National Green Tribunal
Rajeev Nayan Tripathi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
Item No. 01
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No.65/2024(CZ)
(I.A.No.96/2024)
(I.A.No.116/2024)
(I.A.No.125/2024)
Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Applicant(s)
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 24.01.2025
Date of uploading of order on website : 29.01.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Krishnam Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv.
Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv.
Mohd. Iquraam, Adv.
Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv.
ORDER
1. The issues raised in this applications are the violation of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules by M/s Indo Water Management and Pollution Control Corporation at Badkheda, Tehsil Uchehara District Satna where the Bio Medical Waste are stored for months and are not disposed within a time frame prescribed in the rules, causing infection and spreading the various kind of disease among the local residents
2. A factual and action taken report was called by this Tribunal and in compliance of the order, the State Pollution Control Board has filed the report, which is on record.
1 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
3. The report reveals the violations on the point of incinerator and it has been narrated that :-
i. The incinerator is of very old technology and it does not even have a bag house to control air pollution and the biomedical waste was being fed manually, hence there is a need for up gradation in this incinerator or modern Technology incinerator should be installed.
ii. Where unloading of biomedical waste that it should be in covered shed.
iii. Sufficient height of the Boundary walls should be constructed remaining area of the premises.
iv. One stand-by incinerator should be install at the time of any maintenance of the present incinerator.
4. In the meantime, on assembly question, the State PCB has constituted an independent team to submit the report. There are two reports. With regard to second report, the PCB has submitted that considering the aspect of verifying the monitoring compliance by the CBWTF, the Technical Section of the MPPCB had referred the matter to the ERC Officer of the board to examine the allegations of non-compliances by the CBWTF.
5. It is further submitted that for lack of coordination, two reports have been filed which has been submitted to the Tribunal. The inspection report dated 28.05.2024 has highlighted various lapses on part of the CBWTF and show-cause notice was issued under Section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Reasons have been submitted that an assembly question vide Sl. No. 171 was raised in the assembly and the board was directed by the higher authorities to submit the correct report. Since, the State PCB is statutory body and 2 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. responsibility to implement the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and implement the environmental rules are with the State PCB, thus, being statutory body, the State PCB is at liberty to inspect the unit when it is required.
6. The matter was again taken up by this Tribunal on 20.11.2024 on an application/I.A. No. 116/2024 moved by the project proponent, the matter was considered and this Tribunal observed as follows :-
i. In light of the above facts, the applicant has moved an interim application No. 116/2024 with the prayer to permit its operation on the ground of following compliances which has been given in the chart as below:-
S.NO OBJECTIONS BY DETAIL EXPLANATION BY
PCB CBWTF
1. MANUAL FEEDING BY That it is important to
RESPONDENT mention that on the day of
second inspection by the
MPPCB there was a
technical fault in the
Hydraulic Compression
motor of the Mechanical
Feeding system.
Subsequently after the
inspection all the technical
faults has already been
rectified and presently the
mechanical feeding system
is working in appropriate
condition
2. BAG FILTERS ARE It is important to highlight NOT ESTABLISHED IN that measures have been THE INCINEATOR implemented by the Respondent to address air pollution, including the installation of a High Pressure Venturi Scrubber, Air Silo, Droplet Separator, Air Filter, ID Fan, and a 100-
foot chimney. The facility operated by Respondent No. 3 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
4 was established in 2009, adhering to the prevailing norms by utilizing wet technologybased incinerator plants. Currently, advanced machinery in compliance with MPPCB standards is being put in place, with an advance payment of 10 lakh rupees already made to the service provider. An additional 120- foot chimney has been constructed as part of these upgrades, with further equipment and machinery scheduled for installation within a specified timeframe.
Respondent No. 4 has
communicated its progress
02/02/2024,
IWMPCC/122/24 dated
29/02/2024, and
IWMPCC/261/24 dated
03/07/2024, along with a
reminder letter
IWMPCC/275/24 dated
16/07/2024. These
correspondences outline the
future action plans of the
Respondent No.4, which
include establishing a 100
kg capacity incinerator
within one year.
3. NO ARRANGEMTS TO The mentioned objection is a CONTROL FOUL false allegation by the SMELL IN THE UNIT officials of the MPPCB as the waste are collected as per the color codes and the procured bio medical waste is collected and kept in the collection center and adequate steps were taken by the CBWTF to control the foul smell in the unit. Also it is pertinent to mention that as per the First Joint Committee Report dated 29/04/2024 dated there 4 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
was no objection during the
inspection by the Committee
regarding the
mismanagement to control
the foul smell which itself
creates serious doubts on
the allegations of the MPPCB
4. NO BOUNDRY WALL That the Construction of
IN THE NEAR BY Boundary wall of the
SURROUNDING OF CBWTF is already
CBWTF completed. The pictures of
the boundary wall is
already annexed with the
reply by the CBWTF to the
MPPCB dated 18/10/2024
5. ONLINE MONITORING That is worthy to mention
SYSTEM IS NOT that the Online System
WORRKING which has been installed in
the CBWTF is completely
automatic and self
regulated. The CBWTF in a
regular basis conduct the
inspection of the System
also a calibration certificate
is also issued by the service
engineer. Presently the
Online Working System is
working in ideal condition
6. TEMPERING IN THE That the mentioned
ONLINE EMISSION allegations of the MPPCB is
DATA completely baseless as it is
practically impossible to
manipulate the online data.
The incinerator control unit
is self-automated The
MPPCB has failed to provide
any cogent evidence to
substantiate the aforesaid
claim
7. SEPARATE METER It is pertinent to mention
FOR SCRUBBER AND that for the equipment and
INCINERATOR IS NOT machinery like incinerator.
INSTALLED Autoclave Shredder, E.T.P
separate electric meters has
already been installed The
pictures of the meters is
already annexed with the
reply by the CBWTF dated
18/10/2024
5
OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
8. ILLEGAL That it is important to note
PROCUREMENT AND that Respondent No. 4 is
DISPOSAL OF WASTE exclusively involved in the
BY THE CBWTF procurement and disposal of
waste from the designated
districts, in accordance with
the Waste Guidelines 2016.
9. MIXED WASTE It is important to highlight
STORAGE WAS that the waste has already
FOUND IN EXCESS been disposed of by the
QUANTITY BY THE CBWTF. The CBWTF has
SECOND JOINT repeatedly requested that
COMMITEE hospitals to refrain from
sending mixed waste, as
they are not adhering to the
prescribed color codes for
waste segregation. Despite
these requests, hospitals
have declined to sign the
daily register and have
threatened the CBWTF with
complaints to the MPPCB,
alleging that the CBWTF is
refusing to accept their
waste Through letter dated
118/10/2024, the CBWTF
formally requested the
MPPCB to issue directives to
the hospitals to ensure they
do not send mixed waste.
ii. Learned counsel for the respondent/PP Mr. Anshuman Singh has argued that by means of order issued by the State PCB closure of unit has been issued against which he moved an application/writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and it was disposed of with the direction to approach this Tribunal.
iii. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Krishnam Mishra and learned counsel for the State PCB Ms. Parul Bhadhoria have submitted that the closure order is appealable and the appellant/aggrieved has opportunity to avail the remedy available.
iv. It is further argued that relief which has been sought by 6 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
filing the writ petition was not granted and referring the matter to this Tribunal does not means, indirectly permitting the unit which was closed by order of State PCB.
v. So far as the contention of the violations are concerned, the PP has submitted that issues raised by the State PCB framing violations has been remedied and action has been taken to correct it. Our attention has been also drawn towards the reply submitted by the respondent /PP to the State PCB vide letter dated 18.10.2024 in which paragraph reply has been submitted in the column-I manual feeding by respondent, it has been replied that hydrolic compressor motor was not working due to technical reasons and it was not been operational on that point of time. In point 2 bag filter which was not reported to be established in the incinerator, the reply has been submitted by the PP that process has been initiated and advance amount has been paid to the contractor and work order has been issued. In point no. 5 online monitoring system which is reported to be not working has been replied that it has been corrected now, similarly, the boundary wall has been corrected and in this regard objections at point no. 9 the responsibility of work has been shifted to the waste generator.
7. To avoid the controversy with regard to two different reports, the matter was heard again on 20.11.2024 and this Tribunal after considering the rival contention of the parties and to have a justified report directed in Para 11 as follows:-
"The compliance submitted by the PP may be examined by the State PCB and to avoid any further controversy with regard to members nominated by the state PCB we constitute a committee of following persons to visit the plant of the PP, CBWTF, Satna into M/s Indo Water Management and Pollution Control Corporation and to submit the report. Members of the 7 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
committee are :-
i. One representative nominated by Principal Secretary, Environment, M.P. ii. One representative nominated by MoEF&CC, Integrated Office, Bhopal.
iii. One representative nominated by the
Director, CPCB, Bhopal.
iv. One representative nominated by the
Member Secretary, MP Pollution Control
Board."
8. The report submitted by the members of the committee consisting Chief Chemist, MPPCB, Bhopal, Scientist, MPPCB, Bhopal and District Magistrate, Satna was placed on record by report dated 31.07.2024 filed by the State PCB and the observations of the committee are as follows:-
i. "Committee visited the CBWTF site on 28.05.2024 and noticed that a huge quantity of Bio-medical wastes was stored indiscriminately and recklessly inside the premises in different covered sheds. This, as can be seen in the pictures constitutes serious violation of Bio-medical Wastes Management Rules. ii. This CBWTF is in operation since the year 2009. The CBWTF was issued closure order in the year 2021 vide MPPCB letter no. 1062/Tech/Bhopal, dated 12.07.2021 for violation observed under Environment (Protection) Act 1986. This closure order was revoked and the Consent to operate the facility under Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981, Authorization under Bio-medical Wastes Management Rules 2016 and the Authorization under Hazardous and Other Wastes 2016, was renewed vide Consent No. AWHB-56492 in August 2022. This renewed consent is valid till June 2027.
iii. The Consented capacity of Incinerator is 100 Kg/hour, Autoclaving capacity of 350 Lts/hr and the Shredder capacity of 40 Kg & 250 Kg/hr. The allowed power generation capacity is 83 KVA through the D.G. sets of 15, 25 and 43 KVA capacity. 8
OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. iv. This CBWTF has been authorized to handle the bio-medical wastes in five districts, viz. Panna, Rewa, Satna, Sidhi and Singrauli. However, this facility is covering two more districts, viz. Damoh and Chhatarpur, as informed to the inspection team by the facility owner. A total of 730 HCFs are member of this facility with coverage of 9159 Beds. An average daily operation of incinerator is six hours. An average quantity of 1150 Kg waste is collected by the CBWTF plant. A total of 12 dedicated vehicles, equipped with GPS, have been deployed to collect the wastes from the HCFs. The labelling on the CBWTF vehicles and compliance in line with the CPCB specifications could not be checked as all the vehicles were on field for collection of wastes from the HCFs and none was available at the CBWTF site. Tracking of vehicles can be done on real-time basis on portal https://www.indocbwtf.com/. There is little mismatch in the vehicle registration numbers provided by the CBWTF operator and the registration numbers noticed at the CBWTF portal. v. The CBWTF has land area of about 2.5 acres. Plantation and other activities need to be stepped up inside the premises. The waste movement and storage area needs to be properly paved to arrest dust and fugitive emissions. In this support. The Operator of the facility is required to abide by the norms stipulated in the Consent No. AWHB-56492 failing to that may attract punitive action as per the provisions under Environmental Laws. vi. During inspection the committee noticed two Autoclaving machines in the operation area with capacity of 350 lit/hr and 1500 lit/hr respectively and both the autoclave were in functional state. At the time of inspection only one autoclave of 1500 lit/hr capacity, i.e. over four times of the capacity permitted to the CBWTF, was in operation with full capacity. In this support. The permitted autoclaving capacity to the CBWTF, vide MPPCB Consent order no. AWHB-56492 is only 350 lit/hr hence using autoclaving machine of substantially higher capacity constitutes a serious violation. As per Note (1) on Consent order page 1 the CBWTF is required to obtain fresh consent from the 9 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
MPPCB for any change in the capacity of equipment but this has been defied by the occupier. The enhancement of equipment capacity without taking a fresh consent under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 is a breach of Consent order. vii. The autoclave at the CBWTF site was devoid of computer recording devices for automatic and continuous monitoring to record dates, time, load identification and operating parameters throughout the autoclave cycle. This constitutes violation of authorization condition granted by MPPCB to the CBWTF. The Schedule II of BMWM Rules may also be referred in this regard. viii. The record pertaining to Validation Test for autoclave was not available at site and hence this could not be verified on inspection day. Non availability of the stated record at the site is violation of BMW Authorization condition.
