mechanisms by December 31, 2024, to ensure that reject waste does not touch the ground. The Court ordered the construction of bitumen roads to the Waste Segregation Plant and concreting of the reject area to prevent the accumulation of water and enhance clean waste transfer.

The Court directed PMC and the GPP operator to carry out a dense plantation around the plant to create a green buffer for the neighbouring residential areas, except where there is already a reservation for the Bio-diversity Park.

The Court directed the State Government to consider of growing Miyawaki forests in the adjacent Bio-diversity Park to provide to provide green lungs to the nearby areas.

The Court directed NEERI to conduct an environmental audit of the GPP every six months. The PMC and the GPP operator must ensure full compliance with any recommendations made by NEERI during these audits, the Court stated.

Case no. – Civil Appeal Nos. 258-259 of 2021

Case Title – Pune Municipal Corporation v. Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 692