National Green Tribunal
Safe Environ Technologies vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 10 August, 2023
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Appeal No. 79 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
1. M/s Safe Environ Technologies,
Rep by Sri V. Venkateswara Rao,
S/o Sri Nageswara Rao, aged 63 years,
R/o: D. No. 29-3-14, Venkateswara Rao Street,
Governorpeta, Vijayawada
Andhra Pradesh- 520 002.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Ministry of Envionment, Forest and Climate Change,
Rep by its Secretary,
Indira Paryavaran bhavan,
Jor Bagh, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi- 110001
2. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
Rep by its Member Secretary,
Dor No. 33-26-14 D/2, Near Sun Rise Hospital,
Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chelamvari Street,
Kastuirbaipet, Vijayawada- 520008
Andhra Pradesh
3. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer,
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
Zonal Office, Door No. 33-26-14 D/2,
Near Sun Rise Hospital, Puspha Hotel Centre,
Chelamvari Street, Kastuirbaipet,
Vijaywada- 520 008,
Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Environmental Engineer,
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
Regional Office, 4-5-/5C, 4/3,
Navabharath Nagar, Ring Road Guntur, 522 006.
5. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Rep by its Convener,
Door No. 33-26-14 D/2,
Near Sun Rise Hospital, Puspha Hotel Centre,
Chelamvari Street, Kastuirbaipet,
Vijaywada- 520 008,
Andhra Pradesh.
6. M/s. Y J Multi Clave,
Rep by its Proprietor,
Having its office at
D.No. 24-3-13, Telagapalem,
Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District
...Respondent(s)
1
For Appellant(s): Mr. Y. Srinivasa Murthy, Senior Adv. a/w.
Mr. P. Venkaiah Naidu.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhuri Donti Reddy for R2 to R5.
Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, Senior Adv. a/w.
Mr. V.B. Subramanyam for R6.
Judgment Reserved on: 13th April, 2023.
Judgment Pronounced on: 10th August, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The above appeal is directed against the grant of Environmental Clearance in favour of the 6th respondent who is also involved in the biomedical treatment facility in the name of M/s Y.J Multiclave. The Environmental Clearance is issued by the 5th respondent, SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh, on 02.1.2021.
2. The appellant is also an operator under the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 having obtained „Consent for Establishment‟ from the Pollution Control Board on 15.1.2006 and installed an incinerator of 70 kg/hr capacity at Sy. No. 4A and 4B, Chinna Kakani Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District in an area of 2.2 acres.
3. Subsequently the 2nd respondent, Pollution Control Board, also granted consent for operation for an installed capacity of 200 kg/hr. It was further enhanced to 270 kg/hr and presently the appellant is treating 270 kg/hr in one shift and the same has not yet attained the optimum level of utilization of the capacity of the 2 incinerator as required under the revised guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). While so, the 6th respondent had obtained the Environmental Clearance for establishment of Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) in Guntur District contrary to the guidelines of the CPCB.
4. According to the appellant, the said Environmental Clearance was obtained by the 6th respondent by suppressing certain material particulars. In the year 2016, the CPCB had made it mandatory for the regulatory authorities to keep note of the fact that CBWTFs are required to be set up only based on the need for ensuring environmentally sound management of biomedical waste keeping in view the techno economic feasibility and viable operation of the facility with minimal impact on human health and environment.
5. The application by the 6th respondent was made after the new Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and the CPCB Rules, 2016 which did not recognize the "In Principle Permission" granted by the 2nd respondent as the same is illegal and violatve of the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016. It is also stated that the application of the 6th respondent ought not to have been processed without the conduct of Gap Analysis Study. Therefore, the applicant is seeking to set aside the Environmental Clearance granted in favour of the 6th respondent on 02.1.2021 on the following grounds:
(i) The impugned Environmental Clearance is issued in deviation to the instructions of the CPCB which are mandatory.3
(ii) The 6th respondent had furnished incorrect details about the bed strengths and it is also obligatory on the part of the regulatory authority to assess the biomedical waste generation for the future period and to extrapolate the area-wise biomedical waste generation for the next ten years for the purpose of development of new CBWTF.
