Partly allowed

Drupad Malik v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Rajasthan

NGT22 Oct 2024Appeal No. 8/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal considered appeals against an order granting environmental clearance for an MSW processing plant in Ajmer, Rajasthan. Challenged on grounds of installing a landfill in a hilly area violating SWM Rules 2016, the Tribunal held no violation occurred. It found the land was allotted earlier and approved by authorities, dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and Original Application were dismissed as the Tribunal found no violation of environmental rules; the order dated 06.07.2023 was upheld.

Drupad Malik vs State Environment Impact Assessment… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.1 & 2

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Appeal No. 08/2023

¶4

Drupad Malik & Ors. Appellant (s) Vs. SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶5

WITH

¶6

Original Application No.48/2024(CZ) (O.A.No.06/2024 - PB)

¶7

Drupad Malik & Ors. Applicant(s)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 01.10.2024

¶11

Date of uploading of order on website : 22.10.2024.

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. A SENTHIL VEL,, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

For Appellant (s):

¶14

Mr. Drupad Malik (Applicant in Person)

¶15

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Baghel, Adv. Mr. P.C. Jain, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Rajasthan vide order dated 06.07.2023 considered the proposal for grant of environmental clearance for common waste management facility and communicated the project proponent the environmental clearance order. Aggrieved by the order the appellant has challenged the EC .

¶18

The notices were issued to the respondent to submit the reply. In compliance thereof the respondent have submitted the reply. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The brief fact giving rise to the present appeal are that National Federation of Farmer s Procurement Processing and Retailing Cooperative of India Ltd., applied for integrated MSW processing plant (Sanitary Land Fill Facility) by NACOF, having MSW plant capacity : 300 TPD (compost and RDF Plant) and

¶19

¶20

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶21

Sanitary landfill of 7500cum, plant areas: 25,939.42 Sq. mt. Khasra No. 3185/1508,3190/2710, 1392, 3184/1392,3191/2711 village Makhpura, RI ; 0754 Parbatpura, Klka : 02957 Makhupra, Tehsil Ajmer District Ajmer, Rajasthan (proposal no. 420209.) The proposed project is categorized under category B 7(i) (Common Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility (CMSWMF), as per EIA notification, September 2006 and subsequent amendments thereafter. TOR was issued by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jaipur vide dated 08.06.2022. The public consultation was carried out on 02.09.2022 and no significant observations were raised during public hearing. The SEAC-1 in the Meeting 5A.62 held on dated 9-12/5/2023 appraised the project in the light of information contained in -Form-1 & document and having regard to the submissions made, during presentation and resolved to recommend to SEIAA for grant of EC to National Federation Of Farmers Procurement, Processing and Retailing Cooperatives Of India Ltd for integrated MSW Processing Plant (sanitary Land Fill Facility) by NACOF, having MSW Plant capacity: 300TPD

¶22

(compost and RDF Plant) and Sanitary Landfill of /5000 cum, plant Area: 25,939.42 Sq,mt, Khasra mg.- 3105/1.502, 3190/2110, X392, 3184/13924 3191/2711Village-,Makhtptra, RI: 07544 Parbatpura, Elks.: 02957 Makhupura, Tehsii-A1Mer, District-Ajmer, Rajasthan (Proposal No-420209). The SEIAA in the meeting 5.83 held on 16.6.2023 appraised, the project resolved to grant Environment Clearance (herein after referred to as EC) to National Federation Of Farmers' Procurements Processing and Retailing Cooperatives Of India Ltd for `Integrated MSW Processing Plant (Sanitary Land Fill Facility). The SEAC-1 in the meeting 5A.62 dated 9-12.05.2023 appraised the project in the light of information contained in Form-I & documents and having regard to the submissions made during presentation and resolved to recommend to SEIAA for grant of EC to National Federation of Farmers Procurement,

¶23

¶24

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶25

Processing and Retailing Cooperative of India Ltd. For “Integrated MSW Processing Plant Santiary Land Fill Facility” by NACOF, having MSW Plant Capacity, 300TPD (composts and RDF Plant) and Sanitary Landfill of 7500 cu.m, plant area: 25.939 sq.mt. Khasra no. 3185/1508, 3190/2710,1392, 3184/1392, 3191/2711 village Makhpura, RI ; 0754 Parbatpura, Klka : 02957 Makhupra, Tehsil Ajmer District Ajmer, Rajasthan (proposal no. 420209.)

