Summary
The Court set aside NGT orders and the environmental compensation they imposed because the subsequent fly-ash notification of 31 December 2021 fundamentally changed the governing framework and timelines. It directed the Ministry to examine whether further safeguards were needed and implement the prescribed monitoring and enforcement machinery. The notification’s legal validity was expressly left open to challenge.
Issues
- What effect the subsequent fly-ash notification had on the challenged NGT orders and compensation.
- What directions were required for environmentally sound ash handling and enforcement.
- Whether the Court was deciding the notification’s validity.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph A(5), Fly-ash utilisation notification dated 31 December 2021, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986Considered the new legacy-ash utilisation timetable as fundamentally altering the basis of the challenged orders. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Paragraphs A(7), E(3) and E(5), Fly-ash utilisation notification dated 31 December 2021, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986Required implementation of environmental precautions and the committee, audit, reporting and enforcement mechanisms. (¶ 10-12)
Held
- The subsequent notification subsumed the earlier regulatory notifications and prescribed new modalities and timelines, including for accumulated legacy ash. The basis of the NGT’s earlier compensation directions was therefore fundamentally altered; the challenged orders and the compensation imposed through them were set aside. (¶¶ 5, 6, 13)
- The Ministry was directed to examine whether the notification required modification in light of applicable hazardous-waste rules and other cognate legislation, particularly concerning environmentally sound loading, unloading, transport, storage and disposal. This required analysis of the rules’ applicability rather than an unconditional determination that every cited rule applied. (¶ 7-12)
- The prescribed enforcement, monitoring, audit and reporting machinery had to be established and scrupulously enforced. Unless already implemented, the notification’s precautionary steps were to be enforced within three months, following the precautionary principle. (¶ 10-12)
- Setting aside the NGT orders did not amount to a merits ruling validating the new notification. Aggrieved parties remained free to challenge its terms before the appropriate forum through available legal remedies. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeals disposed of with directions; the impugned NGT orders and their compensation directions were set aside. The notification’s validity remained open; the specified impleadment application was allowed and pending applications disposed of.