(iii) The 6th respondent had obtained the „in principle‟ approval from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board for „Consent for Establishment‟ which is violation of the ruling of the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 11250 of 2018.
(iv) It is mandatory as per revised guidelines for establishment of CBWTFs, 2016 to permit setting up of new facility on the need for ensuring environmentally sound management of biomedical waste, keeping in view the techno-economic feasibility and viable operation of the facility with minimal impact on human health and environment.
(v) As per the CBWTF guidelines of the CPCB, the regulatory authority should have conducted the Gap Analysis Study for extrapolating the waste generation of biomedical waste for the next ten years.
(vi) The in principle permission issued is violative of the rules because the new facility proposed to be established shall not interfere with the coverage area of the existing CBWTF and the beds covered by the existing CBWTF as envisaged as guideline no. 2(b).
6. On the above grounds, the present appeal has been preferred. 4
7. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board has filed its counter stating that on 23.05.2018 it issued in principle permission for establishment of second common biomedical waste treatment facility to the 6th respondent in Tana Annavaram, Tellabadu, Nuzendla, Guntur District based on the bed strength as per the registering authority who is the District Medical and Health Officer (DM & HO) which has stated that there are 541 private hospitals with the bed strength of 17,744 excluding Government hospitals. The existing common biomedical waste treatment facility in Guntur District is covering 700 health care facilities within 13,683 bed strength as per the BMW Annual Report, 2016. There are about 4061 numbers of beds uncovered by the existing CBWTF. Besides the veterinary hospitals, dispensaries, dental hospitals, ayurvedic and homeopathic hospitals which also need to be covered under BMW Rules.
8. In W.P. No. 11945 of 2019 filed against the 6th respondent, herein, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was directed that the minutes of the public hearing be placed before the SEIAA which shall pass appropriate order relating to grant of Environmental Clearance in favour of 6th respondent in accordance with law. Therefore, the Pollution Control Board has kept all the issues open to be decided by the 5th respondent, SEIAA. The Environmental Clearance dated 22.11.2021 issued by the 5th respondent, SEIAA, in favour of the 6th respondent is valid for a period of 07 years. Pursuant to the order of the Hon‟ble High Court in W.P. No. 11250 of 2018, the State of Andhra Pradesh decided to conduct the Gap Analysis Study to ascertain as to whether more common 5 biomedical transport and disposal facility can be established. A global tender was called as there was no response they have cancelled the same and entrusted it to M/s Andhra Pradesh Environment Management Corporation Limited (APEMCL) to conduct the study.
9. In the meanwhile the 6th respondent submitted a „consent for establishment‟ application to establish the second CBMWTF in Guntur District with biomedical waste treatment facility. The said issue was placed in the meeting of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the same was rejected on the ground that the Gap Analysis Study was not yet complete and till such time the study is complete no Consent for establishment of CBMWTF be accepted by the Board.
10. After the issuance of the work order, the APEMCL is in the process of the getting the study conducted. The coverage area and the additional bed strength to be allocated to the new CBWTFs based on the study report to be submitted by the APEMCL till such time no CBWTF application for establishment of new CBWTF be accepted by the Board.
11. The 5th respondent, which is Andhra Pradesh, SEIAA has filed its counter making the following averments. The 6th respondent had applied for establishing a common CBWTF of capacity-700 kg/day which is examined by SEAC in its meeting held on 25.08.2018. The Committee had observed that the project proponent and their consultant have attended the meeting and presented their case and it was noted that earlier the 6th 6 respondent had obtained an in principle permission issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board dated 16.08.2016 based on the earlier feasibility report for issuing the earlier TOR, the contents in the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board letter dated 16.08.2016.