¶26

The details of the decision and discussion taken by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority is as under :

¶27

3 Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶28

¶29

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶30

¶31

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶32

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶33

¶34

¶35

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶36

¶37

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶38

¶39

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶40

The contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant are

¶41

that Respondent 1 have Granted EC to NACOF for the construction of a sanitary landfill at the Makupura dumpsite, which is situated in a mountainous and hilly region. This action is in direct contravention of the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2016, specifically Clause 20(a), which mandates the avoidance of landfill construction on hills. As per Clause 20(a) of the SWM Rules, 2016: Construction of landfill on the hill shall be avoided. A transfer station at a suitable enclosed location shall be set up to collect residual waste from the processing facility and inert waste. A suitable land shall be identified in the plain areas down the hill within 25 kilometers for setting up sanitary landfill. The residual waste from the transfer station shall be disposed of at this sanitary landfill.

¶42

¶43

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶44

As per the Environmental Clearance certificate/documents, the Khasra Nos. granted for the projects are 3185/1508, 3190/2710, 1392, 3184/1392, 3191/2711, located at Village-Makhupura. All these Khasras, as per the Jamabandi, are classified as " . . " (Mountain/hills), and as per the Solid Waste Management (SWM) rules 2016, such hilly areas should be avoided for the construction of sanitary landfills.

¶45

It is further submitted that alternate plane site is available with Nagar Nigam Ajmer for the trenching ground of ground at sandriya which is more suitable but the same has not been adopted by the Respondent and present site has been allotted in violation of rules. It is further submitted that location where the Environmental Clearance (EC) is granted is situated near a forest area, as per the latest master plan. Adjacent to the site are farmlands used by local farmers for the cultivation of crops. The waste facility poses a risk of contamination to these agricultural lands, potentially affecting crop yield and quality. Furthermore, the solid waste management activities at the site have led to the deterioration of groundwater, which serves as a primary source of water for cultivation by farmers in the Makhupura area. Contamination of groundwater can have far-reaching consequences on agriculture and the livelihoods of the local farming community. As the site is situated in a mountainous and hilly area, there is an increased risk that leached or contaminated water may travel and mix with other water sources.

¶46

Another issue which has been raised by the appellant/applicant are that proceeding of public hearing was not conducted by the respondents in accordance with the rules. In response to the above contention Learned Counsel for the State PCB has submitted that M/s NACOF has submitted application for Public hearing for Environment Clearance of "Inegrated

¶47

¶48

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶49

Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility & Sanitary Landfill Facility" having total plant area 25939.42 Square metre with MSW plant capacity 300 TPD (Compost & RDF Plant) and Sanitary Landfill of 75000 CUM situated at Village Makhupura, Tehsil & District Ajmer at Regional Office, Kishangarh vide letter dated 02/07/2022.

¶50

In reference to above referred application, District Collector, Ajmer finalized the venue and date of public hearing to be conducted, vide letter dated 16/07/2022. Public Hearing was conducted on 02/09/2022, time 11.00 a.m. at Trenching Ground, Makhupura, Ajmer (ANNEXURE-1) in presence of ADM (Adm.), Ajmer and Regional Officer, RSPCB, Kishangarh. Minutes of Public Hearing with photographs and Video CD were sent to SEIAA vide letter dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure-2). The documents with regard to conduction of public hearing was communicated to the Regional Officer, RSPCB vide letter dated 02.07.2022 and the same was further communicated to the District Magistrate with request to forward the name of representative at suitable place, date and time for public hearing. The minutes of the public hearing which was conducted in presence of the authorities concerned was drawn by the RSPCB which was communicated to the Member Secretary vide letter dated 07.09.2022. The relevant portion of the minutes have been attached with the report. The copy of the signatories attending the public hearing, copy of the newspaper, advertisement have been filed with the reply.

