Appeal against Environmental Clearance for a Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment Facility. Tribunal held REA that siting criteria and gap analysis complied with Revised Guidelines. Dismissed appeal.
Environmental Clearance for Common Bio Medical Waste Treatment Facility upheld; appeal against it dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. 1
Item No. 1A
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Appeal No. 5/2023
Santosh Kumar Singh
Appellant
Versus
SEIAA, UP & Ors.
Respondent(s)
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 18.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of order: 25.02.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. Yash Mishra & Ms. Sheetal Sharma, Advs. for Appellant
Respondents: Mr. Amit Shukla, Adv. for UPPCB
Mr. Deva Shukla, Adv. for Project Proponent (R – 2)
MoEF & CC
Ms. Priyanka Swami & Ms. Medhna Singhal, Advs. for SEIAA, UP
ORDER
JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA (CHAIRPERSON)
1
order dated 13.04.2023 restoring this appeal to its original number by observing and directing as under: -
“ 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that an opportunity was not granted by the NGT to any of the respondents to file a counter affidavit. In fact, looking at the challenge to the environmental clearance, it was the duty of the NGT to satisfy itself that all the conditions precedent for the grant of environmental clearance were complied with. It is the duty of the NGT to ensure that the environmental clearance is lawfully granted. One of the duties of the NGT is to uphold and preserve the right to a healthy environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this case, the NGT should have directed the fourth respondent to produce on record material to show whether compliance was made with clause 2(b) of the Revised Guidelines. The NGT has not examined the same.
3. However, the NGT has interpreted clause 2(b) of the Revised Guidelines in a particular manner. Clause 2(b) reads thus:
“2) Criteria for development of a new Common Biomedical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facility for a locality or region.
… b) SPCB/PCC is required to conduct gap analysis w.r.to coverage area of the bio-medical waste generation and also projected over a period of next ten years, adequacy of existing treatment capacity of the CBWTF in each coverage area of radius 75 KM, as given in Annexure-I. ”
4. The NGT, based on a view taken earlier, has virtually substituted the requirement of the coverage area of a radius of 75 KM by 40 KM. Clause 2(b) cannot be read in this fashion. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon a subsequent decision of the NGT dated 5th July, 2024 in Appeal No.04/2024 [Indotech Waste Solution vs. Uttar Pradesh State Impact Assessment Authority (UP SEIAA)] submitted that the NGT has now taken the view that the Guidelines including clause 2(b) have a statutory force.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent seeks to contend that the requirements of clause 2(b) have been met. He objects to the appellant's locus.
6. The NGT has not rejected the Appeal filed by the appellant on the grounds of lack of locus, but the NGT has interpreted the requirement of clause 2(b) in a particular manner.
7. In our considered view, the NGT ought to have directed the fourth respondent to place on record the material to show that compliance was made with the requirements of clause 2(b) of the Revised Guidelines. Thereafter, the NGT could have gone into other issues, such as whether there is a power to relax the guidelines, the locus of the appellant, etc.
8. Hence, to enable the NGT to make an elaborate enquiry as warranted by law, we set aside the impugned order dated 13th April 2023 and restore Appeal No.05/2023 to its original number on the file of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi. We direct
2
the NGT to decide the restored Appeal afresh after calling upon the fourth respondent to produce the material on record regarding compliance with clause 2(b) of the Revised Guidelines. The respondents shall be permitted to file counter. The restored Appeal shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. ”
3
adverse effects the waste may pose on human health and environment. The CBWTF is required to be set up based on the need for environmentally sound management of bio medical waste keeping in view the techno economic feasibility and viable operation of the facility with minimum impact on human health and environment.