12. It is stated that the 6th respondent had submitted in principle permission letter from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board only and in this letter it was noted that the total number of health care facilities and their bed strength as per the registering authority i.e., DM & HO, there are 541 numbers of private hospital with a bed strength of 17,744 beds which excludes the Government hospitals and other public health centers. The 6 th respondent had submitted the letter issued by the DM & HO, Guntur dated 04.06.2018. The Committee noted that the proposed project falls under item 7(da) of the Schedule of the EIA Notification, 2006 and recommended for the issue of standard TOR with public hearing and with additional TOR which says that the project proponent shall comply with the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and its amendments and the CPCB revised guidelines dated 21.12.2016 to the CBMWTF.
13. SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh has stated that „in principle permission‟ was given to the 6th respondent on 23.05.2018 by Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board as directed by SEIAA which is pre-requisite for applying for the Environmental Clearance. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board vide the order dated 17.07.2018 while rejecting the BMW consent for establishment application of M/s Ravi Enviro Care observed that their application is a earlier one 7 and in principle permission was accorded for establishment of 2 nd CBMWTF in Guntur District.
14. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the order passed in W.P. No. 11945 of 2019 wherein the SEIAA was directed to consider the minutes of public hearing with the true spirit of the said minutes and also under the scheme of environmental laws in the case of the 6 th respondent in accordance with law. The 6th respondent has applied for Environmental Clearance through online on 23.09.2021 seeking for Environmental Clearance along with final EIA report. The project proponent and their consultant presented the final EIA report along with the public hearing report. The SEAC after examining the project proposal, presentations, final EIA reports and the MoEF&CC notifications etc., recommended to issue Environmental Clearance to the 6th respondent for setting up CBMWTF. The issue was examined by the SEAC in the meeting held on 22.10.2021 to 24.10.2021.
15. The project proponent, who is the 6th respondent, in favour of whom the Environmental Clearance under challenge is issued, has filed its reply contending that the applicant has no locus standi to question the proceedings impugned in the Environmental Clearance. The 6th respondent has stated that originally it made an application online on 01.12.2015 to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board which was rejected stating that a CBMWTF shall not be allowed to cater health care units situated beyond a radius of 150 km. However, in an area where 10,000 beds are not available within a radius of 150 km, another CBMWTF may be allowed to cater the health care units situated outside the said 150 km. 8 Presently a CBMWTF is in operation at Chinnakakani, Mangalagiri Mandal in Guntur. The second ground for rejection is that the 6 th respondent did not have an Environmental Clearance.
16. The 6th respondent has further stated that the SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh vide letter dated 13.07.2016 requested the 6th respondent to obtain in principle permission from Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board for setting up second CBMWTF for obtaining Environmental Clearance from SEAC and SEIAA. Therefore on 16.07.2016, the 6th respondent had submitted a request letter to the 2nd respondent, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, for issuance of in principle permission in his favour. The request letter of the 6th respondent was placed before the Biomedical Waste Management Technical Committee meeting held on 22.05.2018 for issue of in principle permission letter. The 2nd respondent, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, after considering the above, issued „in principle permission‟ dated 23.05.2018 with the further direction to obtain all the necessary clearances including Environmental Clearances from MoEF&CC, SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh etc.
17. After obtaining the in principle permission, the same was considered by SEIAA in its meeting held on 24.09.2018. The SEIAA agreed with the recommendations of the SEAC for issuance of TOR with public hearing. On 27.02.2019, the 6th respondent submitted documents for Environmental Clearance to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 17.08.2019 consented to conduct a public hearing for the 6th respondent for the establishment of CBMWTF. At this juncture, 9 W.P No. 11945 of 2019 was filed before the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was disposed of directing that the minutes of the public hearing be placed before the SEIAA which shall pass appropriate order to grant of Environmental Clearance in favour of the 6th respondent. After the disposal of the writ petition on 18.08.2021 the Environmental Clearance was granted in favour of 6th respondent.
18. It is further stated that the applicant is already running four biomedical waste treatment facilities, namely, (i) M/s Safe Envrion Private Limited, (ii) M/s Safe Environ Technologies-II, (iii) M/s Safenviron & Associates and (iv) M/s Sriven Environ Technologies. It is mentioned that the distance between the existing CBMWTF of the M/s Safe Environ Private Limited and that of the 6th respondent is 130 km.