¶51

The Learned Counsel for the Chief Executive Officer, Ajmer Smart City, Commissioner and Addl. Chief Executive Officer, Ajmer have submitted that the appeal is not maintainable for the reasons that it is sought of review by an upper authority to see whether any violations of rules have been there are not and nothing has been shown by the appellant to disclose any violation of environmental rules. Simply, argument that the alternate site is available does not mean that the decision taken by the competent

¶52

¶53

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶54

authority or the District Level Authority committee can be changed on that ground. Further contention of the respondent Smart City Ajmer are that one of the petitioner Shri Ashok Malik is having a firm registered in his name and style of M/S Bimla Rameshwarnath and applied for various contracts before Ajmer smart city limited and in few tenders he was successful and in few his contracts/bid was rejected due to technical reasons hence also the petitioner got annoyed with the Ajmer smart city officials and started filing applications/appeal before this Tribunal.

¶55

Next point which has been raised by the appellant is with regard to the suitability of the land and stated that the area and place which has been demarcated for the purpose is hilly area. In reply thereof the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that whole of the Ajmer city is almost covered by the Hills big or small or medium and because of its hilly areas and looking to so many other circumstances, in the British Rule, it was considered to be a city for the purposes of development in the 18^th and 19^th century. The character of the land wherein the municipal solid waste management plant is being constructed cannot be forgotten. The appellants have not tried to see that the land which is being used for the plant has been allotted by the district administration as back as in the year 2000 vide order dated 04.12.2000. The said land has been transferred for the purposes of trenching ground to the erstwhile Nagar Parishad, since that action has not been challenged and has attained the finality, and that the land which is used for the plant is the same which has been allotted and set apart under the land laws for the purpose.

¶56

It is further submitted that The appellants have conveniently refrain from quoting the sub rule (b) of clause 20 of the solid waste management rules in as much as the Land permission has been granted by the State Authority as back as in the year 2000 Annexure R3/2. The averment made 13

¶57

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶58

by the appellants is highly misconceived and against all the good canons of law. The nomenclature has been taken from the ancient revenue entries available right from the times of Akbar and Todarmal which are in vogue in the common parlance and are being used for the purposes of showing the condition of the land which by the efflux of time or likely to be changed and in every settlement operation which is required to be undertaken under the relevant law of Rajasthan Tenancy Act as well as Rajasthan land revenue act 1956. So far as the apprehensions projected by the appellants in this behalf and the suggestions made by them are too late in the day since much water has Flown under the bridge in as much as it will be seen that any interference in the order impugned would have the apprehensions of the great loss to the society, environment and public Health, sanitation, planning and giving rise to many troubles which may not even be foreseen at this juncture, which has to be avoided at the benevolent direction with the National green tribunal which has perhaps been set up for the purpose of public interest and not to act derogatory to the public. All the facts and circumstances are liable to be seen including the convenience, justice and good conscience. The apprehensions of the appellants are further done away with while whole of the scheme when floated, envisaged, discussed and given a thought by the persons having expertise in this behalf and thereafter only, the scheme was floated, tender was issued and the things have passed from one table to another table, one official to another official and undergoing from within many hands having the expertise, administration, Political thinking and all other factors which are necessary for the purposes of bringing on record a particular scheme.

¶59

It is further submitted that the apprehension of the appellant/applicant has not been supported by any data whereupon the area which has been choosen by the State Administration is the most safe area since the percolation of the water is checked by the mountain slabs

¶60

¶61

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶62

and the stones which will prevent percolation of the dirty water. The area is protected by the impermeable liners etc., thereby taking all the precautions that the percolation is not being allowed. It is further argued that all the informations are available on internet link and the respondents have submitted the details, which was required by the SEIAA and have been uploaded on the website. The principle of hearing to the public at large could not be stretched to such an extent that it becomes impossible and sufficient to break the rubber from scratching. It has not been stated by the appellant/applicant anywhere as to how the project violates any of the specific rule so as to violation therein.