All the SPCBs and PCCs shall conduct the gap analysis and based on the gap analysis, action plan for development of new CBWTFs is required to be prepared and submitted to MoEF&CC & CPCB within six months’ time. In case of States/UTs, where no CBWTF is available, in such a case, SPCB/PCC being prescribed authority under the BMWM Rules is required to submit the detailed proposal to MoEF&CC/MoH & FW through the respective State Government or UT Administration. Also, the option of forming association by the group of heath care facilities (HCFs) to develop their own CBWTF also be encouraged following these guideline. In case, any coverage area requires additional treatment capacity, in such a case, action may be initiated by the prescribed authority for allowing a new CBWTF in that locality without interfering the coverage area of the existing CBWTF and beds covered by the existing CBWTF. ”
criteria from the residential and sensitive areas as follows: -
“6. Location criteria
In the context of these guidelines, buffer zone represents a separation distance between the source of pollution in CBWTF and the receptor - following the principle that the degree of impact reduces with increased distance. The following parameters may
4
be considered for ascertaining buffer distance on case-to-case basis:
As far as possible, the CBWTF shall be located near to its area of operation in order to minimize the transportation distance in waste collection, thus enhancing its operational flexibility as well as for ensuring compliance to the time limit for treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste as stipulated under the BMWM Rules (i.e., within 48 hours). Also, the location of the CBWTF should be in conformity to the CRZ Norms and other provisions notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The location shall be decided in consultation with the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)/ Pollution Control Committee (PCC). The location criteria for development of a CBWTF are as follows:
10. Clauses 8 (a) and (b) of the Guidelines give the details of coverage
area of the CBWFT as follows: -
“8) Coverage area of CBWTF
Suggested coverage area for development of a CBWTF is as follows:
5
Pradesh State Impact Assessment Authority (UP SEIAA) vide order dated
05.07.2024 passed in Appeal No. 04/2024 has held that the above guidelines have statutory force.
“xxx xxx xxx
135. The above provisions clearly show that the same cover the very wide area of operation for the purpose of establishment and functioning of CBWTF and also makes provisions with regard to functioning of health care facilities and various other institutions; bedded or non-bedded which are generating bio-medical waste with regard to their functioning. It is also evident that Guidelines have been framed in exercise of statutory power and also statutory in nature.
136. In Appeal 05 of 23(CZ), JK Medical Waste Management System vs. SEIAA MP & Others Tribunal has rejected a similar argument advanced on behalf of SEIAA MP and SEAC MP that Guidelines are not statutory and hence not enforceable. Rejecting the same, it has been held in para 148 that Guidelines are statutory, enforceable and binding. Para 148 is reproduced as under:
6
137. This Tribunal however has also held that RG 2016 are statutory but would stand sub-ordinate to BMWM Rules 2016 and wherever there is any inconsistency, it goes without saying that BMWM Rules 2016 shall prevail.”
“Terms of Reference (ToR)
xxx xxx xxx
5. Common biomedical waste inventory should be provided. ”
…" आजमगढ़ मण्डल में स्थित जनपदों आजमगढ़ , मऊ , बललया में कोई CBWTF स्थित नह ीं है। इन जनपदों से जलनत बायोंमेडडकल वेथट का उपचार समीपथत जनपद गाजीपुर में थिापपत मे० लसलकॉन वेलफेयर सोसाइट , बींका , बहादुरगींज , गाजीपुर द्वारा तीनों जनपदों में स्थित सरकार एवीं गैर सरकार अथपतालों से जलनत बायोमेडडकल वेथट को प्राप्त कर लनथतारण डकया जाता है। कायाालय में उपलब्ध अलिलेखानुसार आजमगढ़- 9420 बेड़ , बललया- 2647 बेड़ , मऊ- 2989 बेड़ कुल योग 15058 बेड़ है। प्रथतापवत थिल से सबसे लनकटतम दूर मे० सी० पी० सी० , मोहन सराय , वाराणसी की 72.1 डकमी है।
अतः उपरोक्त पररप्रेक्ष्य में जनपद आजमगढ़ , मऊ एवीं बललया की हेल्ि केयर फेसेललट ज , जलनत वेथट 10000 बेड्स से अलधक होने की दशा में एक ओर सींयुक्त जीव लचडकत्सा अपलशष्ट सींयत्र थिापपत की जा सकती है। प्रेपित प्रथताव पर पवचार करते हुए सी०पी०सी०बी० की गाइडलाइन के लनयामानुसार अनापपि प्रमाण पत्र लनगात करने की सींथतुलत की जाती है। ”
10. It is necessary to mention here that received complaint letter of Mr. Suresh Chandra Yadav dated 09.08.2022 regarding file no. 6695, proposal no. SIA/UP/MIS/68910/2021 was considered in
7
644th SEIAA, meeting, dated 26.08.2022 wherein, SEIAA gone through the letter of Mr. Suresh Chandra Yadav dated 09.08.2022. SEIAA opined to refer the letter to MS UPPCB for enquiry and SEAC-2 for taking cognizance of this report when the project comes for deliberation as the project was uploaded as parivesh id no. SIA/UP/MIS/68910/2021. True copy of letter, letter no. 240/parya/6695/2022, dated 31.10.2022 sent to UPPCB is being attached herewith and marked as Annexure no-2.
