Summary
NGT orders closing formaldehyde units for lack of prior Environmental Clearance were set aside. The orders rested only on the NGT's decision in Dastak NGO, which this Court had already set aside in Pahwa Plastics. The units had been set up under consents from the State Pollution Control Boards and had applied for EC when asked, so the Pahwa Plastics directions were applied to them.
Issues
- Whether the NGT orders, which relied solely on its decision in Dastak NGO (since set aside in Pahwa Plastics), could stand without independent consideration of each unit's facts.
- Whether the ratio of Pahwa Plastics applies to the appellant units, given the argument that it rested on the number of workers affected.
- Whether the alleged absence of consent under the Air Act defeated the units' consent to operate.
Provisions considered
- Schedule 1, Sr. No. 5(f), Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006After the units began operating, the Pollution Control Boards found that formaldehyde units were covered as synthetic organic chemical units, so units already in operation were asked to apply for EC within sixty days, which the appellants did. (¶¶ 8, 9, 24, 25)
- Section 25(7) (Water Act); Section 21(4) (Air Act), Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981The original applicants contrasted deemed consent under the Water Act with the absence of such a provision in the Air Act; since the Pollution Control Boards did not dispute the consents to operate, the Court held the point was not relevant and rejected it. (¶¶ 21, 23)
Held
- The impugned NGT orders were based solely on its decision in Dastak NGO. Since that decision has been set aside in Pahwa Plastics, the orders cannot stand, and Pahwa Plastics must be applied to the facts of these units. (¶¶ 17, 20, 23)
- The appellant units, like those in Pahwa Plastics, were set up and run under Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the State Pollution Control Boards. The Boards themselves did not know prior EC was needed. When directed, the units applied for EC within time, and their applications had reached Terms of Reference, with only appraisal remaining. This was not a case of units knowingly ignoring the law, and seeking ex post facto EC at the Boards' direction was the proper course. (¶¶ 19, 24, 25, 26)
- The reference to about 8000 workers in Pahwa Plastics covered all formaldehyde units in the industrial area, including the appellants, not only the unit in that case, so it was no ground to distinguish that decision. (¶ 22)
- Once the Pollution Control Boards did not dispute the consents to operate, the argument that consent under the Air Act was lacking was irrelevant and was rejected. (¶¶ 21, 23)
Result
Appeals allowed and the NGT's closure directions set aside. The units may operate under their CTE and CTO. The authority must decide their EC applications in accordance with law within one month, and operations are not to be interfered with meanwhile. Disconnected electricity is to be restored on payment of charges, but may be disconnected if EC is refused for a contravention. The Union of India must tell the units in writing within three working days of any further steps, which the units must complete within a week.