19. The 6th respondent stated further that after the disposal of the W.P No. 1945 of 2019 on 18.08.2021, the SEIAA has considered the entire material and was pleased to grant the Environmental Clearance in favour of the 6th respondent on 02.11.2021 strictly adhering to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Hence the 6 th respondent submitted that once the bed strength exceeding 10,000 is available, another CBMWTF may be permitted irrespective of the fact whether Gap Analysis Study is conducted or not. In the given case, the total bed strength is 27,690 hence the objection of not conducting Gap Analysis Study may not be a ground at all for setting aside the Environmental Clearance dated 02.11.2021 granted in favour of the 6th respondent. 10
20. In light of the above pleadings, it has to be decided whether the Environmental Clearance granted in favour of the 6th respondent dated 02.11.2021 has to be set aside on the grounds of:
(i) Not conducting the Gap Analysis Study.
(ii) Violative of the CPCB guidelines and Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016.
21. Before discussing the legal aspects, a few of the important dates and decisions could be relevant. The 6th respondent/project proponent submitted an application through online on Terms of Reference on 04.05.2016. On 07.06.2016, the application was examined by SEAC and sought for additional documents. On 23.05.2018, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had granted in principle permission to the 6th respondent which is a pre-requisite for applying for the Environmental Clearance. The said in principle permission letter was forwarded to the SEIAA indicating the total number of health care facilities, their bed strength as per the registering authority and the number of private hospitals with bed strengths, the existing CBMWTFs etc. It was also specifically stated that the numbers provided was excluding the government hospitals i.e. health care facilities covered under APVVP area hospital, Director of Public Health and Family Welfare and Department of AYUSH.
22. The 6th respondent application was examined by the SEAC, Andhra Pradesh on 25.08.2018. The Committee examined the proposal and recommended to issue TOR with public hearing. The project proponent was directed to comply with the Biomedical Waste 11 Management Rules, 2016 and the relevant CPCB revised guidelines dated 21.12.2016. The recommendation of the SEAC was examined by SEIAA on 24.09.2018 and agreed with their recommendations to issue the Terms of Reference with public hearing. On 10.10.2018, TOR was issued. In the meanwhile, W.P. No. 11945 of 2019 was filed by A.P. Enviro Technologies Pvt. Ltd., against the 6th respondent before the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. On 19.09.2019, public hearing was conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. On 22.07.2021, the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh had directed the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board to place the proceedings of the public hearing before the Court on 22.07.2021. On 18.08.2021, the writ petition was disposed of directing that the minutes of the public hearing to be placed before the SEIAA which shall pass appropriate orders relating to the grant of Environmental Clearance in favour of the 6th respondent in accordance with law. Thereafter, on 23.09.2021, the 6th respondent submitted the final EIA report along with public hearing for Environmental Clearance. The application was examined on 24.10.2021. After considering all the material available before it including the public hearing minutes, MoEF&CC notification, biomedical waste guidelines etc., the Environmental Clearance was issued on 22.11.2021.
23. The objection of the appellant is that they are already carrying on the activity of CBMWTF and whether the 6th respondent can also be issued with the same when the guidelines of the CPCB were not followed strictly b the authorities. The relevant guidelines may be referred to in this regard. The CPCB had issued the revised 12 guidelines for common biomedical waste treatment and disposal facilities on 21.12.2016.
24. The revised guidelines of the CPCB for the criteria to be followed for Common Bio-medical waste treatment and disposal facilities are as follows:
"The CBWTFs are also required to setup based on the need for ensuring environmentally sound management of biomedical waste keeping in view the techno-economic feasibility and viable operation of the facility with minimal impact on human health and environment (introduction of CPCB Revised Guidelines for CBWTFs).