ix. The CBWTF is expected to perform Routine Test, using chemical indicator strip, during autoclaving of each batch and this record should be maintained for review by the regulatory authority. At the time of inspection the Routine Test related record was not available at site for verification. This is violation of Authorization condition.
x. The information regarding capacity of motor in autoclave, shredder etc could not be made available to the inspection team hence the energy requirement could not be assessed. The energy consumption can help to draw the operation hours of the equipment and quantity of waste treated. Cross verification of operation status of CBWTF equipment also could not be done due to non availability of energy consumption bills of individual machines. Due to non availability of information at site it could also not be assessed if the existing DG sets are sufficient to cater to the need or not at the time of power failure.
xi. The BMWM Rules, 2016 stipulates that biomedical waste incinerator should have atleast two seconds residence time in secondary chamber. A minimum residence time has been 10 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
stipulated to ensure desired level emission control with respect to volatile organic compounds, especially dioxins and furans.
It was learnt during the inspection that the occupier has made modification in the secondary chamber of BMW incinerator in the year 2022, raising BMW residence time from 1 second to 2 seconds. The process of alteration in residence time has resulted in structural modification in the primary and the secondary chamber of the incinerator. This structural modification, and said change in the capacity of secondary chamber, requires a fresh consent as per Rule but the occupier did not abide by this. This again is a case of violation of consent order issued to the CBWTF.
xii. The technical details of the secondary chamber, replaced in the year 2022, including the effective dimension of incineration chamber, were not provided to the team at the time of inspection hence it could not be worked out whether the actual residence time in secondary chamber is 1 second or 2 seconds. The certificate in support of residence time in the secondary chamber, provided later through e-mail, does not have the date of installation of chamber or issuance of the certificate. Procurement details and technical details of previous incineration system, specially the secondary chamber, are also not available for verification.
The team noticed manual feeding of wastes in the incinerator. The PLC system at site was not synchronized with the waste feeding mechanism.
xiii. The enhancement of equipment capacity, and the said changes made in the capacity of secondary chamber due to structural modification, requires fulfilling the condition of Environmental Clearance by the CBWTF but the occupier of facility has not obtained Environmental Clearance from the competitive authority which again is a violation of BMWM Rules.
xiv. The CBWTF has 03 diesel generator sets, each with capacity of 15 KVA, 25 KVA and 43 KVA. The DG set of 15 KVA was found in unusable condition and this situation can affect the waste 11 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
treatment and disposal process adversely at the time of power failure. Refer Fig. 8 and 9 in this support.
xv. The CBWTF had no separate storage for untreated and the treated bio-medical waste. A huge quantity of waste was found stored in different sheds inside the premises. A total of over 20 tons of waste appeared to be stored at the site, excluding the quantity of incineration ash, in different covered sheds. xvi. The wastes storage area/shed, designated as untreated waste, was locked at the time of inspection. When opened, the waste was seen heavily packed and crammed full to the capacity in the storage area, covered with a large tarpaulin. The committee insisted to remove the tarpaulin cover to gauge the storage quantity and condition of wastes.
xvii. The biomedical wastes, packed in bags and stored in the 'untreated' waste storage area, were of different categories. The stored waste appeared to be several months old as can be seen in the fig. 10-12. It was not possible to track the date and month of bagged wastes because of lack of Bar code system at the CBWTF site. The stored waste was seen to have yellow bags also which is considered as highly infectious wastes. Some of the bags were seen in soiled condition and the waste spillage was also prominently visible in some bags. The storage condition was highly pathetic and not in line with the acceptable criteria. xviii. There was no system at all for the storage and handling of BMW.
The inspecting team visited other areas too in the premises. One of the sheds was seen locked giving impression as it was not attended since quite a long time. On repetitive insistence the facility operator got the door lock opened. It took about one hour to open the door and make way for the team to have an inside glimpse.
The team noticed a huge quantity of jam-packed bags of wastes indiscriminately inside the shed. Spiders and cobwebs could be seen easily inside the shed indicating the waste to be of quite older period. The situation was so pathetic that none of the 12 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
team members stepped inside the shed due to suspected unhygienic condition. Some of the bags were in soiled condition and none of the bags was labelled. Such waste management practices are highly unacceptable and needs a strong check on an immediate note.
xix. The plastic waste collected from various HCFs is stored in sheds of GI sheets. This waste is subject to treatment and disinfection followed by shredding before selling to the plastic wastes recyclers, as informed by the CBWTF operator is depicting segregation and storage of plastic wastes inside the premises without wearing safety gloves etc. xx. The storage of incineration ash was also not proper. Tons of ash was seen packed in the bags and stored in the covered shed. The total quantity of incineration ash disposed by the CBWTF during last three years, i.e. from June 2021 to April 2024, is 93.355 MT of which 54.58 MT was disposed in the year 2021- 22, 12.98 MT in 2022-23 and 25.79 MT was disposed in the year 2023-24. This shows high mismatch in the annual incineration ash quantity trend.
The handling and management of incineration ash needs an immediate attention. A large number of ash bags were found stored in soiled condition with ash spilling outside. The stacking of bags further deteriorated the situation. As informed by the CBWTF operator the incineration ash is disposed at TSDF site at Pithampur on periodic basis but the relevant record could not be produced before the committee for verification which is a case of violation of BMWM Rules.
xxi. The CBWTF has provided air pollution control devices (APCD), scrubber, demister and a 30 meter high stack for the discharge of emission gases. The system is not maintained properly and is prone to accident anytime. The U-tube manometer was seen in pathetic condition making it impossible to check the pressure drop/negative draft in the system. The leakages and seepages were noticed at several places in the system. Visible leakages 13 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
were observed at the scrubber site. Condition of the APCDs was highly inadequate and is susceptible to invite accident at the site at any point of time.
xxii. The condition of stack was miserable and muddled with temporary repairs and patches. The insulation and lagging in the stack were in very bad condition. This wear-tear needs to be attended on priority as this is posing hazard to the health & safety and is also posing threat to the surrounding environment. xxiii. The dimensions of the working platform at stack for monitoring also need to be modified in accordance with the CPCB guidelines.
xxiv. The sampling port was in bad shape with leakages seen all-
around the flanges. This causes dilution of emission gases and, therefore, constitutes non-compliance of real-time monitoring protocol. This results in erroneous and misleading real-time emission monitoring data streaming to the MPPCB server. xxv. The CBWTF has installed Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) for the waste water generated from the CBWTF processes. The ETP was not in operation at the time of inspection and the raw waste, i.e. untreated effluent, was being discharged on the land inside the premises. The sludge generated from the ETP was seen disposed inside the premises which needs to be looked into and checked immediately. This is a serious violation of condition stipulated in the consent order issued under Water Act.
xxvi. The CBWTF is required to maintain logbook of each treatment equipment according to weight of batch, category of wastes treated, time, date, duration of treatment cycle and total hours of operation but the logbook record was not available at the time of inspection. This constitutes violation of BMWM Rules 2016. xxvii. The application of Bar-coding system was not practiced at the site giving impression that the CBWTF has not adopted this system. Implementation of Bar code based waste management system, which is the responsibility of HCFs too, was lacking at CBWTF site. A record of Bar-code based waste management 14 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
should be maintained by the operator but it was lacking and could not be produced before the committee at the time of inspection.
xxviii. No separate provision for the storage and handling of mercury waste were in place which is not in line with the Rule 7(11) of BMWM Rules. The operator was of the view that mercury wste is not generated from the HCFs. The sources of mercury waste are Thermometers, Sphygmomanometers, Dental amalgam, Esophageal dilators, Gastrointestinal tubes, Miller-Abbott tube, Intraocular pressure devices, Strain gauge, Urinometer, X-Ray machines, Medical batteries, Barometers used in respiratory therapy, Laboratory chemicals, Thimerosal etc. xxix. Details of operation of electric meters, provided for each treatment equipment / disposal unit, could not be made available to the Committee at the time of inspection hence the cross verification of treatment and disposal operations could not be done.
xxx. It is mandated for the CBWTF to monitor the stack gaseous emissions once in every three months but the record of stack monitoring could not be produced nor it was available at site. This constitutes violation of BMWM Rules and the condition no. 1(c) of consent order issued under Air Act 1981. xxxi. The CBWTF is required to perform ambient air monitoring at the boundary of the plant premises and submit the report to the MPPCB on quarterly basis. No record regarding monitoring and submission of ambient air quality report could be produced before the team. This is in violation of Air Consent, issued by the MPPCB, condition no. 2.
xxxii. No record or report on TOC in slag and Bottom ash could be produced before the inspection team. The combustion gas analyser for the monitoring of CO2, CO and O2, as mandated in the BMWM Rules, was also not available at the site nor the CBWTF has procured it. This all is in violation of conditions of Consent order.
15 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. xxxiii. As per conditions of Authorization under Hazardous Wastes Rules, the CBWTF is required to display the information on hazardous waste generated, quantity and nature of hazardous chemicals being handled, info on waste water and air emissions etc., outside the unit at main gate. The CBWTF has failed to comply this.
xxxiv. As per conditions of Authorization the CBWTF is required to implement the Emergency Response Procedures (ERP) considering all possible scenarios of accidents and emergencies and carry out Mock-drill at regular intervals time to time. Contrary to the authorization condition the CBWTF has not carried out any mock-drill till date. No such record could be presented before the inspection team. Emergency and safety measures adopted within the facility are also not adequate and needs to be upgraded.
xxxv. The industry has adopted real-time monitoring (RTM) protocol.
One Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) and a IP- PTZ camera have been installed at the premises. The CBWTF has provided connectivity of these RTM equipment with the MPPCB server for transmission of real-time monitoring data. xxxvi. While verifying the RTM data and architecture of RTM data communication it was observed that the system in place is not trustworthy. The reliability and genuineness of RTM data is highly questionable. A significant discrepancy was noticed between the data displayed on the control unit of the CEMS and the data transmitted by the analyzer on MPPCB server. xxxvii. The noticeable mismatch between the data from the incinerator control unit and the data from the analyzer appears to be a clear case of data tampering. To investigate and validate the accuracy of the analyzer data, a series of assessments were conducted. The first investigation involved removing the probes from the secondary chambers of the incinerator.
