Disposed

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

NGT6 Aug 2024IA No. 26/2024 in Original Application No. 23/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal stated that Original Application No. 23/2024 was not maintainable to challenge SEIAA's order regarding environmental clearance and ToR. The Tribunal disposed of the main application and a separate RTI notice, directing SEIAA to reconsider the matter if proper. The order was recorded as 'disposed'.

What the court decided

AI extract

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited vs Madhya Pradesh… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL

¶3

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶4

Original Application No. 23/2024(CZ) (I.A.No.26/2024)

¶5

Restorehealth Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Applicant(s) Vs Madhya Pradesh SEIAA & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶6

Date of Hearing: 06.08.2024

¶7

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

¶8

For Applicant(s): Ms. Harshita Tejwani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sthapak, Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The grievance of the applicant is non-consideration of his application for EC which was uploaded on the Parivesh Portal for establishment of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility at plot no. 17 (P&H) Sector-B-I in IGC Maneri, District-Mandla, Madhya Pradesh.

¶11

The respondent no. 4 M/s Kurpa Wastages applied for ToR through the Parivesh Portal for establishment of Common BioMedical Waste Treatment Facility and MPSEAC recommended the ToR in its 649^th meeting in favour of the respondent no. 4

¶12

¶13

Original Application No.23/2024(CZ)

¶14

Restorehealth Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh SEIAA & Ors.

¶15

M/s Kurpa Wastages and in the next meeting ToR was granted in favour of respondent no. 4.

¶16

Respondent no. 2 Madhya Pradesh State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (MPSEAC) did not recommended the ToR in favour of the applicant and on the next meeting on 03.08.2023 the case of the applicant was closed, stating that the ToR is already recommended in favour of Respondent no. 4. The applicant has again applied for the EC through the Parivesh Portal on 20.11.2023 which is reported to be pending.

¶17

The present application has been filed with the prayer directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to decide/consider the applicant’s application dated 20.11.2023 on a merit for establishment of Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment facility on the grounds mentioned above. Notices were issued to the respondents and in compliance thereof, the Madhya Pradesh Environmental Assessment Authority (MPSEIAA) has filed the reply, which is on record.

¶18

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

¶19

The contentions of the applicant are that the guidelines issued by the CPCB has not been properly complied with by the SEIAA and further that the applicant applied for environmental clearance through the Parivash Portal before the respondent no. 1/MPSEIAA on 10.04.2023 for establishment Of Common BioMedical Waste Treatment Facility and in the meantime the respondent no. 2 in its meeting dated 13.07.2023 did not recommend the ToR in favour of the applicant merely stating that the ToR is already recommended in favour of respondent no. 4 /

¶20

¶21

Original Application No.23/2024(CZ)

¶22

Restorehealth Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh SEIAA & Ors.

¶23

M/s Kurpa Wastages. The relevant portion of the 659^th meetings dated 13.07.2023 is reproduced as under :

¶24

“ It is also pertinent to note that earlier M/s Ramky has obtained EC to establish facility at Mandla District but they still not established the same and accordingly in the SEAC 659^th meeting dated 07.06.2023 the committee already recommended ToR to M/s Krupa Wastages, for Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment Facility at plot no. 16, Maneri, District Mandla.

¶25

The committee observed that the facility under examination is proposed to be established in the IGC, Maneri, District-Mandla (M.P.). It is a matter of administrative decision to be taken by the SEIAA as per the guidelines of the CPCB and prevailing policy of MPPCB in this regard i.e. Maximum 1000 beds for a facility waste collection distance 75 km. radius and one district one CBWTF facility. Hence the case does not found to be considered for approval of ToR ”

¶26

It is further argued that the applicant re-applied for the EC before the respondent no. 1 for establishment of Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment facility with the legitimate expectation that for the second time Respondent no. 1 & 2 may reconsider the case on the basis of the EIA, but the same was turned down in unjustified and unreasonable manner. The Learned Counsel for the MPSEIAA has argued that the present Original Application challenging the validity of consideration for Environmental Clearance by Respondent No. 1 is filed under the provisions of Section 18(1) read with the Sections 14 & 16 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, whereas the same is an objection to the aforementioned Rejection Letter dated 10.08.2023 and the said objections should have been filed by the Applicant under the provisions of Section 16(h) of the National

¶27

¶28

Original Application No.23/2024(CZ) Restorehealth Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh SEIAA & Ors.