Prescribed authority under the BMWM Rules, 2016 [i.e., State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) in the respective State or Pollution Control Committee (PCC) in the respective Union Territory Administration] is required to prepare an inventory or review with regard to the bio-medical waste generation at least once in five years in the coverage areas of the existing biomedical waste treatment and disposal facility. The prescribed authority is required to extrapolate the coverage area wise biomedical waste generation for the next ten years (No.2 (a) of Criteria for development of a new CBWT Facility).
SPCB/PCC is required to conduct gap analysis w.r.to coverage area of the biomedical 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 Kms. 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 and CPCB within six month‟s 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 health care facilities (HCFs) to develop their own CBWTF also be encouraged following these guidelines. 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 existing CBWTF. (No.2(b) of Criteria for development of a new CBWT Facility).
SPCB/PCC shall identify the coverage area, which require additional treatment facility and bring it to the notice of the concerned department in the business allocation of land assignment in the respective State Government or UT Administration (No 2 (C) of Criteria for development of a new CBWT Facility).
The SPCB/PCC or concerned department in the business allocation of land assignment in the respective State Government or UT Administration may seek expression of interest from the proponents for development of new CBWTF(s) in the identified coverage area. Upon allocation of site to the proponent, the proponent is required to take necessary approvals as required under the Environment (Protection) Act, 13 1986 for development of the new CBWTF in accordance with these guidelines. (No2 (e) of Criteria for development of a new CBWT Facility)."
25. As per the above guidelines, the State Pollution Control Board has to conduct the gap analysis to ascertain the need for a new facility. The guidelines specifically state that environmentally sound management of biomedical waste keeping in view the techno- economic feasibility and viable operation of the facility shall operate with minimal impact on human health. The guidelines also mandate assessment of the existing CBWTF before permitting any new CBWTF. Further objection of the appellant is that the appellant has an incinerator capacity of 200 kg/hr i.e. 4000kg/hr considering 20 hours of operation. The Form-4 which was submitted by the appellant which is annual report for the year 2020, it has been clearly mentioned that the incinerable waste disposed was 63322.38 kg which included the COVID-19 BMW. The appellant on an average was treating 2110 kg/day during COVID pandemic days. Out of the above volume, non-COVID waste was about 1100kg/day. This indicates that the appellant had facility with a spare capacity of 2900 kg/day excluding COVID biomedical waste. Even if the COVID BMW is to be considered, the appellant has got the capacity of 1900kg/day which is more than adequate to treat the BMW being generated as on date. This is only due to the fact that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board has not conducted the gap analysis to ascertain the need for a new facility. If the CPCB guidelines were strictly followed, the 6th respondent could not have obtained the Environmental Clearance. 14
26. The further complaint of the appellant is that the SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh has not taken into consideration the revised Biomedical Waste Management Guidelines, 2016 which is quoted as above in which the criteria to be followed while granting the Environmental Clearance is clearly mentioned. The 6th respondent had obtained "In Principle Permission" from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board as required by the SEIAA, Andhra Pradesh which is a pre- requisite for applying for an Environmental Clearance. In this regard the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 11250 of 2018 which writ petition was also filed by the appellant, herein, has held that "In Principle permission" is not in compliance with the revised guidelines of the CPCB. The relevant para of the same is as follows:
"Therefore, the "in-principle" permission is neither in compliance of Guideline No.6 of the revised guidelines framed by the Central Pollution Control Board nor contemplated under any of the rules. Therefore, the "in-principle" sanction is not in accordance with Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 or as per the provisions of Environment Protection Act, 1986. Hence, it is held that the "in-principle" permission is not a permission to establish CBWTF. Therefore, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is directed to examine the feasibility for establishment of CBWTF strictly adhering to the guidelines issued by Central Pollution Control Board in 2016 and take up application of the 4th respondent. Till then, the 4th respondent is not entitled to establish CBWTF. Accordingly, the point is answered."
