Summary
Formaldehyde manufacturers challenged an NGT direction preventing operation without prior environmental clearance. They had established and operated units under Pollution Control Board consents, issued under a mistaken view that clearance was unnecessary, and had applied for clearance. The Court held that exceptional consideration under the applicable regulatory framework was permissible, without relaxing environmental compliance. It protected the two Yamuna Nagar units pending expedited decisions and set aside the NGT order to the specified extent.
Issues
- Whether units established under statutory consents and seeking environmental clearance had to close pending decision solely for want of prior clearance.
- Whether the applicable framework permitted exceptional consideration of clearance after commencement while preserving environmental safeguards.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(1), (2) and (3), Environment (Protection) Act, 1986The Court considered the Central Government’s environmental powers and the statutory framework under which the 2017 notification permitted appraisal of violation cases. (¶¶ 10-13, 30-31, 57, 65)
- Section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897The notification-making power included amendment, variation or rescission exercised in like manner and subject to like conditions; a counsel’s statement did not extinguish that statutory power. (¶¶ 32, 46-48)
- Paragraphs 3-5, Notification S.O.804(E), dated 14 March 2017The quoted framework retained action for violations and environmental appraisal, including closure where the project could not operate sustainably with adequate safeguards. (¶¶ 30-31, 61)
Held
- Environmental compliance and clearance remained non-negotiable. Polluting industries could not operate unchecked; consideration of post-commencement clearance had to be exceptional, in accordance with the applicable rules and notifications and upon examination of environmental factors. (¶¶ 56-57, 62-65)
- The Court distinguished Alembic Pharmaceuticals, which concerned an administrative circular inconsistent with the earlier statutory notification. The 2017 statutory notification was not in issue there. (¶¶ 48, 59-61)
- On these facts, closure solely pending clearance was unwarranted: the units had statutory consents, the Board itself had misunderstood the clearance requirement, and the clearance process had progressed. Economic and livelihood consequences were relevant alongside compliance with environmental norms. (¶¶ 49-54, 63-67)
- Exceptional regularisation did not erase environmental accountability. Penalties under the polluter-pays principle and recovery of restoration costs remained available. (¶ 63)
- The two Yamuna Nagar units could operate pending decision, with electricity restored subject to applicable charges. Rejection of clearance for contravention could lead to disconnection; the Court did not itself grant environmental clearance. (¶ 67-68)
- The Union was to identify any remaining requirements in writing within three working days of receiving the judgment; the appellants had one week thereafter to comply, followed by a final decision within three weeks. (¶ 69)
Result
Appeal allowed to the specified extent. The NGT restriction was set aside for the appellants’ units established and operated under Board consents with pending clearance applications. The two Yamuna Nagar units received interim operational protection, subject to expedited clearance decisions and the stated conditions.