The above action should have resulted in gradual 16 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
decrease in the temperature readings received at the analyzer. It was, however, surprising to note that despite removing the temperature probes from the chamber, the analyzer continued to display and transmits the data without any noticeable change in the reading. This discrepancy indicates that the data being transmitted by the CBWTF is not actual data and this appears to be generating simulated data rather than actual real-time temperatures to mislead the authority/regulatory agency. xxxviii. In order to check the suspected misdeeds by CBWTF in RTM system, at 1:30 pm, the power supply to the incinerator controller unit to both primary and the secondary chambers was deliberately cut off to stop the analyzer from receiving any sample. In this situation the analyser did not get any sample hence it should show substantially low reading, but, surprisingly, the analyzer continued to display primary chamber temperature of 826 0C and secondary chamber temperature of 1027 0C without putting the temperature probe inside the incinerator chambers. Further, it continued to transmit this simulated data to the central server at MPPCB.
This anomaly raises a serious question on functioning and reliability of the RTM system installed at the site and the integrity of the CBWTF operator towards the regulatory compliance in true spirit. This case of simulated or pre-generated data constitutes gross violation of the RTM protocol by the CBWTF operator.
The temperature in primary and secondary chamber show a static value between 850 0C and 1050 0C, in line with the standards prescribed under the Rules. It was surprising to note that there was no gradual increment or decrement in incineration temperature at the start and the stop time which shows that the data being transmitted by the CBWTF is fabricated and simulated and does not show the actual temperature of incinerator.
xxxix. The inspection team realized that the data was being manipulated at the analyzer level. To investigate further, the 17 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
inlet and the outlet probes were removed from the analyzer. It was astonishing to note that despite removing the probes, the analyzer continued to generate and transmit the data without any interruption. This behaviour strongly confirms that the analyzer installed at the site is merely a show piece and the data it transmits is simulated and runs in the background. It indicates that the data reported for regulatory compliance is not as per the actual values. This is a clear case of unethical practice to mislead the regulatory authority and calls for a strictest action against the CBWTF operator/occupier.
xl. Additionally, it was noticed that the data transmission process was not complying the prescribed protocol. As per protocol the transmission of RTM data should be directly from the analyser to the MPPCB server but it was found to have been routed through a cloud network. This is a clear violation of the data transmission protocol. The device responsible for transmitting the data was found not to be a data logger, and the necessary data transmission protocol was not present on the service provider's network. The vendor's inability to provide a satisfactory explanation further substantiates the suspicion about transmission of unauthenticated data on MPPCB Server. It was noticed that the MPPCB's central server continued to receive the real-time data even after taking out the sampling probe from the stack. The data was continue even on disconnecting the sampling probe. This clearly indicates that the facility (industry) is pushing the fabricated and simulated data instead of realistic data. This observations indicate serious flaws and befooling practices adopted by the CBWTF to mislead the regulating authority.
Key observations during inspection of CBWTF Site i. A huge quantity of Bio-medical wastes was stored indiscriminately and recklessly inside the premises. ii. Gross violation of Real-time monitoring protocol was observed. Tampered and simulated data was being 18 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
communicated on real-time basis by the CBWTF to the MPPCB.
iii. Real-time monitoring data being transmitted to the MPPCB is neither reliable nor genuine and this can mislead the authority at the time of taking any decision.
iv. The storage, handling and management of incineration ash and other wastes was pathetic and not acceptable. v. Structural modification was reported due to change in equipment and the equipment capacity in the year 2022. This was done to raise the residence time of flue gases from I second to 2 seconds. This alteration requires environmental clearance by CBWTF.
vi. As per consent order the permitted capacity of Autoclave is 350 Its/hr but the CBWTF was found using autoclave of 1500 lts/hr capacity, i.e. use of equipment higher than the allowed capacity.
vii. The workers were seen handling the waste with partial or without safety devices.
viii. Record keeping was very poor. CBWTF is required to produce past record at the time of inspection but failed to do so as stated in detail in the report.
ix. No separate storage facility for untreated and treated waste was available at site.
x. The pollution control devices are poorly maintained and prone to accident anytime.
xi. Leakages and seepage were seen at several places in the system.
xii. Bar coding protocol is not implemented. None of the wastes was seen bearing bar- code leading to identification issue. 19 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
xiii. Lack of compliance of Emergency Response Procedure and mock-drill.
Recommendations i. The incineration system needs to be revamped in toto. Prohibit manual waste feeding practice. Till the revamping make-shift arrangement may be done or the other CBWTF in the nearer locality may be coordinated. ii. Serious lapses, as recorded in the report, regarding handling and management needs to be looked into and resolved on an immediate note.
iii. Serious lapses and gross violation in RTM needs to be addressed at once.
iv. Al-ML based system can be deployed, strictly under supervision and control of MPPCB, to avert any possible befooling practices by CBWTF in transmission of tampered or simulated real-time monitoring data to the regulatory authority."
9. The Project proponent Indo-Water Management and Pollution Control Corporation has filed the reply and learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the above facility situated at village Badhkhera, Tehsil Uchehara, District Satna is in operation since 2009. The CBWTF having vast experience in disposal of Bio-Medical Waste engaged in collection, incineration and disposal of Bio-Medical Waste from 8 districts engaging 12 GPS installed vehicles serving day and night without any complaints. The Respondent MPPCB has been regularly monitoring and accordingly renewal of consents granted along with due permissions which is valid up to 30.06.2027.
10. The Unit having capacity of 100 kg per hour of incinerator, 350 litre per hour of autoclave, 40 kg per hour of shredder and an ETP having 20 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. capacity of 20 KLD & Sharp Pit is installed functioning effectively which was duly observed by the MPPCB and Joint Committee. Needless to state that waste water generated from scrubbing, washing is being treated in the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP). The Unit has also installed Air Pollution Control System. The incinerator is duly equipped with wet- based high pressure, venturi scrubber, air Silone, droplet separator, air filter, ID fan with 100 feet stack. The Unit has made every effort to treat Red, Blue, White Categories of waste with proper Ash management as per Hazardous Waste Management Rules. While Yellow category waste is disposed through the incinerator. The Unit is having valid authorization under Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 2016 valid up to 30.06.2027. Further, Green Belt Area has been developed in the incinerator plant and from time-to-time plantation drive is carried out. That, the Answering Respondent has duly made representation to the Regional Officer, MPPCB Satna when sought information from the Answering Respondent. The unit is operating far from residential area and as per previous lab reports, the pollutants were found within permissible limit.
11. It is further argued that previously complaints were made against respondents and show cause notices were issued against the project proponent. The respondent after meeting with the State Pollution Control Board officials has proposed for installation of incinerator according to the standard and parameter and to procure more technologies and advanced incinerators for installation. It is further submitted that running a present incinerator and installation and establishment of new technology-oriented incinerators can both work simultaneously. With regard to report called from the State PCB by constituting a different committee, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State 21 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. PCB that this present application was filed on 13.03.2024, however, the board was receiving the complaints against the CBWTF from different sources even before filing the OA and complaint dated 16.01.2024, 26.02.2024, 06.03.2024 & 02.07.2024 was on record and the State PCB had referred the matter to the ERC Officers of the board to examine the allegations of non-compliances by the CBWTF and pass the order accordingly. These experts are expert in verifying the compliances related to the real-time monitoring by the CBWTF including the operation of the incinerator. The inspection dated 28.05.2024 had highlighted the various lapses on part of the CBWTF and accordingly notices were issued under Section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
12. It is further argued that there has no suppression of any material and no mala fide intent and entire process of the MPPCB has been transparent and in consonance with the principle of natural justice and the report was directed to be supplied and prepared in accordance with the assembly question raised by one sitting MLA before the Assembly.
13. It is further submitted that since there are serious violations and non- compliance of the Bio-Medical Waste Rules, thus, closure order has been passed and it can be reconsidered after necessary compliances have been undertaken by the CBWTF. The copy of the Assembly question No. 171 has been communicated to this Tribunal vide letter dated 02.07.2024.
14. It is to be noted that against the notice and closure order issued by the State PCB, the aggrieved/project proponent filed a Writ Petition No. 21807/2024 titled Indo Water Management and Pollution Control Corporation Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. and the court headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice passed an order as follows :-
"ORDER 22 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Per. Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 12.06.2024 by which the respondent-Pollution Control Board has recorded the finding that the petitioner is guilty of violations of various conditions with regard to grant of consent to operate its Common Biomedical Waste Disposal Facility and has been called upon to show cause against the proposed action, which includes closure of the unit, disconnection of its electricity and water supplies etc. It is not in dispute that the issue raised before this Court is pending before National Green Tribunal (NGT), Bhopal. Thus, the petitioner cannot take the remedy to approach this Court.
We expect from the NGT to decide the petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously.
It is made clear that this Court has not given any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, this petition and pending applications, if any, are disposed of."
15. Learned counsel for the Project Proponent has moved an another application submitting that the objections which has been raised by the Committee and the State Pollution Control Board in the closure notice has been rectified or in process of rectification and to verify the facts this Tribunal vide order dated 20.11.2024 has constituted an independent team of experts consisting the representative from the MoEF&CC, Regional Office, Bhopal, one representative from the State Pollution Control Board, one representative from the Principal Secretary (Environment) and one representative from the Director, Regional Office, CPCB. This committee visited the site and submitted the report with the following facts :-
23
OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
A. "The alleged CBWTF, M/s Indo Water Management and Pollution Control Corporation (further referred as 'Unit') located at Barkheda Village, Unchera Tehsil, Satna District of M.P. was initially commenced its operation reportedly in the year 2009 and catering the Bio medical waste management services in the area.
The factual status on various statutory requirements of the Unit is furnished below:
i. The unit renewed the 'Consent to Operate' from the MPPCB vide outward no. 116210 dated 08/08/2022 to worked as CBWTF in allotted area i.e. Satna, Panna, Rewa, Sidhi and Singrauli, which is valid from 08/08/2022 to 30/06/2027.
ii. The project authority has obtained authorization under the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 & Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management &Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 from the MPPCB, which is also valid till 30/06/2027.
iii. Meanwhile, a new CBWTF M/s Chitra-Kiran waste management Pvt Ltd, Rewa was permitted in Rewa area and MPPCB allotted the Rewa, Sidhi and Singrauli district for waste collection and treatment vide order dated 15.06.2023 and restrict the unit operation in Satna and Panna area only.
iv. As per the direction of NGT in the present OA a team of MPPCB visited the unit on 29.04.2024 and observed mechanical feeding system not operational, incinerator not having efficient air pollution control system and need to replace it. Further, on 28.5.2024 another team of the MPPCB visited the unit and serious lapses were observed w.r.to BMWM Rules 2016 on the basis of above issued the show cause notice on 12.06.2024 with opportunity of hearing to PP but due to continue non-compliances in previous direction MPPCB issued 24 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
the closer notice on 12.08.2024 and instruct to stop the incinerator operation with immediate effect and disconnect the electricity connection till further order. However, the MPPCB allowed for collection of Bio- medical waste in Rewa and Panna area and disposed it through nearby CBWTF as per guidelines.
B. Preliminary meeting of the Joint Committee:
In consultation with the members of the Joint Committee, a preliminary meeting of the Committee was convened on 18.12.2024 through video conference. In the said meeting all the members of the Joint Committee were present and discussed the facts and issues involved in the matter, ToR to the Committee and further course of action proposed in this matter.
In continuation to the preliminary meeting, subsequent site inspection of the Joint Committee was held on 20/12/2024 to verify the factual status on the allegations and compliance status of the short comings as mentioned in closer notice of MPPCB dated 12.08.2024 as mentioned in point no 06 of NGT order dated 20.11.2024. Accordingly, the Joint Committee visited the M/s Indo Water Management and Pollution Control Corporation. Satna.