¶29

Green Tribunal Act, 2010 in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal. Section 16(h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is reproduced herein below :

¶30

(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act,

¶31

1986 (29 of 1986);

¶32

It is further submitted that applicant failed to disclose that after applying for EC on 10.04.2024, Respondent No. 1 pointed out shortcomings in the application of the Applicant and essential details were sought from the Applicant thrice, dated 13.04.2023; 16.05.2023 and finally on 01.06.2023, and thereafter on 06.06.2023 the applicant finally addressed all the shortcomings and the application for EC was considered Complete. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 4 applied for grant of EC through Parivesh Portal on 26.04.2024 and thereafter Respondent No. 1 pointed out shortcomings in the application of Respondent No. 4 and essential details were sought from Respondent No. 4, dated 01.05.2023 and the same were addressed by Respondent No. 4 on 05.05.2024 and the application for EC was considered complete and that because Respondent No. 4 was able to address the shortcomings in EC Application on 05.05.2024, the case of Respondent No. 4 was taken up for consideration in 649^th SEAC Meeting dated 07.06.2023, wherein the grant of ToR was recommended. The application for EC of the Applicant was completed on 06.06.2023 and therefore the same was taken up for consideration in 659th SEAC Meeting dated 13.07.2023,

¶33

¶34

Original Application No.23/2024(CZ)

¶35

Restorehealth Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh SEIAA & Ors.

¶36

wherein the recommendation for the grant of ToR was rejected as it was already granted to Respondent No. 4 and that as per the guide lines of the CPCB and prevailing policy of MPPCB in this regard i.e. Maximum 1000 beds for a facility.

¶37

It is further contended that that no preferential treatment was afforded to Respondent No. 4 and that it was the mistake of the Applicant, who failed to adhere to the requirement of application for the grant of EC and in turn, was not able to rectify the shortcomings pointed out by Respondent No. 1 in a timely manner and therefore ToR was issued in favor of Respondent No. 4.

¶38

Further contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant are that a direction should be issued to Respondent no. 1 & 2 to reconsider its case on merit keeping the ToR issued in favour of M/s Krupa Wastage in abeyance as for setting up of CBWTF, the siting criteria of distance between two units as an important aspect for consideration.

¶39

During the course of hearing Applicant has filed one application in the form of I.A. No. 81/2024 with regard to the some information under Right to Information Act, 2005. This is a separate application under RTI Act, which may be disposed according to rules by the competent authority under RTI Act. Tribunal is not required to submit the reply under RTI Act. I.A. No. 81/2024 is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

¶41

Original Application No.23/2024(CZ)

¶42

Restorehealth Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh SEIAA & Ors.

¶43

Only thing which remains un-dispose is prayer of the Applicant to dispose of his application if any pending with SEIAA. The perusal of the 659^th meeting dated 13.07.2023 discloses that “case does not found to be considered for approval of ToR” the matter requires to be suitably disposed of in positive or negative manner with communication to the Applicant. SEIAA may if deem it proper, reconsider and suitable order be communicated to the Applicant.

¶44

The matter of issue of environmental clearance and ToR are the matter within the domain of the SEIAA. Anyone aggrieved may file the appeal or revision according to rules. Original Application as filed is not maintainable to challenge the order impugned.

¶45

With these observations the Original Application No. 23/2024 (CZ) along with I.As. stands disposed of.

¶46

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶47

Dr. A Senthil Vel, EM

¶48

6^th August, 2024 OA No. 23/2024(CZ) K

¶49

¶50

Original Application No.23/2024(CZ) Restorehealth Medicare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh SEIAA & Ors.

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited v. Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjeet Bhardwaj and Others vs

Manjeet Bhardwaj and Others vs

Mr. Prabhakar Rai vs Union of India

Mr. Prabhakar Rai vs Union of India

Vipin Nayyar vs Union of India

Vipin Nayyar vs Union of India

Vipin Nayyar vs Union of India

Mudassar Ismail Mujahid vs 1. the Environment Secretary of Government of Maharashtra

Jitendra Singh Rai vs State of Madhya Pradesh through District Magistrate

Sumit Beng vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ashish Rai vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

News Item Titled "Rajasthan News Awaidh Khanan Par Ankush Lagane Ke Liye Sarkar Gambhir Karvai Ke Baad Bhi Nhi Ruk Raha Hai Bajri Khanan" Appearing in Amar Ujala Dated 30.01.2024 vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board