11. That, the case was considered in 686th SEAC-2 meeting dated 22.09.2022 wherein, a presentation was made by the project proponent along with their consultant Environment Division M/s India Glycols Limited, Kashipur. The Secretariat inform the committee that a complaint letter dated 19/09/2022 of Shri Hari Om Sharan Dwivedi and Shri 0letter dated 19/09/2022 received in department against proposed CBWTF M/s Silikon Biotech Private Limited at Village-Bhadon-mahul, PO-Martinganj, DisttAzamgarh, U.P. The committee went through the complaint letters and office memorandum of MoEF-CC, Gol OM F No. 20/02/2020HSMD dated 01/04/2022. The committee requested to SEIAA a letter should be sent to UP Pollution Control Board- Lucknow to sought a factual report in view of complaints received against the CBWTF (Complaint letters are enclosed). And gap analysis in the light of above office order dated 1/04/2022 within 15 days, so the case to be disposed in scheduled time. The committee also directed to the project proponent/consultant to the following documents/information:
12. That further, a letter, ref no. G39449 C-6/356/22, dated 4.11.2022 was received from MS, UPPCB regarding the number of beds in government and non-government hospital in district Azamgarh, Mau and Balia.
13. That the Project Proponent vide letter dated 07.11.2022 has submitted information/clarification as directed by SEAC in its meeting dated 22/09/2022, wherein in this regard a report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Martinganj, Azamgarh submitted 500m radius Google map with showing the all geographical activities like – sensitive places, Highways, railways, educational institutions, residential habitats etc. along with distance and directions. The concerned part of the report is as follows:
8
…“ गूगल मैप की 500 मी 0 पत्रज्या क्षेत्र (प्रथतापवत पररयोजना थिल की चहारडदवार को केन्द्र मानते हुए) के अन्द्तगात कोई हाईवे , रेलवे लाइन , शैस्क्षत सींथिान , हाई टेन्द्शन लाइन , धालमाक-समास्जक थिल , आबाद थिल (आवासीय आलधवास) तिा अन्द्य सींवेदनशील थिल नह ीं है।”
True copy of letter dated 7.11.2022 is being attached herewith and marked as Annexure no-3.
14. Further, the case was considered in 704th SEAC-2, meeting, dated 24.11.2022 wherein, the committee noted that the matter was earlier discussed in 686th SEAC meeting dated 22/09/2022 and directed as follows:
The project proponent submitted the replies of queries raised by SEAC through online Parivesh Portal on 08/11/2022 and the matter was listed for reply presentation in 704th SEAC meeting dated 24/11/2022. The SEIAA sent a letter dated 31/10/2022 to Member Secretary, UPPCB for providing the factual report as per decision taken in SEAC meeting dated 22/09/2022. In compliance of SEIAA letter the Member Secretary, UPPCB has provided the information vide letter dated 04/11/2022 mentioning the number of beds available in districts surrounding the proposed project site. The project proponent also submit the copy of Consent to Establish (CTO) letter issued by UP Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 03/03/2022 and valid up to 20/10/2026.
15. That, the case was considered in 686th SEIAA meeting dated 02.01.2023 wherein SEIAA opined to accept the recommendation of SEAC and grant EC to the said project along with general and specific condition adding additional specific condition. ”
criteria was duly examined by the SEIAA, UP in its various meetings and after examining the material, it was found that the siting criteria was duly satisfied. The SEIAA, UP along with its reply affidavit has enclosed the
9
material which was considered to ascertain that the siting criteria was satisfied.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP
Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM
February 25, 2026 Appeal 05/2023 avt
10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Environmental Clearance granted for CBWTF violated clause 2(b) of Revised Guidelines regarding gap analysis and 75 KM coverage radius.
Whether the siting of the facility near a residential area and a temple contravened the buffer zone criteria under the CBWTF Guidelines.
Whether the Tribunal below erred in not directing the fourth respondent to produce material regarding compliance with the Revised Guidelines before dismissing the appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indotech Waste Solution vs. Uttar Pradesh State Impact Assessment Authority (UP SEIAA)Applied¶74
Indotech Waste Solution vs. Uttar Pradesh State Impact Assessment Authority (UP SEIAA)
JK Medical Waste Management System vs. SEIAA MP & OthersApplied¶77
JK Medical Waste Management System vs. SEIAA MP & Others
Santosh Kumar Singh
SEIAA, UP
M/s Silkon Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board
MoEF & CC
Prakash Shrivastava
A. Senthil Vel
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal before a tribunal against an order of a statutory authority.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