C. Observation of the Joint Committee on the ToR to the Committee:
Based on the deliberations held during the meeting of the Joint Committee, subsequent site inspections of the CBWTF under question and documents made available to the Committee, the following observations are made on the ToR:
i. The Committee shall visit the plant of PP and submit the report with respect to status of the compliance as per of BMWM, Rules 2016:
1. The committee visited the unit and it was observed that the incinerator was not in operation and electricity connection disconnect since August 2024 to verify the fact 25 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
committee crossed check the previous three months MPEB electricity bill and no unit consumption recorded was found in bill.
2. The CBWTF, Satna has not placed any order for installation of new incinerator till the closer date i.e.12.08.2024 the old incinerator with local retrofication was being used.
3. The unit has provided separate area for treated and untreated waste storage (20 ft X 40 ft) and seems it is sufficient to fulfill the present requirement of waste storage. However proper drainage system of floor washings and its connection to ETP was not provided. It was observed that proper segregated and bar-coded waste is not received at the facility hence operator re- segregate the waste at the facility for sorting the recyclable material.
4. The waste collection and disposal completed in 48 hours as informed by operator but at the time of visit noticeable quantity of incinerable waste found storage hence its disposal in 48 hours might be doubtful. Moreover, it will be disposed in M/s Peoples Hospital Incinerator, Bhopal which is about 450 km from the unit. The waste movement register has been maintained however, electronic form i.e. bar-coding details, GPS details has not been maintained properly.
5. The facility has introduced the Bar-coding system. The work has been awarded to M/s E-Planet Info system India Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal. The facility operator has developed the mobile App for Bar code data uploading and storage. A pilot demonstration has been completed, but it was observed most of the HCFs still not adopting the bar-coding system. It was observed both the stake holders i.e. CBWTF and HCFs are not acquainted with the bar code system and it is impossible to implement 26 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
with the help of present infrastructure and mindset.
6. The unit has obtained authorization under HW Rules for generation of incineration ash (category-37.2) and used oil (category 5.1). As informed by the unit representative recently on 28.10.2024 they have disposed all the 17.770 MT stored incinerator ash through TSDF, Pithampur. The unit has displayed the hazardous information board at main gate.
7. The plastic and other recyclable material collected from various hospitals is being stored inside the room for further treatment. The collected plastic disinfected and shredded and sold to authorized plastic waste recycler i.e. M/s Master Products India, Delhi. Recently the unit has sold out 5650 kg of shredded plastic vide e-way bill no 731482985403 dated 6.12.2024 and record of the same has been maintained. The unit also sold 4210 kg of treated waste to M/s Megha Polymers, Indore on 12.11.2024.
8. In case of any breakdown in the facility a MoU has been signed with M/s M.P.Biomedical waste management, Shahdol as alternate arrangement which is about 200 km from the facility.
9. As the unit is collecting and storing the medical waste so it is obvious some foul smell is generated inside the untreated waste storage room but outside the premises there was no foul feel observed by committee members during the visit. However, unit is spraying disinfectant solution on regular basis to control the odour related problem if any.
10. The unit was earlier jointly inspected by team of CPCB Bhopal and RO, MPPCB Satna on 08.01.2020 (before Covid) for verification of compliance to BMWM, Rules 2016. Based on the observations CPCB has issued notice under section 5 of EPA 1986 to the unit on 10.8.2021 and 27 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
imposed environmental compensation of Rs. 30,81,250/- for discrepancies observed during visit. The major observations of visit were incinerator not upgraded w.r.to 2 second RT, leakages in APCD, tempering in OCEMS, stack emission above the limit etc. Further, as per the direction of CPCB, Delhi the same unit again visited on 10.01.2024 and observed that the most of the direction's points are still not complied and unit also not deposited the compensation amount in CPCB so far. Hence again issued the direction.
11. The unit has installed the ETP comprising of: Oil and Grease Trap, Chemical dosing tank, coagulation Chamber, Primary Settling Tank, biological Treatment process, secondary settling Tank, pressure sand filter and activated carbon filter, Disinfection Tank, Treated water stored in overhead tank which is further recycled in scrubber and used in horticulture and gardening purpose, during visit only aeration system of the ETP was operational as no inflow water received due to restricted operation.
12. The facility has installed M/s Tanco Make 350 Ltr. capacity autoclave as per CTO issued by MPPCB and also installed additional 1500 Ltr autoclave however same is not mentioned in the present CTO. As per record shown by the operator spore strip test conducted for each batch. Further the unit has allowed for 40 Kg/Hr shredder but additional 250 kg/Hr shredder was also found installed.
13. The facility has 07 dedicated vehicles for collection of bio medical waste. The GPS data on the day of visit was verify but not found in consonance with the field condition.
14. The local residents of Satna sent a complaint to MPPCB on 28.8.2024 regarding foul smell caused by medical 28 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
waste accordingly a team of RO, MPPCB visited the unit on 2.9.2024 and observed that the proper records of waste collection on day-to-day basis was not maintained and non-availability of GPS data of waste collecting vehicles and instruct to PP vide letter dated 5.9.2024 for effective compliance of Head Office letter dated 12.8.2024.
ii. The PP submitted that the issues raised by the State PCB framing violations has been remedied and necessary corrective action has been taken:
A team of MPPCB visited the unit on 28.5.2024 and issued the show cause notice on 12.06.2024 but due to continue non-compliances MPPCB issued the closer notice on 12.08.2024 and instruct to stop the incinerator operation with immediate effect and disconnect the electricity connection till further order. As the matter is already under trail before the Hon'ble NGT hence applicant has moved an IA no.116 of 2024 and prayer to permit its operation as he has complied all the direction of closer notice. The points of direction and status as on date of visit as below:
Sl. Direction Observation of committee Status as on No. points 20.12.2024
1. The unit has The unit has installed the Not Complied not installed mechanical feeder system the mechanical but neither it is compatible feeding system with present incinerator nor and manual it is as per guidelines. The feeding of installed feeding system is waste simple pusher type of system observed. and externally controlled by manually, however the correct mechanical system is controlled by PLC and having double gate system to avoid any fugitive emission during 29 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
the charging of the waste inside the incinerator. The present incinerator is not compatible for mechanical feeding system as it has front loading system and for mechanical feeding system double door and top loading system is required.
It is also pertinent to
mentioned that similar type
of noncompliance was
observed in previous visits of
CPCB and MPPCB.
2. The unit has The present incinerator is Not Complied not installed equipped with venturi the bag filters scrubber and droplet to control the separator type of air air pollution. pollution control system and incinerator also designed accordingly, hence the installation of bag filter in present incinerator is not feasible and there is no space available inside the incinerator area to install the bag house.
During visit incinerator was
not in operation hence
performance of present APCD
could not be assessed
however, as per previous
performance history the
present APCD may not be
capable to complying the
30
OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
emission norms.
3. No As the unit is collecting and Complied
arrangements storing the medical waste so
to control the it is obvious some foul smell
foul smell in is generated inside the
the unit. untreated waste storage
room but outside the
premises there was no foul
feel by committee members
during the visit. However,
unit is spraying disinfectant
solution and scented phenyl
on regular basis to control
the odour related problem if
any.
4. The unit has The unit has constructed the Complied not boundary wall at the constructed the periphery of the facility.
boundary
wall at back
side of the
plant.
5. Online The incinerator was not in Committee
monitoring operation due to disconnect could not
system not of electricity and the OCEMS comment
working system was also detached upon it as
properly from the stack for system not
maintenance purpose hence functional.
it could not be verified by the
committee.
6. The tempering The incinerator was not in Committee was observed operation hence it could not could not in OCEMS be verified by the committee. comment hence However, in previous visit of upon it as temperature in CPCB tampering was proofed system not primary and and similar type of functional.
secondary observation given in the However, 31 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
chamber not MPPCB report. similar
found proper. observation
reported in
CPCB visit
carried out in
10.01.2024.
7. The unit has The unit has installed the Complied not installed separate energy meter for the separate incineration system but its energy meter functionality could not be for incinerator verified as incinerator was and scrubber. not in operation.
8. Unauthorised As informed by the PP the Not Complied collection and unit still collecting the waste disposal of from the Damoh and waste from the Chhatrpur area in spite of jurisdiction of that the area is allotted to another another CBWTF i.e. M/s CBWTF. Devis Surgico, Sagar.
9. Mixed waste As informed by unit operator Partially found stored in inspite of organizing Complied excess awareness programme and quantity. personnel interaction with cleaning staff and CHC & PHC, problem of waste segregation at source is not solved even some of the hospital not willing to give waste to CBWTF.
3. Other observations:
i. As per the schedule-II of BMWM, Rules 2016 the present incinerator is not fulfilling the basic requirements as incinerator does not have efficient burning system in primary and secondary chamber, absence of mechanical feeding system, non availability of temper proof PLC system, inefficient ID & FD fan to maintain proper draft, 32 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
square shape primary and secondary incinerator chamber etc. The operation of present incinerator will be grave violation of BMWM, Rules 2016 if permitted on same condition.
ii. The unit has retrofitted the secondary chamber and attached with temporary type of burner. It was observed that burner of secondary chamber is being mounted on moveable platform and as per requirement it is attached and detached and all the operation performed manually, hence possibility of negligence may not be ruled out. The unit has provided 2 Second RT certificate given by the manufacturer; it is pertinent to mention that same certificate has been shown earlier when secondary chamber not existed.
iii. As informed by the PP before the committee the unit has installed GPS system in all the vehicles and also showing the live status during traveling, but proper verification of GPS tracking system could not be done due to very slow internet speed during visit and observed constant buffering during data uploading. iv. The collected waste of the unit is being disposed either in CBWTF, Shahdol or in Peoples Hospital incinerator at Bhopal, the distance between Satna and Bhopal is approx. 450 km hence it is not recommended to transport the waste upto Bhopal. The unit has submitted the waste disposal details and few waste acceptance receipts given by receiver facility but electronic proof i.e. GPS tracking print out of end-to-end waste tracking of all the days not made available before the committee which is very much required as per rule. As observed from 13.08.2024 (Closer of incinerator) to 19.12.2024 (one day before the visit) total 127 days of daily operation was counted and as claimed by the PP he has sent waste on every alternes day basis either at Bhopal or Shahdol, but PP has provided the GPS data 33 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
for only 12 days (07 trip Satna to Bhopal & 05 trip Satna to Shahdol).
v. As observed and information provided by the PP on average basis approx. 200 kg of yellow category waste is being collected and sent to CBWTF as per MoU the details provided by the PP from 13.8.2024 to 20.12.2024 is enclosed as Annexure-07 but this data does not indicate in which CBWTF this waste was disposed, it is pertinent to mentioned that the above two data are also not comparable w.r.to date and vehicle number."
15. Learned counsel for the Project Proponent has filed the objection against the joint committee report with the facts that Online Monitoring System was reported to be not working properly and there was tempering observed in OCEMS and the temperature in primary and secondary chamber was not found proper. The objection on this point are that since the system was not in operation or functional due to the reason that the unit was closed, thus, these grounds are not tenable.
16. Learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board has submitted that in the previous occasion the matter was observed and these deficiency were found in the unit. It is further submitted that the Central Pollution Control Board in compliance of the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 inspected the unit with the members of the State Pollution Control Board on 08.01.2020 and serious violations were found and CPCB had issued notices under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the unit on 10.08.2021 and further imposed environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,81,250/- for discrepancies observed during visit. The major observation of visit were incinerator not upgraded with respect to 2-second RT, leakages in A, B, C, D, tempering in OCEMS, stack emissions above the limit etc. 34 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
17. It is further argued that on the direction of the CPCB, Delhi, the unit was again inspected on 10.01.2024 and the observation were of the fact that most of the directions pointed are still not complied and unit has not also deposited the compensation amount in CPCB and again issued notice to the unit. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the project proponent in the reply that the unit was established in the year, 2009 and is currently undergoing a transformation to incorporate new equipment and in the process of purchasing of the equipment for modernization. On the point of bag filters, it is again reiterated that the orders for purchase of machinery were put in place and project proponent is in process of purchasing the items.
18. It is further argued that the State PCB has issued consent letter in favour of other unit in other districts or the consent issued in favour of other unit has been challenged before the Court of Civil Judge or writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have no relevance with this case for the reasons that challenging the consent condition to other unit is not subject matter of this petition. The writ petition which has been filed before Hon'ble High Court has been disposed of. The brief contention of the learned counsel for the project proponent is that the unit is in process of purchasing the modern technology and to install it, thus, a period of approximately one year should be granted to complete the comprehensive replacement and installation of the existing incinerator with the proposed modern equipment.
19. In light of above contentions, learned counsel for the State PCB has argued that the matter is always open to the project proponent and the PP may rectify the deficiencies as shown by the committee and CPCB and to report the State PCB with the facts of rectification and removal of 35 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. deficiencies and thereafter, the State PCB has to take a suitable decision according to rules. After hearing the contention raised by the parties and after going through the records, we found that the CBWTF has not install new incinerator, there was no proper drainage system of floor washing and its connection to ETP, there was no segregation and bar-coded and waste was found beyond the 48 hours and it was not properly disposed. The unit has no movement register and electronic form i.e., bar-coding details, GPS details and in spite of the observation and directions not adopted the bar-code system. There are plastic and other recyclable material collected from various hospitals which is being stored inside the room and has not been properly treated according to rules.
20. Learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the CPCB has issued revised guidelines for common bio medical waste treatment and disposal facilities uploaded on the website of Parivesh Portal on 21.12.2016, which is as follows :-
1) Criteria for development of a new Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facility for a locality or region.
Prior to allowing any new CBWTF, following criteria or steps may be followed:
a) 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 bio-medical waste treatment and disposal facility. The prescribed authority is also required to extrapolate the coverage-area wise bio-medical waste generation for the next ten years.
b) SPCB/PCC is required to conduct gap analysis w.r.to 36 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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.
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.
c) 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. The department in the business allocation of land assignment shall be responsible for providing suitable site in the identified coverage area for setting up of a CBWTF, in consultation with the prescribed authority (i.e., SPCB/PCC), other stakeholders and in accordance with these guidelines issued by CPCB from time to time.
d) Alternately, a CBWTF may also be allowed to be established on a land procured by an entrepreneur in accordance with the location criteria suggested under these guidelines. 37 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
e) 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, 1986 for development of the new CBWTF in accordance with these guidelines.
f) In the absence of expression of interest by any proponent, then SPCB/PCC shall insist health care facilities to form association and to develope its own CBWTF in line with these guidelines or to have captive treatment facilities for ensuring treatment and disposal of generated bio-medical waste as stipulated under the BMW Rules, 2016.
g) In case of any regulatory action including closure of any existing CBWTF is inevitable, the respective SPCB/PCC may take action under the BMWM Rules including for making alternate arrangement to ensure safe disposal of the bio- medical waste generated from the member health care facilities of such default CBWTF through CBWTF located nearby.
h) In case of hilly areas considering the geography, only one CBWTF with adequate treatment capacity may be developed covering atleast two districts to cater treatment services to the HCFs located in the respective Districts. The selection and allocation of site etc., should be done as per the criteria suggested under these guidelines. The treatment charges to be prescribed by the respective SPCB/PCC in consultation with the State Advisory Committee.
3) Location criteria In the context of these guidelines, buffer zone represents a separation distance between the source of pollution in 38 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
CBWTF and the receptor - following the principle that the degree of impact reduces with increased distance. The following parameters may be considered for ascertaining buffer distance on case-to-case basis:
i. potential for spread of infection from wastes stored in the premises.
ii. applicable standards for pollution control and the relative efficiency of the existing incinerators and emission control systems, iii. potential of fugitive dust emission from incinerators, iv. potential for discharge of wastewater v. the potential for odour production, vi. the potential for noise pollution, vii. the risk posed to human health and safety due to exposure to emissions from incinerator, viii. the risk of fire and ix. Significance of the residual impacts such as bottom ash and fly ash.
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:
(a) A CBWTF shall preferably be developed in a notified industrial area without any requirement of buffer zone (or) 39 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(b) A CBWTF can be located at a place reasonably far away from notified residential and sensitive areas and should have a buffer distance of preferably 500 m so that it shall have minimal impact on these areas. In case of non-availability of such a land, the buffer zone distance from the notified residential area may be reduced to less than 500 m by SPCB/PCC without referring the matter to CPCB by prescribing additional control measures such as (i) adoption of best available technologies (BAT) by the proponent of CBWTF; (ii) prescribing stringent standards for operation of the CBWTF by the SPCB/PCC; (iii) adoption of zero liquid discharge by the CBWTF and (iv) in case of any complaints from the public, then CBWTF should prove that the facility is not causing any adverse impact on environment and habitation in the vicinity. If SPCB/PCC is not in a position to resolve the issue relating to buffer zone while selecting the site for CBWTFs, in such a case, SPCBs/PCCs may refer the matter to CPCB.
(c) The CBWTF can also be developed as an integral part of the Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) subject to obtaining of necessary approvals from the authorities concerned including 'environmental clearance' as per Environmental Impact Assessment 2006 and further amendments notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, provided there is no CBWTF exist within 150 KM distance from the existing TSDF."
7) Land requirement Sufficient land shall be allocated to the CBWTF to provide all requisite systems which include dedicated space for storage of waste (both treated and untreated), waste treatment equipment, vehicle 40 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
washing bay, vehicle parking space, ETP, incineration ash storage provision, administrative room, space for DG Set etc.,.
(a) Preferably, a CBWTF shall be set up on a plot size of not less than one acre in all the areas. However, a CBWTF can be developed in adjacent plots but cannot be set up in two or more different plots located in different areas. Separate plots can be permitted only for vehicle parking if located in the close vicinity of the proposed CBWTFs or the existing CBWTFs.
(b) In case of upcoming or new CBWTFs (both in municipal limits with population more than 25 lakhs or in rural areas), the land area requirement may be relaxed (but in any case not less than 0.5 acre) by the SPCB/PCC, with additional control measures such as zero liquid discharge, increase in stack height, stringent emission norms, odour control measures or any other measures felt necessary by the prescribed authority on case-to-case basis, only in consultation with CPCB.
8) Coverage area of CBWTF Suggested coverage area for development of a CBWTF is as follows:
a) A CBWTF located within the respective State/UT shall be allowed to cater healthcare units situated at a radial distance of 75 KM. However, in a coverage area where 10,000 beds are not available within a radial distance of 75 KM, existing CBWTF in the locality (located within the respective State/UT) may be allowed to cater the healthcare units situated upto 150 KM radius w.r.to its location provided the bio-medical waste generated is collected, treated and disposed of within 48 hours as stipulated under 41 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
the BMWM Rules.
b) In case, number of beds is exceeding > 10,000 beds in a locality (i.e. coverage area of the CBWTF under reference) and the existing treatment capacity is not adequate, in such a case, a new CBWTF may be allowed in such a locality in compliance to various provisions notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to cater services only to such additional bed strength of the HCFs located.
c) In case of hilly areas, considering the geography, only one CBWTF with adequate treatment capacity may be developed covering atleast two districts to cater treatment services to the HCFs located in the respective Districts. The selection and allocation of site etc. should be done as per the criteria suggested under these guidelines. The treatment charges to be prescribed by the respective SPCB/PCC in consultation with the State Advisory Committee to be constituted under the BMWM Rules by the respective State Government or UT Administration."
......................................... Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) Monitoring provision for continuous monitoring of the incinerator/plasma pyrolysis stack emission shall be installed by the CBWTF operators for the parameters as stipulated by the respective SPCB/PCC as per the authorisation granted under the BMWM Rules, 2016. Other-wise, at present, all the existing CBWTF operators are required to carry out stack emission monitored using continuous emission monitoring system for the flue gas parameters such as C 2, 0 2, CO as well as primary & secondary chamber temperatures, and records maintained. The continuous emission monitoring system for stack emission should be installed as per the guidelines issued by SPCB/PCC/CPCB. Also, the real time continuous stack emission monitoring data is 42 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
also required to be transmitted to the servers of the respective SPCB/PCC as well as CPCB, by all the existing CBWTF operators."
21. Learned counsel for the State PCB, Ms. Parul Bhadoria has further argued that due to increase of the population and the availability of the medical facilities, the new hospitals have been established post COVID- 19 and calculation of bed strength has to be re-examined and re-looked in comparison to capacity to dispose the medical waste and on the basis of calculation of number of beds, the State PCB is considering the increasing CBWTF in the region.
22. It is argued that in the 21st century with increased use of disposable material and the presence of dreaded disease like Hepatitis B and AIDS, it is utmost important to take care of the infected and hazardous waste to save the mankind from disaster. The Health care institution or hospitals which are responsible for care of morbid population are emitting voluminous quantity of rubbish, garbage and bio medical waste matter each day from wards, operation theatre and outpatient areas. Proper management of hospital waste is essential to maintain hygiene, aesthetics, cleanliness and control of environmental pollution. The hospital waste like body parts, organs, tissues, blood and body fluids along with soiled linen, cotton, bandage and plaster casts from infected and contaminated areas are very essential to be properly collected, segregated, stored, transported, treated and disposed of in safe manner to prevent hospital acquired infection. Various communicable diseases, which spread through water, sweat, blood, body fluids and contaminated organs, are important to be prevented. The bio medical waste scattered in and around the hospitals invites flies, insects, rodents, cats and dogs that are responsible for the spread of communication disease like plague and rabies. Rag pickers in the hospital, sorting out the garbage are at a 43 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. risk of getting tetanus and HIV infections. The recycling of disposable syringes, needles, IV sets and other article like glass bottles without proper sterilization are responsible for Hepatitis, HIV, and other viral diseases. It becomes primary responsibility of Health administrators to manage hospital waste in most safe and eco-friendly manner.
23. Learned Counsel for PCB has argued that as per Environment Impact Act Notification, 2006 as amended 'Bio-Medical Waste treatment facility' is categorized under item 7 (da) in the schedule and requires 'Environmental Clearance' from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). As per the guidelines issued by CPCB, a facility may require Environmental Clearance' as follows:
a) Expansion and modernization with additional treatment capacity of existing bio-medical waste treatment facility (excluding augmentation of incineration facility for compliance to the residence time as well as Dioxins and Furans without enhancing the existing treatment capacity).
b) In case of any expansion in the treatment capacity or relocation of the existing CBWTF.
24. As per Rule 12(4) of BMWM Rules, 2016 State Government shall constitute District Level Monitoring Committee in the districts under the Chairmanship of District Collector or District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner or Additional District Magistrate to monitor the compliance of the provisions of these rules in the health care facilities generating bio-medical waste and in the common biomedical waste treatment and disposal facilities. Further, as per Schedule III, State Government may take advice of State Pollution Control Boards on implementation of these Rules.