¶63

The issues of solid waste as well as the liquid waste management are being monitored by this Tribunal as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 02.09.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.888/1996 titled as Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India & Ors. and the matter was taken by this Tribunal in O. A. No. 606/2018 and detailed order was passed by this Tribunal vide order dated 18.05.2023, relevant paragraphs are quoted below:

¶64

“ 29. We have noted the gaps in generation and processing of waste and need to address the same in the interest of protection of environment and public health. Such gaps exist even after monitoring of issue of solid waste management from 1996 to 2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for the last nine years by this Tribunal as far as solid waste is concerned and monitoring of issue of water pollution for decades by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of Ganga, Yamuna and other rivers and water bodies by discharge of sewage and other waste, apart from industrial pollution. There are policies of Central Government like swachh bharat and Namami Gange. Still, there are mountains of garbage generating methane and other gases which are source of pollution causing diseases and deaths, apart from occupying huge valuable public resource. Segregation of biodegradable waste and its processing closest to the point of generation is a task which requires good governance and according of high priority. Similarly, preventing

¶65

¶66

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶67

sewage discharge into the sources of drinking water has to receive highest priority. Such discharge results in scarcity of drinking water for all living beings apart from degradation of environment and damage to public health. Gaps in compliance have been noted earlier. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.2.2017 in Paryavaran Surakhsha fixed three year deadline for waste water treatment systems which has been monitored by the Tribunal in the last six years. Discharge of sewage in drains leading to rivers, lakes, sea or in water bodies and lands has led to serious damage to environment and public health and needs to be addressed on war footing, using indigenous technology wherever viable or such other technology but no drop of sewage can be mixed in drinking water. Timelines are deviated without accountability. There is no justification of any further delay having regard to adverse impact on humanity and citizens’ right of access to drinking water. Sewage continues to be mixed in sources of drinking water to the detriment of public health and environment for which earnest efforts are required in the highest level of administration. There was no dearth of technology and no justification of repeated and unending extensions of timelines without fixing accountability for past delays.

¶68

Solid Waste Management

¶69

29. Collection, Segregation, transportation and processing of waste has to be as per SWM Rules 2016. Thus, for addressing the issue of bridging the gap in management of MSW (which is 252.60 TPD), segregation of the solid waste at source and its earliest processing nearest to the point of generation with defined destination is imperative. The available potential sites for waste processing need to be identified. The data presented shows gap in solid waste processing in urban and for rural areas no status has been reported. In particular, adequate compositing/vermicomposting/ biomethanation centers need to be set up and upgraded nearest to the source of generation of wet solid waste and listing people’s involvement. Use of wet biodegradable waste as animal feed for Piggeries etc. can also be explored without causing environmental nuisance. This may also require establishing de-centralized and centralized waste processing facilities. In the name of pit composting, the waste should not be just dumped causing environmental havoc. Waste generators can themselves be required to process the waste under guidance and handholding by the Administration, with the assistance of identified empaneled service providers and such

¶70

¶71

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶72

details may be posted on State’s/Center’s GeM portal. This may perhaps reduce planned expenditure. Composting and biomethanation has to be undertaken considering the climatic conditions. Quality of compost so produced may be periodically verified. Keeping these aspects in view, the State needs to strengthen and augment waste processing/treatment facilities at SWM centres and at the point of waste generation. Setting up SWM centres may be considered for all the district headquarters and semiurban and rural areas as per geographical/regional needs or improved version of waste processing be adopted at the point of generation to effectively utilize 100% segregated waste .

¶73

Use of reclaimed land occupied by legacy waste sites

¶74

32. As already mentioned earlier, legacy waste dump sites have resulted in huge damage to the environment and population residing in the vicinity of such dump sites who have suffered in safety, health and comfort. For compensating them for such damage, particularly at flat terrain, one third of land occupied by legacy dump sites (on reclamation) needs to be reserved for dense forest and in the process of afforestation, Campa Funds can be utilized in accordance with the provisions of Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority Act, 2016 (CAMPA Act). One third of reclaimed land out of the said dump site needs to be reserved for integrated waste management facilities. Remaining one third can be used for any other purpose, consistent with the above purposes, including a part of it being utilized for monetizing, if funding is required for tackling the legacy waste. Legacy waste clearance has to be in minimum further time as laid down statutory timelines have already expired and serious damage is taking place. It may be noted that remediation of legacy sites may be one time affair and such situations should not arise in future. User of land, to be reclaimed, needs to be declared in advance so that further steps can be taken in that direction. This is in line with order of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2022 in OA No. 300/2022, In re: News item published in News 18 dated 26.04.2022 titled “Delhi: Massive Fire at Bhalswa Dump Yard, Fourth This Year; 13 Fire Tenders on Spot”.

