Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, against an order dated 3rd June 2021 by the Principal Bench of the NGT in O.A No.287/2020, which held that manufacturing units without prior Environmental Clearance (EC) could not operate. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing basic organic chemicals like Formaldehyde, operated units in Haryana classified as Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). They had obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) but lacked prior EC, having applied for ex post facto clearance. The core legal issue was whether such units, employing about 8000 workers and potentially compliant with pollution norms, could be closed down pending EC issuance. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, traced the evolution of environmental legislation in India, including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, along with related notifications like the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994 and its 2006 successor. The Court emphasized the statutory powers under the EP Act, particularly Section 3 for environmental protection measures and Section 5 for issuing directions. It considered the balance between stringent environmental compliance and the socio-economic impact of closure, especially for MSMEs providing substantial employment. The decision involved interpreting the NGT's jurisdiction and the principles of sustainable development, leading to a remand for fresh consideration based on a holistic assessment of factors such as pollution control, employment, and public interest.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Ex Post Facto EC and Closure Orders - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - The Supreme Court considered whether manufacturing units with CTE and CTO but lacking prior EC could be closed pending ex post facto EC application, despite employing 8000 workers and potentially complying with pollution norms. The Court examined the statutory framework under the EP Act and NGT Act, emphasizing the need to balance environmental protection with economic and employment considerations. Held that closure should not be automatic; factors like compliance, employment, and public interest must be weighed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration (Paras 1-2). B) Environmental Law - Statutory Framework - Powers of Central Government and Pollution Control Boards - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - The Court outlined the legislative history and powers under environmental statutes, including the EP Act's Section 3 for measures to protect environment, Section 5 for issuing directions, and the roles of CPCB and SPCBs under the Air Pollution Act. This background was used to contextualize the EC requirements and the authority's actions in granting CTE and CTO (Paras 3-18). C) Environmental Law - Procedural Requirements - Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Haryana State Pollution Control Board regulations - The judgment detailed the appellants' applications for CTE and CTO from the HSPCB, including the validity periods and conditions. This factual basis was relevant to assess whether the units had followed regulatory steps before the EC requirement arose, impacting the fairness of closure orders (Paras 20-23).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an establishment employing about 8000 workers, which has been set up pursuant to Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the concerned statutory authority and has applied for ex post facto Environmental Clearance (EC) can be closed down pending issuance of EC, even though it may not cause pollution and/or may be found to comply with the required pollution norms.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing that closure should not be automatic and factors like employment, compliance, and ex post facto applications must be weighed.
Law Points
- Environmental law
- ex post facto environmental clearance
- statutory interpretation of the Environment (Protection) Act
- 1986
- National Green Tribunal Act
- 2010
- principles of sustainable development
- balance between environmental protection and economic activity
- jurisdiction of NGT under Section 22