25. As per Rule 10 of BMWM Rules, 2016 every operator of CBWTF is 44 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. required to obtain authorization under said rules from concerned State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee for ensuring that biomedical waste is collected, received, stored, transported, treated, processed, disposed or handled in line with the provisions under BMWM Rules, 2016, quoted below:
"4. Duties of the Occupier.-
It shall be the duty of every occupier to-
(a) take all necessary steps to ensure that bio-medical waste is handled without any adverse effect to human health and the environment and in accordance with these rules;
(b) make a provision within the premises for a safe, ventilated and secured location for storage of segregated biomedical waste in colored bags or containers in the manner as specified in Schedule I, to ensure that there shall be no secondary handling, pilferage of recyclables or inadvertent scattering or spillage by animals and the bio-medical waste from such place or premises shall be directly transported in the manner as prescribed in these rules to the common bio-medical waste treatment facility or for the appropriate treatment and disposal, as the case may be, in the manner as prescribed in Schedule I;
(c) pre-treat the laboratory waste, microbiological waste, blood samples and blood bags through disinfection or sterilization on-site in the manner as prescribed by the World Health Organization (WHO) or National AIDs Control Organization (NACO) guidelines and then sent to the common bio-medical waste treatment facility for final 45 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
disposal;
(d) phase out use of chlorinated plastic bags, gloves and blood bags within two years from the date of notification of these rules;
(e) dispose of solid waste other than bio-medical waste in accordance with the provisions of respective waste management rules made under the relevant laws and amended from time to time;
(f) not to give treated bio-medical waste with municipal solid waste;
(g) provide training to all its health care workers and others, involved in handling of bio medical waste at the time of induction and thereafter at least once every year and the details of training programmes conducted, number of personnel trained and number of personnel not undergone any training shall be provided in the Annual Report;
(h) immunise all its health care workers and others, involved in handling of bio-medical waste for protection against diseases including Hepatitis B and Tetanus that are likely to be transmitted by handling of bio-medical waste, in the manner as prescribed in the National Immunisation Policy or the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued from time to time;
(i) establish a Bar- Code System for bags or containers containing bio-medical waste to be sent out of the premises or place for any purpose within one year from the date of the notification of these rules;
(j) ensure segregation of liquid chemical waste at source and 46 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
ensure pre-treatment or neutralisation prior to mixing with other effluent generated from health care facilities;
(k) ensure treatment and disposal of liquid waste in accordance with the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ( 6 of 1974);
(l) ensure occupational safety of all its health care workers and others involved in handling of biomedical waste by providing appropriate and adequate personal protective equipments;
(m) conduct health check up at the time of induction and at least once in a year for all its health care workers and others involved in handling of bio- medical waste and maintain the records for the same;
(n) maintain and update on day to day basis the bio-medical waste management register and display the monthly record on its website according to the bio-medical waste generated in terms of category and colour coding as specified in Schedule I;
(o) report major accidents including accidents caused by fire hazards, blasts during handling of biomedical waste and the remedial action taken and the records relevant thereto, (including nil report) in Form I to the prescribed authority and also along with the annual report;
(p) make available the annual report on its web-site and all the health care facilities shall make own website within two years from the date of notification of these rules;
(q) inform the prescribed authority immediately in case the 47 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
operator of a facility does not collect the bio-medical waste within the intended time or as per the agreed time;
(r) establish a system to review and monitor the activities related to bio-medical waste management, either through an existing committee or by forming a new committee and the Committee shall meet once in every six months and the record of the minutes of the meetings of this committee shall be submitted along with the annual report to the prescribed authority and the healthcare establishments having less than thirty beds shall designate a qualified person to review and monitor the activities relating to bio-medical waste management within that establishment and submit the annual report;
(s) maintain all record for operation of incineration, hydro or autoclaving etc., for a period of five years;
(t) existing incinerators to achieve the standards for treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste as specified in Schedule II for retention time in secondary chamber and Dioxin and Furans within two years from the date of this notification.
5. Duties of the operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment and disposal facility.-It shall be the duty of every operator to -
(a) take all necessary steps to ensure that the bio-medical waste collected from the occupier is transported, handled, stored, treated and disposed of, without any adverse effect to the human health and the environment, in accordance with these rules and guidelines issued by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the central pollution 48 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
control board from time to time;
(b) ensure timely collection of bio-medical waste from the occupier as prescribed under these rules;
(c) establish bar coding and global positioning system for handling of bio- medical waste within one year;
(d) inform the prescribed authority immediately regarding the occupiers which are not handing over the segregated bio- medical waste in accordance with these rules;
(e) provide training for all its workers involved in handling of bio-medical waste at the time of induction and at least once a year thereafter;
(f) assist the occupier in training conducted by them for bio- medical waste management;
(g) undertake appropriate medical examination at the time of induction and at least once in a year and immunise all its workers involved in handling of bio-medical waste for protection against diseases, including Hepatitis B and Tetanus, that are likely to be transmitted while handling bio-medical waste and maintain the records for the same;
(h) ensure occupational safety of all its workers involved in handling of bio-medical waste by providing appropriate and adequate personal protective equipment;
(i) report major accidents including accidents caused by fire hazards, blasts during handling of biomedical waste and the remedial action taken and the records relevant thereto, (including nil report) in Form I to the prescribed authority and also along with the annual report;
49 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(j) maintain a log book for each of its treatment equipment according to weight of batch; categories of waste treated; time, date and duration of treatment cycle and total hours of operation;
(k) allow occupier , who are giving waste for treatment to the operator, to see whether the treatment is carried out as per the rules;
(l) shall display details of authorisation, treatment, annual report etc on its web-site;
(m) after ensuring treatment by autoclaving or microwaving followed by mutilation or shredding, whichever is applicable, the recyclables from the treated bio-medical wastes such as plastics and glass, shall be given to recyclers having valid consent or authorisation or registration from the respective State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee;
(n) supply non-chlorinated plastic coloured bags to the occupier on chargeable basis, if required;
(o) common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall ensure collection of biomedical waste on holidays also;
(p) maintain all record for operation of incineration, hydroor autoclaving for a period of five years; and
(q) upgrade existing incinerators to achieve the standards for retention time in secondary chamber and Dioxin and Furans within two years from the date of this notification.
6. Duties of authorities.-The Authority specified in column (2) of Schedule-III shall perform the duties as specified in column 50 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(3) thereof in accordance with the provisions of these rules.
7. Treatment and disposal.-
(1) Bio-medical waste shall be treated and disposed of in accordance with Schedule I, and in compliance with the standards provided in Schedule-II by the health care facilities and common bio-medical waste treatment facility. (2) Occupier shall hand over segregated waste as per the Schedule-I to common bio-medical waste treatment facility for treatment, processing and final disposal: Provided that the lab and highly infectious bio-medical waste generated shall be pre-treated by equipment like autoclave or microwave.
(3) No occupier shall establish on-site treatment and disposal facility, if a service of `common biomedical waste treatment facility is available at a distance of seventy-five kilometer. (4) In cases where service of the common bio-medical waste treatment facility is not available, the Occupiers shall set up requisite biomedical waste treatment equipment like incinerator, autoclave or microwave, shredder prior to commencement of its operation, as per the authorisation given by the prescribed authority.
(5) Any person including an occupier or operator of a common bio medical waste treatment facility, intending to use new technologies for treatment of bio medical waste other than those listed in Schedule I shall request the Central Government for laying down the standards or operating parameters.
51 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(6) On receipt of a request referred to in sub-rule (5), the Central Government may determine the standards and operating parameters for new technology which may be published in Gazette by the Central Government.
(7) Every operator of common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall set up requisite biomedical waste treatment equipments like incinerator, autoclave or microwave, shredder and effluent treatment plant as a part of treatment, prior to commencement of its operation. (8) Every occupier shall phase out use of non-chlorinated plastic bags within two years from the date of publication of these rules and after two years from such publication of these rules, the chlorinated plastic bags shall not be used for storing and transporting of bio-medical waste and the occupier or operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall not dispose of such plastics by incineration and the bags used for storing and transporting biomedical waste shall be in compliance with the Bureau of Indian Standards. Till the Standards are published, the carry bags shall be as per the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2011.
(9) After ensuring treatment by autoclaving or microwaving followed by mutilation or shredding, whichever is applicable, the recyclables from the treated bio-medical wastes such as plastics and glass shall be given to such recyclers having valid authorisation or registration from the respective prescribed authority.
(10) The Occupier or Operator of a common bio-medical waste 52 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
treatment facility shall maintain a record of recyclable wastes referred to in sub-rule (9) which are auctioned or sold and the same shall be submitted to the prescribed authority as part of its annual report. The record shall be open for inspection by the prescribed authorities. (11) The handling and disposal of all the mercury waste and lead waste shall be in accordance with the respective rules and regulations.
8. Segregation, packaging, transportation and storage.
-(1) No untreated bio-medical waste shall be mixed with other wastes.
(2) The bio-medical waste shall be segregated into containers or bags at the point of generation in accordance with Schedule I prior to its storage, transportation, treatment and disposal.
(3) The containers or bags referred to in sub-rule (2) shall be labeled as specified in Schedule IV.
(4) Bar code and global positioning system shall be added by the Occupier and common bio-medical waste treatment facility in one year time.
(5) The operator of common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall transport the bio-medical waste from the premises of an occupier to any off-site bio-medical waste treatment facility only in the vehicles having label as provided in part 'A' of the Schedule IV along with necessary information as specified in part 'B' of the Schedule IV. (6) The vehicles used for transportation of bio-medical waste 53 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
shall comply with the conditions if any stipulated by the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee in addition to the requirement contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), if any or the rules made there under for transportation of such infectious waste. (7) Untreated human anatomical waste, animal anatomical waste, soiled waste and, biotechnology waste shall not be stored beyond a period of forty -eight hours:
Provided that in case for any reason it becomes necessary to store such waste beyond such a period, the occupier shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the waste does not adversely affect human health and the environment and inform the prescribed authority along with the reasons for doing so.
(8) Microbiology waste and all other clinical laboratory waste shall be pre-treated by sterilisation to Log 6 or disinfection to Log 4, as per the World Health Organisation guidelines before packing and sending to the common bio-medical waste treatment facility.
18. Liability of the occupier, operator of a facility.- (1) The occupier or an operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall be liable for all the damages caused to the environment or the public due to improper handling of bio- medical wastes.
(2) The occupier or operator of common bio-medical waste treatment facility shall be liable for action under section 5 and section 15 of the Act, in case of any violation." 54 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
26. The contention of the learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board is based on the revised guidelines for CBWTF, where it has been provided that A Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facility (CBWTF) should be set up where biomedical waste generated from member health care facilities is imparted necessary treatment to reduce adverse effects and waste may pose on human health and environment. The treated recyclable waste may finally be sent for disposal in a secured landfill or for recycling. According to the Bio- medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, "bio-medical waste treatment and disposal facility" means any facility wherein treatment, disposal of bio-medical waste or processes incidental to such treatment and disposal is carried out, and includes common bio-medical waste treatment facilities and "operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment facility"
means a person who owns or controls a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facility (CBWTF) for the collection, reception, storage, transport, treatment, disposal or any other form of handling of bio-medical waste. Installation of treatment facility by health care facility (HCF) requires comparatively high capital investment, in addition, it requires separate dedicated and trained skilled manpower and infrastructure development for proper operation and maintenance of treatment systems. The concept of CBWTF is not only addresses such problems but also prevents proliferation of treatment technologies in a particular town or city. In turn, it reduces the monitoring pressure on regulatory agencies. By running the treatment equipment at CBWTF to its full capacity, the cost of treatment of per kilogram bio-medical waste gets significantly reduced. Its considerable advantages have made CBWTF popular and proven concept in most part of the world.