¶75

33. To summarize the foregoing observations, the execution plan for solid waste management would include setting up of requisite waste processing plants (centralized and decentralized) to bridge the gap

¶76

¶77

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶78

of 252.60 TPD and remediation of 15.75 lakh MT left out legacy waste. Bio-remediation/bio-mining process need to be executed as per CPCB guidelines and the stabilized organic waste from biomining as well as from compost plants need to comply with laid down specifications. Other material recovered during such processes is to be put to use through authorized dealers/handlers /users. Instead of creating more dumping sites for waste generated on day-to-day basis, waste processing plants of adequate capacity should be set up so that no further legacy waste is generated. It may be worthwhile to take into consideration guidelines on the subject issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, GoI titled “Waste to Wealth” on 2.10.2017 under Swachh Bharat Mission.

¶79

Further observations to explore implementation mechanism

¶80

48. In the light of above observations, it appears that there is need for paradigm shift in handling of the situation. The nagging problem of waste management stares the administration in the face and remains unresolved to the detriment of environment and public health. First change required is to set up a centralized single window mechanism for planning, capacity building and monitoring of waste management at the State level. Of course, local authorities have to do their duty and stocktaking at the district levels may continue but subject to supervision and control of such mechanism. It should be headed by an officer of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary with representation from concerned departments – Urban Development, Rural Development, Environment and Forest, Agriculture, Water Resources, Fisheries and Industries. The mechanism should be working on fulltime basis. Its functions should include preparing a comprehensive blue print, periodic review of progress in bridging the gaps in sewage and solid waste management and establishing, continuous interaction with the stakeholders, including experts and institutions, concerned departments, community members and all other stakeholders. There must be a continuous training programme for those involved in execution of waste management projects. It should be responsible for selecting service providers and simplifying procedures for fixing terms of engagement. Best practices are to be evolved and followed. The State may interact with the municipal agencies like Indore Municipal Corporation, Punjab Pollution Control Board and

¶81

¶82

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶83

Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to have more feedback and teams may undertake field visits.

¶84

49. Mechanism be considered to engage service providers by due diligent process who may execute work relating to solid and sewage management simultaneously throughout the State – all districts, cities and towns. Selection of service providers may be done taking into account of his past performance and number of projects and capacity to handle successfully. As applicable, consultancy may be sought initially and thereafter execution done with departmental efforts under due supervision.

¶85

Need for compliance of statutory duties by specified authorities under SWM Rules and monitoring by NMCG and MoUD for centrally assisted/sponsored schemes

¶86

50. Under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, statutory authorities for various actions have been specified. Under Rule 5, a Central Monitoring Committee (CMC) is to be constituted headed by the Secretary, MoEF&CC with representation from Ministries of Urban Development, Rural Development, Chemicals and Fertilizers, Agriculture, CPCB, State PCBs/PCCs, Urban and Rural Development Departments, Urban Local Bodies and Towns from the of the States, FICCI, CII and subject experts. The CMC is to meet once in a year.

¶87

The Ministry of Urban Development has to coordinate with the States/UTs under Rule 6 for periodic review and formulation of National Policy and strategies and taking other measures. Under Rule 7, the Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers (MoCF) have to provide market development assistance for compost and promote marketing of such compost. MoCF has to comply with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 1.9.2006 in WP(C) No. 888/1996 and ensure that instructions given to the fertilizer companies on 2.6.2008 and 18.6.2012 on co-marketing of compost from city garbage with chemical fertilizers as a ‘Basket approach’ be complied with. Further, MoCF may review its subsidy fertilizer policy considering Rule 8(g) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and the media report.18 Under Rule 8, Ministry of Agriculture has to evolve mechanism for utilization of compost. Under Rule 9, Ministry of Power has to decide compulsory purchase and tariff issues. Under

