Dismissed

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Environmental Issues. vs

NGT14 Dec 2020IA No. 427/2020 in Original Application No. 606/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL rejected Government of Madhya Pradesh's application for extension of time to comply with waste management directions, relying on previous orders rejecting valid COVID-19 arguments. The Tribunal held compensation funds must be used for environmental restoration.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time for compliance rejected; compensation to be credited to separate account for environmental restoration.

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2020)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 05

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

I.A. No. 427/2020 IN

¶5

Original Application No. 606/2018

¶6

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other environmental issues.

¶7

Date of hearing: 14.12.2020

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This application has been filed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh seeking extension of time for compliance of directions for waste management. The Tribunal considered and rejected the similar request by the State of Punjab on 17.09.2020 with the following observations:

¶11

“4. The timeline proposed goes upto 31.12.2023. Their main reason given for seeking extension of time is COVID-19. While COVID-19 is certainly an event which cannot be ignored, the Tribunal has already taken that event into account and vide order dated 21.05.2020 in O.A. 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha v. Union of India, para 13, the timeline for levy of compensation has been revised from 01.04.2020 to 01.07.2020 and 01.04.2021 to 01.07.2021 giving extension of three months. Similarly, extension of three months’ time will apply to the directions for Solid Waste Management.

¶12

5. The timelines which have been laid down are not out of the blue. They are to enforce the mandate of law laid down under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules framed thereunder and binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to extent time or to permit activities which are crime under the law of the land and also contempt of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The extension earlier granted is only for taking coercive measures of recovering compensation. In fact,

¶13

¶14

recovery of compensation is also not a coercive measure but to recover the loss caused to the environment or utilizing the said amount for remediation of environment. Thus, there is no merit in the prayer for extension of time, which has to be rejected. We may add that identical prayer of the State of Bihar has been rejected by this Tribunal on 16.9.2020 in OA 200/2014. We find difficult to make distinction in the case of any particular State as the matter is covered by binding orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and statutory provisions.

¶15

6. The State may take further steps of recovering the compensation as already directed which may be deposited with the State PCB and thereafter utilized under an action plan to be prepared by the CPCB and the State PCB.”

¶16

For the same reasons, the present application will also stand rejected with further observation that in view of separate order passed today in the main application, the compensation may now be credited to separate account with the Environment Department of the States/UTs, to be spent for restoration of the environment.

¶17

The application is disposed of.

¶18

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

S.K. Singh, JM

Dr. S.S. Garbyal, EM

Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM

December 14, 2020 I.A. No. 427/2020 IN Original Application No. 606/2018 DV

¶23

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Environmental Issues. vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Environmental Issues. vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Corporation of the City of Panaji vs the Goa State Pollution Control Board

Shri Ashwini Sharma vs 1. National Capital Region Transport Corporation

Satish Kumar vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Satish Kumar vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ram Baban Borkar vs Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra

Chandra Bhal Singh vs Union of India

Dr. P.G. Najpande & Another vs Chief Secretary

Dr. P.G. Najpande & Another vs Chief Secretary

Indian Social Responsibility Network through Santosh Gupta vs Ministry of Environment and Forest & Cc

Ramdevbhai Samatbhai Sanjva vs State of Gujarat

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Bombay Environment Action Group vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change