Considering the likely impacts that may cause to the patients undergoing 55 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. treatment because of operation of the captive treatment equipment within the health care facilities (HCFs), now the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 restricts the Occupier (i.e., HCF) for ensuring treatment and disposal of generated bio-medical waste through a CBWTF, located within a distance of 75 KM. Further, these rules eased the bottleneck in upbringing the CBWTF by making department in the business allocation of land assignment in the State or UT administration responsible for providing a suitable site (s) within its jurisdiction. The concept of CBWTF is also being widely accepted in India among the healthcare units, medical associations and entrepreneurs. In order to set up a CBWTF to its maximum perfection, care shall be taken in choosing the right technology, development of CBWTF area, proper designing of transportation system to achieve optimum results etc. Key features of CBWTF have been addressed in the subsequent sections. The Bio- medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 mandates that the operator of a CBWTF authorised by the prescribed authority is required to take all necessary steps to ensure that the bio-medical waste collected from the occupier is transported, handled, stored, treated and disposed of, without any adverse effect to the human health and the environment, in accordance with the BMWM Rules, 2016 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) from time to time. Therefore, these guidelines have been prepared with an aim to have uniformity in ensuring site selection, allowing and establishment of a state-of-the-art CBWTF, operation as well as verification of compliance to the BMWM Rules, 2016 throughout the country. However, any other aspects which are not been covered under these guidelines and needs attention, in such a case, the prescribed authority may take suitable action in the interest of protection of the 56 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
environment in consultation with MoEF & CC/CPCB. Also, it is pertinent to mention here that these guidelines are mandatory henceforth under the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.
27. The criteria for development of a new CBWTF for a locality or region is as follows:-
"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"
28. The location criteria as provided in the guidelines are as follows:
"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 be considered for ascertaining buffer distance on case-to-case basis:
(i) potential for spread of infection from wastes stored in the premises.
(ii) Applicable standards for pollution control and the relative efficiency of the existing incinerators and emission control systems,
(iii) potential of fugitive dust emission from incinerators,
(iv) potential for discharge of wastewater
(v) the potential for odour production,
(vi) the potential for noise pollution,
(vii) the risk posed to human health and safety due to exposure to emissions from incinerator, 57 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(viii) the risk of fire and
(ix) Significance of the residual impacts such as bottom ash and fly ash."
29. The environmental law principles, which this Tribunal is mandated to apply under sections 20 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010, are - 'sustainable development', 'precautionary' and 'polluter pays'. In Hanuman Laxman, (2019) 15 SCC 401, (paras 142-156), significance of environmental rule of law has been highlighted to achieve sustainable development goals for prosperity, health and well being. This requires filling of gap between law and enforcement. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606, at page 621, it was observed that the State has to "forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment. Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including the right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Therefore, hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment. Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence. Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising the man-made and the natural environment. Therefore, there is constitutional imperative on the Central Government, State Governments and bodies like municipalities, not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve the man-made 58 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. environment and natural environment.
30. In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718, at page 732, it was observed "..Good governance is an accepted principle of international and domestic laws. .....It includes the need for the State to take the necessary "legislative, administrative and other actions" to implement the duty of prevention of environmental harm...". In Techi Taga Tara, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to several Committees on need for revamping the regulatory bodies by appointing persons of outstanding ability and high reputation to the State PCBs and equipping them with laboratories and other equipment for performing statutory functions. Apart from the Tribunal being approached under sections 14 and 15 by aggrieved parties, pointing out degradation of environment and inaction of the statutory regulators, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has required this Tribunal to monitor compliance of such statutory obligations for protecting environment. This is not possible unless the statutory regulators are effective. Significant issues so referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court include a) liquid waste management, (2017) 5 SCC 326, Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein it was directed that requisite STPs, ETPs, CETPs must be set up by 31.3.2018, failing which coercive measures may be taken against concerned authorities, to enforce statutory mandate of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act enacted in 1974, prohibiting any water pollution, making it a criminal offence. b) compliance of solid waste management rules. Vide order dated 2.9.2014 in WP 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors. on the file of the Supreme Court, the issue has been referred to this Tribunal for monitoring compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules. c) In (2015) 12 SCC 764, MC Mehta v. 59 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. UOI, issue of rejuvenation of Ganga stands referred to this Tribunal. d) Vide order dated 24.7.2017 in WP 725/1994, 'And quite flows Yamuna', rejuvenation of Yamuna stands referred to this Tribunal. It is not necessary to refer to several other orders. Finding that statutory regulators were not effective and serious damage was continuing, the Tribunal has appointed independent monitoring Committees on several issues.
31. In substance, monitoring of the enacted environmental laws including the Water Act, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules framed thereunder needs to be reviewed and made effective in the interest of protection of environment and public health. This is not possible unless the regulatory bodies are duly manned and equipped and function efficiently. The report shows that it is not happening and there are huge gaps. With such gaps, it is only a dream to expect clean environment - fresh water or fresh air. Irreversible degradation of environment is bound to result in avoidable deaths and diseases and loss of scarce and good quality water, air and soil and biodiversity. With regard to bio-medical waste, the matter has been dealt with in OA 710/2017, Shailesh Singh, v. Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur & Ors., with regard to hazardous waste, matter has been dealt with in OA 804/2017, Rajiv Narayan v. Union of India & Ors., with regard to e-waste, matter has been dealt with in OA 512/2017, Shailesh Singh v. State of UP, with regard to plastic waste, matter has been dealt with in EA 13/2019 in OA 247/2017, Central Pollution Control Board v. State of Andaman & Nicobar & Ors. for laying down liability to pay compensation for non-compliance. The failure of monitoring has been found to have direct nexus to atleast 10 industrial accidents which have taken place in the recent past which have been 60 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. dealt with by this Tribunal.
32. As earlier observed, damage to environment is directly linked to the public health and neglecting compliance of environmental norms results in deaths and injuries. Violation of environmental norms needs to be taken as seriously as preventing crimes of homicides and assaults. It is more serious as the victims may be wide spread and unidentified. The consequences may even affect future generations. The compliance status is directly linked to effectiveness of monitoring which requires that the key office bearers of statutory regulators and oversight bodies are qualified, competent and reputed and exclusively dedicated to such work, instead of devoting part time, while simultaneously holding other positions. In this regard, the Tribunal has made observations vide order dated 02.02.2021 in OA 231/2014, Doaba Paryavaran Samiti v. State of U.P & Ors., finding that the Member Secretary of the PCB in UP was only devoting part-time, while holding several other positions. Adequate and well-equipped laboratories and effective machinery for implementation of "Polluter Pays" principle for assessment and collection of compensation is another important aspect of environmental governance.
33. Further, for improving monitoring and planning, authentic data needs to be compiled at all levels. Initiative will have to be taken consistent with Digital India initiatives by the MoEF/MoJS/MoUD/CPCB and based on such policy decisions, the Environment departments of all States/UTs will have to compile data in their respective jurisdiction, preferably District wise. On that basis District Environment Data Grid (DEDG), State Environment Data Grid (SEDG) and National Environment Data Grid (NEDG) can be set up and continuously updated. The Grid can be connected to online monitoring systems. Comprehensive Environment Pollution Index (CEPI) is being prepared limited to the Industrial Area but 61 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. the Grid can cover larger areas and aspects and can be source of research and planning. It can also facilitate monitoring of and be in sync with other government initiatives such as National Mission for Clean Ganga, Swachh Bharat and Jalshakti Abhiyan etc. Based on such data, it may also be easier to study 'carrying capacity' of different areas to plan siting policy for various activities.
34. The matter of disposal of bio medical waste and establishment of CBWTF was taken up by this Tribunal in OA No. 22/2022(CZ) and vide order dated 23.08.2022(CZ) it was observed that the Bio Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 are eco-friendly and intended to dispose of the waste within 48 hours and there are huge gap between the generation of the waste and its disposal and in view of the gap new CBWTF may be permitted without any disturbing the existing member to establish the facility so that the bio medical waste should be disposed of within a time limit framed by the CPCB. Accordingly, directions issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 22/2022(CZ) must be complied with in accordance with the rules.
35. As narrated by the project proponent and submitted by the respondent, the present unit is disposing the biomedical waste of more than seven districts including Satna, Rewa, Sidhi, Singrauli, Panna, Chattarpur, Damoh and the facility has not updated its instruments and working on the old system which is not properly functioning and not in consonance and compliance of the orders issued by the CPCB and guidelines issued in 2016.
36. Constitution Bench judgment in M.C. Mehta and Another v. Union of India and Others (1987) 1 SCC 395 popularly known as Oleum Gas Leak Case, it was held :-
62
OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
"We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently. dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. Such hazardous or 63 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not....We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-`-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. We would also like to point out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases referred to in the preceding paragraph must be corelated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise."
37. The court in M.C. Mehta's case (supra) further observed as under:
31. "We must also deal with one other question which was seriously debated before us and that question is as to what is the measure of liability of an enterprise which 64 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
is engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry, persons die or are injured. Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher apply or is there any other principle on which the liability can be determined? The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was evolved in the year 1866 and it provides that a person who for his own purposes brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without that person's wilful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence. This rule laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the damage caused. Of course, this rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority. Vide Halsbury Laws of England, Vol. 45 para 1305.
Considerable case law has developed in England as to what is natural and what is non-natural use of land and 65 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
what are precisely the circumstances in which this rule may be displaced. But it is not necessary for us to consider these decisions laying down the parameters of this rule because in a modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry out part of the developmental programme, this rule evolved in the 19th Century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social structure. We need not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in this context of a totally different kind of economy. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country. As new situations arise the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot afford to remain static. We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialised economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order. We are certainly prepared to receive 66 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
light from whatever source it comes but we have to build up our own jurisprudence and we cannot countenance an argument that merely because the law in England does not recognise the rule of strict and absolute liability in cases of hazardous or inherently dangerous activities or the rule as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher as is developed in England recognises certain limitations and exceptions. We in India must hold back our hands and not venture to evolve a new principle of liability since English courts have not done so. We have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous industries which are concomitant to an industrial economy, there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability merely because it has not been so done in England."
38. The Court applied the principle of Polluter pays and observed thus:
"The polluter pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer. The 67 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
'polluter pays' principle was promoted by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development [OECD] during the 1970s when there was great public interest in environmental issues. During this time there were demands on government and other institutions to introduce policies and mechanisms for the protection of the environment and the public from the threats posed by pollution in a modern industrialised society. Since then there has been considerable discussion of the nature of the polluter pays principle, but the precise scope of the principle and its implications for those involved in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been satisfactory agreed."
39. In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others (2000) 6 SCC 213, the court observed as under:
"...pollution is a civil wrong. By its very nature, it is a tort committed against the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution, has to pay damages (compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. He has also to pay damages to those who have suffered loss on account of the act of the offender. The powers of this court under Article 32 are not restricted and it can award damages in a PIL or a Writ Petition as has been held in a series of decisions. In addition to damages aforesaid, the person guilty of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner."
40. Having regard to the respondent's conduct in the present case, it would 68 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. be reasonable to impose an additional pecuniary penalty on them. Reliance is placed on Minister for the environment and Heritage v. Greentree (No.3) [2004] FCA 1317, wherein the Federal Court imposed a pecuniary penalty against the respondents totaling $450,000 for having illegally cleared declared a Ramsar wetland. A strong factor contributing to the imposition of a substantial penalty was because the actions of the respondent were deliberate, sustained and serious, they took place over a substantial period of time and the respondents did not exhibit any contrition.