¶88

¶89

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶90

Rule 10, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Sources has to facilitate infrastructure creation and provide for subsidy. Under Rule 11, the concerned Secretaries of Urban Development have to prepare State Policy and Management strategies and the Town Planning Department has to ensure setting up waste processing and disposal facilities and take other enumerated actions. Under Rule 12, the District Magistrates have to identify suitable lands and review performance of local bodies. Under Rule 13, the Secretaries of Panchayats have also to perform similar duties. Under Rule 14, CPCB is to coordinate with State PCBs and formulate standards of ground water, ambient air quality, noise, etc. Under rule 15, local authorities have to prepare solid waste management plans, collection of waste and coordination with the other stakeholders for enumerated steps. Under Rule 16, the SPCBs/PCCs have to enforce the rules and monitor compliances. Under Rule 17, there are duties of private bodies, including the manufacturers to be monitored by the State Bodies. The timelines are provided in Rule 22 for various steps. Last timeline of 5 years from the Rules expires on 7.4.2021. There is also provision for audit and submitting of annual report under Rule 24. Since there has been large scale non-compliances of the said rules, all the concerned authorities need to review the progress and perform their responsibility in accordance with law. The MoEF&CC has to finally monitor compliance, as already mentioned.

¶91

51. In view of continuing huge gap in solid and liquid waste generation and treatment, it is high time that Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MoUD) and National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) who have programmes like Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM – Urban 2.0)19, AMRUT 2.020, Swachh Bharat Mission (Grameen)21 and River Cleaning, appropriately monitor compliance of waste management norms by concerned States/UTs and take remedial action on their part. Central Funding and State budgetary provisions need to be adequately allocated and apportioned keeping in view of environment compensation which is based on the restoration work estimate. While granting/disbursing funds to States/UTs, execution mechanism for centralized tendering at the State level to overcome delays at each city/town level may be considered. This may facilitate timely utilization of funds. MoEF&CC

¶92

¶93

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶94

and CPCB may continue monitoring as per MSW Rules and the Water Act. MoUD and NMCG may also note the gaps reported by the States and UTs in solid and liquid waste management. MoUD may further consider to render proper financial and technical support to States and UTs.

¶95

52. In view of unique problems of States like Uttarakhand and perhaps other hill States (North East, J&K and H.P.) in management of sewage and solid waste, MoUD, NMCG, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation and CPCB need to provide safe methods for sewage and solid waste management suiting the climatic and topographical conditions. This involves reaffirmation of sewage management through septic tanks/soak pits and FSTPs in urban and rural hilly areas and carrying out processing of wet solid (degradable) waste by appropriate means including remediation of legacy waste. MoUD needs to coordinate this activity for which the State may also take initiative. MoUD may also assist such State for identifying execution of projects or identifying consulting agencies giving designs etc. and execution is done by State departments at local level.”

¶96

After hearing the parties the Tribunal further concluded as follows :

¶97

33. In the light of above, way forward has to be in according high priority to the subject and strict monitoring and higher levels of the Administration in the States as well as in Central Government by constituting specialized monitoring cells fixing accountability for deviation from laid down timelines. As already noted, issue of solid waste management has been monitored from 1996 to 2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Tribunal for the last nine years. There are statutory Rules and policies like swachh bharat but action on the ground is inadequate. There are mountains of garbage generating methane and other gases which are source of diseases and deaths, apart from occupying huge valuable public resource. Our conclusion is that enacting laws and directions of Courts/Tribunals are not substitute for good governance and unless the Administration accords high priority of the subject, undesirable situation as found may not be remedied. Taking people on board and change of mindset is need of the hour. Similarly, preventing sewage discharge into the sources of