27. The above said CPCB guidelines of 2016 were communicated to the State Pollution Control Board. By communication dated 08.03.2018, the CPCB had directed the implementation of CPCB revised guidelines for CBWTF and sent the communication which was received by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 03.04.2018. The said communication also specifically mandates the gap analysis to be conducted by the State Pollution Control Board with reference to the common bio-medical generation with 15 its projection over 10 years and the adequacy of the CBMTF with coverage area of 75km. The coverage area vis-à-vis the CBWTF located within the respective State or Union Territory shall be allowed to cater health care units situated at a radial distance of 75km with 10,000 beds. If the 10,000 beds are not available within the radial distance of 75km existing CBMTF may be allowed to cater the health care units situated up to 150km radius. The communication had specifically directed the SEIAA and Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board to follow the criteria of the setting up new CBWTF as per the revised guidelines before allowing the new CBWTFs. However, admittedly no gap analysis is conducted and the appellant also had established that their facility has got sufficient capacity for treating the biomedical waste. Based on the "In Principle Permission" issued by the Pollution Control Board, the Environmental Clearance was issued on 22.11.2021. The Environmental Clearance also does not mention about the gap analysis which is a mandatory requirement to be conducted by the State Pollution Control Board. The Environmental Clearance itself is granted based on the "In Principle Permission"/Consent for Establishment issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. When the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court has categorically held that even to grant permission under Rule 17 of biomedical waste treatment and disposal facility, the State Pollution Control Board has to take into account all the requirements of the CPCB guidelines and held that "In Principle Permission" is neither a compliance of the guidelines issued by the CPCB nor any of the Rules. The Environmental Clearance automatically becomes irrelevant and the SEIAA should have cancelled the Environmental Clearance Rule 17 of the Biomedical 16 Waste Management Rules, 2016 provides for site for common biomedical waste treatment and disposal facility which is as follows:
" 17. Site for common biomedical waste treatment and disposal facility-
(1) without prejudice to rule 5 of these rules, the department in the business allocation of land assignment shall be responsible for providing suitable site for setting up of common biomedical waste treatment and disposal facility in the State Government or Union Territory Administration.
(2) The selection of site for setting up of such facility shall be made in consultation with the prescribed authority, other stakeholders and in accordance with guidelines published by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change or Central Pollution Control Board."
28. The Rule 6 of the Biomedical Waste Management Rules prescribes the duties of the authorities to perform in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. In the instant case, the authorities have failed to conduct the gap analysis before issuance of the approval.
29. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that as per the EIA Notification, 2006 clause 8(v) which refers to the grant or rejection of prior Environmental Clearance provides as follows:
"8(v) Clearances from other regulatory bodies or authorities shall not be required prior to receipt of applications for prior environmental clearance of projects or activities, or screening, or scoping, or appraisal, or decision by the regulatory authority concerned, unless any of these is sequentially dependent on such clearances either due to a requirement of law, or for necessary technical reasons."
30. The reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the gap analysis ought to have done by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board before issuing any approval. Any such approval can be issued only as per the CPCB guidelines. The CPCB guideline mandates the gap analysis to be conducted before issuing such "In Principle permission". The so called "In Principle 17 Permission" is deprecated by the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In such circumstances, the Environmental Clearance granted in favour of the 6th respondent without adverting to the above referred rules and regulation is liable to be set aside.
31. Curiously, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board by order dated 24.02.2022, pending the appeal, rejected the „Consent for Establishment‟ application by the 6th respondent for establishing the CBWTF in Sy. Nos. 7/1 and 8/1 Tana Annavaram, Tellabadu, Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District based on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court and also the order of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 131 of 2016. The said order also specifically stated that till such time the gap analysis studies is conducted and completed no „Consent for Establishment‟ application for establishment of new CBWFT be accepted by the Board.
32. In view of the above discussion, the Environmental Clearance issued in favour of the 6th respondent is violative of all provisions. Hence, the Environmental Clearance granted on 22.11.2021 in favour of 6th respondent is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No.79/2021(SZ) 10th August, 2023. (AM) 18 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) Appeal No. 79 of 2021 Safe Environ Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Appeal No. 79/2021(SZ) , 2023. (AM) 19