41. The court in Alok Shanker Pandey vs Union of India & Others (2007) 3 SCC 545 observed as under:-
"We are of the opinion that there is no hard and fast rule about how much interest should be granted and it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the each case. We are of the opinion that the grant of interest of 12% per annum is appropriate in the facts of this particular case. However, we are also of the opinion that since interest was not granted to the appellant along with the principal amount the respondent should then in addition to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum also pay to appellant interest at the same rate on the aforesaid interest from the date of payment of instalments by the appellant to the respondent till the date of refund on this amount, and the entire amount mentioned above must be paid to the appellant within two months from the date of this judgment.
It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital.
69 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
42. To do complete justice, prevent wrongs, remove incentive for wrongdoing or delay, and to implement in practical terms the concepts of Time Value of Money, restitution and unjust enrichment noted above - or to simply levelise - a convenient approach is calculating interest. But here interest has to be calculated on compound basis - and not simple - for the latter leaves much uncalled for benefits in the hands of the wrongdoer. Further, a related concept of inflation is also to be kept in mind and the concept of compound interest takes into account, by reason of prevailing rates, both these factors, i.e., use of the money and the inflationary trends, as the market forces and predictions work out.
43. Some of our statute law provide only for simple interest and not compound interest. In those situations, the courts are helpless and it is a matter of law reform which the Law Commission must take note and more so, because the serious effect it has on administration of justice. However, the power of the court to order compound interest by way of restitution is not fettered in any way. We request the Law Commission to consider and recommend necessary amendments in relevant laws.
44. Compound interest' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition (Bryan A. Garner) at page 830 as `Interest paid on both the principal and the previously accumulated interest.' It is a method of arriving at a figure which nears the time value of money submitted under Head-2 earlier.
45. As noted, compound interest is a norm for all commercial transactions.
46. Graham Virgo in his important book on `The Principles of the Law of Restitution" at pp26-27 has stated and relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"In Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v London Borough Council 1996 A.C. 669 the issue for the House of Lords was 70 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. whether compound interest was available in respect of all restitutionary claims. By a majority it was decided that, since the jurisdiction to award compound interest was equitable, compound interest could only be awarded in respect of equitable restitutionary claims. Consequently, where the claim was for money had and received the claimant could only obtain simple interest because this was a common law claim. The majority supported their conclusion by reference to a number of different arguments. In particular, they asserted that, since Parliament had decided in 1981 that simple interest should be awarded on claims at common law, it was not for the House of Lords to award compound interest in respect of such claims. But the Supreme Court Act 1981 does not specifically exclude the award of compound interest in respect of common law claims. Rather, it recognizes that the court can award simple interest for such claims. The equitable jurisdiction to award compound interest is still available in appropriate cases.
In two very strong dissenting judgments, Lords Goff and Woolf rejected the argument of the majority. They asserted that, since the policy of the law of restitution was to remove benefits from the defendant, compound interest should be available in respect of all restitutionary claims, regardless of whether they arise at law or in equity. This argument can be illustrated by the following example. In the straightforward case where the claimant pays money to the defendant by mistake and defendant is liable to repay that money, the liability arises from the moment the money is received by the defendant, who has the use of it and so should pay the claimant for the value of 71 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
that benefit. This was accepted by all the judges in the case. The difficulty relates to the valuation of this benefit. If the defendant was to borrow an equivalent amount of money from a financial institution, he or she would be liable to pay compound interest to that institution. It follows that the defendant has saved that amount of money and so this is the value of the benefit which the defendant should restore to the claimant, in addition to the value of the money which the defendant received in the first place. If it could be shown that, had the defendant borrowed the equivalent amount of money, the institution would only have paid simple interest, it would be appropriate for the interest awarded to the claimant to be simple rather than compound. Usually, however, the interest awarded in commercial transactions will be compound interest."
47. In Marshall sons and company (I) Limited v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Limited and another (1999) 2 SCC 325 the court in para 4 of the judgment observed as under:
"...It is true that proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and, on occasion, become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and a person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also a known fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its execution takes a long time. In such a situation, for protecting the interest 72 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
of the judgment-creditor, it is necessary to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property. In appropriate cases, the court may appoint a Receiver and direct the person who is holding over the property to act as an agent of the Receiver with a direction to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the Receiver or pass such other order which may meet the interest of justice. This may prevent further injury to the plaintiff in whose favour the decree is passed and to protect the property including further alienation. ..."
48. In Ouseph Mathai and others v. M. Abdul Khadir (2002) 1 SCC 319 the court reiterated the legal position that the stay granted by the court does not confer a right upon a party and it is granted always subject to the final result of the matter in the court and at the risk and costs of the party obtaining the stay. After the dismissal, of the lis, the party concerned is relegated to the position which existed prior to the filing of the petition in the court which had granted the stay. Grant of stay does not automatically amount to extension of a statutory protection.
49. The court in South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State of M.P. and others (2003) 8 SCC 648 on examining the principle of restitution in para 26 of the judgment observed as under:-
"In our opinion, the principle of restitution takes care of this submission. The word "restitution" in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order, what has been lost to him in execution of decree or order of the court or in direct consequence of a decree or order (see Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue, U.P - 73 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(1984) Supp SCC 505) In law, the term "restitution" is used in three senses: (i) return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or status; (ii) compensation for benefits derived from a wrong done to another; and (iii) compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another."
50. The court in para 28 of the aforesaid judgment very carefully mentioned that the litigation should not turn into a fruitful industry and observed as under:
"... ... ...Litigation may turn into a fruitful industry. Though litigation is not gambling yet there is an element of chance in every litigation. Unscrupulous litigants may feel encouraged to approach the courts, persuading the court to pass interlocutory orders favourable to them by making out a prima facie case when the issues are yet to be heard and determined on merits and if the concept of restitution is excluded from application to interim orders, then the litigant would stand to gain by swallowing the benefits yielding out of the interim order even though the battle has been lost at the end. This cannot be countenanced. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the successful party finally held entitled to a relief assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be compensated by award of interest at a suitable reasonable rate for the period for which the interim order of the court withholding the release of money had remained in operation."
51. The court in the aforesaid judgment also observed that once the doctrine of restitution is attracted, the interest is often a normal relief given in restitution. Such interest is not controlled by the provisions of the Interest Act of 1839 or 1978.
74 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
52. In a relatively recent judgment of the court in Amarjeet Singh and others v. Devi Ratan and others (2010) 1 SCC 417 the court in para 17 of the judgment observed as under:
"No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of its own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the court. The fact that the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the court. ... ..."
53. In another recent judgment of the court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others (2010) 9 SCC 437 this court in para 15 observed as under:
"No litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges into the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified 75 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the court. The fact that the case is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, or the party withdrew the writ petition, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a situation the court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of the court."
54. In consonance with the concept of restitution, it was observed that courts should be careful and pass an order neutralizing the effect of all consequential orders passed in pursuance of the interim orders passed by the court. Such express directions may be necessary to check the rising trend among the litigants to secure the relief as an interim measure and then avoid adjudication on merits.
55. In consonance with the principle of equity, justice and good conscience judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to abuse the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of the process of the court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the respondent or the defendant has in fact incurred in 76 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. order to defend himself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. No one should be permitted to use the judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust profits. The court must effectively discourage fraudulent, unscrupulous and dishonest litigation.
56. The court's constant endeavour must be to ensure that everyone gets just and fair treatment. The court while rendering justice must adopt a pragmatic approach and in appropriate cases realistic costs and compensation be ordered in order to discourage dishonest litigation. The object and true meaning of the concept of restitution cannot be achieved or accomplished unless the courts adopt a pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases.
57. The court in case Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others 2011(6) Scale 677 had an occasion to deal with similar questions of law regarding imposition of realistic costs and restitution. One of us (Bhandari, J.) was the author of the judgment. It was observed in that case as under:
"While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the 77 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years."
58. Learned counsel for the state PCB Ms. Parul Bhadoria has argued that the project proponent who is polluting the environmental norms and filed repeated cases not only before this Tribunal but also before the Hon'ble High Courts and also before the Civil Court though the matter of approaching the courts are right of the citizens but to avoid the implementation of the environmental laws and to escape from the liability imposed by the CPCB and the State PCB the project proponent is not transforming the machinery and plant according to the norms and litigating in various courts causing pollution in the environment and further burden on the state exchequer to contest the case and thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC - 161 and (2018) 11 SCC, 572 the special cost with the interest and payment of environment compensation with reasonable cost must be imposed on the project proponent.
59. In view of the above facts, discussions and records conclusions and directions are as follows :-
i. The project proponent/respondent M/s Indo Water Management and Pollution Control Corporation is found to be in violation of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, as amended by (2nd Amendment Rules, 2019) and the guidelines issued by the CPCB.
78 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ii. CPCB and State PCB are directed to take punitive action against the project proponent according to rules and to ensure that the unit should not be permitted to continue until the remedial measures are not taken and certified by the competent expert of the pollution control board/CPCB & SPCB. iii. Project proponent is liable for payment of environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,81,250/- communicated by the CPCB vide notice issued under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (notice issued on 10.08.2021) with interest of 6% per annum from the date of violation till the date of realization.
iv. Notice/ demand notice issued by the CPCB be forwarded to the Collector, Satna for recovery of the amount according to rules and to deposit the amount in the relevant account of CPCB. v. State PCB is directed to calculate the environment compensation from the date of last calculation as done by the CPCB till the closure of the unit and to ensure the realization of environmental compensation and submit the report. The environmental compensation as realised should be utilized for environmental purposes.
vi. Since, the unit is not operating properly in compliance of the Bio-
Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, thus, State PCB is directed to make alternate arrangement and till the time the present incinerator is not replaced, the waste generated in the coverage area of the unit should be handover to an alternate nearest CBWTF as per MoU provided that receiver CBWTF having valid authorization, 2 second RT incinerator and OCEMS to treat the waste etc. 79 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vii. The unit should comply with all the directions given by CPCB and MPPCB and submit time bound action plan for its future operation plan within 15 days. Till the time the unit fully compliant with Bio- Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, the closure direction issued by MPPCB under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 shall be effective and the incineration facility shall not operate till further directions from MPPCB. The MPPCB may intervein in the matter and explore the possibility of incineration of collected waste by the unit in nearby CBWTF for disposal in accordance to rules. viii. The unit shall maintain the electronic proof of waste collection and disposal and same will be submit to MPPCB regional office on weekly basis without fail, till the own incinerator not commissioned. Presently unit is allowed for waste collection in Satna and Panna area only and unit may strictly adhere upon it and collected waste shall be disposed in designated CBWTF as suggested by MPPCB only if unit not submitting proper electronic proof (GPS and bar coding) of waste collection and disposal than MPPCB may review the permission of waste collection also. ix. Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board is directed to periodically monitor the progress of remedial measures taken by the CGWTF and take a decision according to rules immediately as soon as the remedial measures are taken, and to further ensure that the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016 must be strictly complied with and there should not be any violations of environmental rules.
80 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
60. A copy of the order be communicate to the Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board, Director, Central Pollution Control Board and the Collector, Satna for compliance.
61. Original Application No. 65/2024 alongwith all I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM 29th January, 2025 O.A. No. 65/2024(CZ) PN 81 OA No. 65/2024(CZ) Rajeev Nayan Tripathi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.