¶98

¶99

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶100

drinking water is offence under the criminal law as well as under the Water Act, 1974. Discharge of sewage into drains/rivers/water bodies results in scarcity of drinking water for all living beings apart from degradation of environment and damage to public health. Larg number of persons suffer due to water pollution. The matter has been monitored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of pollution of Ganga and Yamuna for several decades and lastly passed order dated 22.2.2017 in Paryavaran Surakhsha fixing deadline which has been monitored by the Tribunal in the last six years. Gaps in compliance have been noted earlier. Water quality of large number of rivers (including Ganga and Yamuna), lakes, coastal areas and other water bodies are receiving such pollution. This needs to be addressed on war footing, using indigenous technology

¶101

wherever viable or such other technology but no drop of sewage can be allowed to be mixed in drinking water. Timelines are deviated without accountability. There is no justification for delay in remedial action having regard to adverse impact on biodiversity and citizens’ right of access to drinking water. We need not repeat the steps for remedial action which are mentioned in detail in each of the orders of the subject passed separately for all the States sand available on the website of this Tribunal. Meaningful implementation of citizens right to clean environment, which is part of right to life, and which is one of the significant facets of sustainable development cannot be wished away. Apart from concerned States/UTs who are responsible for executing plans for waste treatment under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, Central Ministries – MoEF&CC, Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Chemicals and Fertilizers and Agriculture have also to play their role as pointed out in the orders of the Tribunal. With regard to liquid waste management also, the Central Government Ministries such as Jal Shakti, MoEF&CC, Urban Development also have role. We

¶102

¶103

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶104

hope that the said Ministries of Central Government will perform their statutory obligation under the rules, apart from monitoring compliance by the concerned States/UTs. We expect the concerned Ministries of Central Government to file their respective action taken reports in the matter within three months with the Registrar General of this Tribunal by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. If found necessary, the Registrar General, NGT may place the matter before the bench for further directions .

¶105

Next question which has been raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant with regard to the distance from the site and it is contended by the respondent/ Municipal Corporation that the landfill site is far away and even more than 200 m. so far as the landfill site is concerned between the national highway and the landfill site, there are constructions and other activities including the plantation for the Trees, buffer zone etc. The land for the purpose was granted as back as in the year 2000 and the said piece of the land was being used for dumping the garbage since long, the planned construction of the landfill site would be in the interest of public having no adverse effect at all.

¶106

The Original Application No. 48/2024 was taken up by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on the basis of a letter petition and later on when the matter was brought within the knowledge of the Tribunal that the appeal no. 08/2023 is pending before the Tribunal challenging the environmental clearance the same has been transferred to this Tribunal. We have gone through the rival contention of the parties and examined the Expert Appraisal Report submitted by SEAC and the decision taken by the SEIAA and found that the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 have been completely followed and there is no violation at all. The area was allocated

¶107

¶108

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

¶109

and was in possession of the municipal corporation for the same purposes from the year 2000 and after operation of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 necessary permissions were taken from the Competent Authority and later on after adopting the due process the Smart City Ajmer has allotted the land for the purpose. The decision taken by the SEIAA Rajasthan dated 06.07.2023 is in accordance with the rules and there are no violations. Thus appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

¶110

Both the matters Appeal No. 08/2023 and 48/2024 are disposed of accordingly.

¶111

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶112

Dr. A Senthil Vel, EM

¶113

22^nd October, 2024 Appeal No. 08/2023(CZ) O.A. No. 48/2024(CZ) . K

¶114

¶115

Appeal No.08/2023 (CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors. OA No.48/2024(CZ) Drupad Malik & Ors. Vs SEIAA Rajasthan & Ors.

Drupad Malik v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Drupad Malik v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nippon Paper Foodpac Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Khatik vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Revenue)

Mohammad Ziaurrahman Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

K Govindasamy vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Maruti Cottex Limited vs Telanagana State Pollution Control Board

Sevasetu vs the State Environment Impact Assessment

Heavy Water Plant Kota vs Member Secretary Rspcb

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Union of India

Dr Subhash C Pandey vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sumer Singh Ranawat vs State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government Mines Department Government of Rajasthan

News Item Titled "Cop Crushed to Death by Tractor - Trolly Used for Illegal Sand Mining in Madhya Pradesh; 2 Held" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 05.05.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Drupad Malik vs State of Rajasthan

Ms Jyoti Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Secretary of Govt of Rajasthan