Environmental Adjudication in India: A Case Law Compendium from the National Green Tribunal (Eastern Zone)

CASE 1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

Original Application No.01/2023/EZ (I.A. No.10/2023/EZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Dr. Bibhu Dash 212, Manorama Estate, Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Odisha – 751010[1]
2. Mr. Biswanath Dash Sisupalgarh, Old Town, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Odisha – 751001 ………………………….. Applicant(s)

Versus

1. Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (Represented through Commissioner), Vivekananda Marg, Kalpana Square, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751014
2. Bhubaneswar Development Authority (Represented through Vice-Chairman), Akash Shova Building, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751001
3. Commissioner of Police, Urban Police Department, Bhubaneswar, Unit V, Bidyut Marg, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751001
4. State of Odisha General Administration Department, (Represented through Chief Secretary & Chief Development Commissioner), SachivalayaMarg, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751001
5. Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, (Represented through Additional Chief Secretary of Forest & Environment), Kharavel Bhavan, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751001 2
6. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, (Represented through Chairman), 5RF-2/1, Acharya Vihar, Unit-IX, OPTCL Colony, Anand Bazar, Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751022
7. Odisha State Pollution Control Board, (Represented through Chairman), ParibeshBhawan, A/118, Nilakantha Nagar,Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar– 751012
8. M/s Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd., (Represented by Mr. Kantilal Patel, Managing Director), Plot No.564, Vivekananda Marg, Old Town, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751002
9. Inspector in Charge, Shree Lingaraj Police Station, Old Town, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751002
10. Inspector in Charge, Saheed Nagar Police Station, Maharaj Hall, Bani Vihar, Near Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751013
11. Mr. Kumarendra Mohapatra, Corporator, Ward No.31, Plot No.605, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751010

                                                                       .………….Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 14.03.2023

AREA OF DISPUTE:

This case revolves around a dispute concerning land that is marked as an ancient water body, known as “Adi Jalasaya” or “Sabarsahi Pond,” located adjacent to the Manorama Estate Welfare Society in Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar. The applicant, Dr. Bibhu Dash, claims that M/s Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.8) has begun construction by filling the pond with debris, damaging the surrounding environment and violating land use and environmental regulations.

The applicant emphasizes the historical significance of the pond, which has served as an aquifer for waste discharge from the society and surrounding residential units. According to him, the pond is protected under the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation-II (AMRUT-II) and other development funds, making the construction activities illegal and harmful to the ecology of the region.

The NGT is tasked with assessing whether the claims made by the applicant about the ecological importance of the pond hold true, and whether the construction activities have indeed violated environmental or land-use laws.

FACTS AND LAW:

This case involves an environmental dispute over the alleged encroachment and degradation of a historical water body known as the Sabarsahi Pond in Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar, which has been filled with debris by a construction company. The key applicant, Dr. Bibhu Dash, a resident of the nearby Manorama Estate Welfare Society, raised concerns about the construction of permanent structures and the destruction of the pond, which he claims served as an aquifer for the surrounding area.

Key Highlights:

1. Allegations by the Applicant (Dr. Bibhu Dash):
   • Dr. Dash alleges that M/s Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 8) is filling the Sabarsahi Pond with debris, thereby damaging the ecosystem and garden surrounding the pond. This pond, referred to as Adi Jalasaya, was historically an important water body and aquifer.
   • The applicant emphasizes that the construction not only threatens the pond but also compromises rainwater drainage, as the development leaves no space between the construction and the water drainage systems.
   • Environmental Clearance for the construction project was granted by SEIAA, Odisha, but the applicant argues that it has since expired.
2. Environmental Inspections and Reports:
   • Following orders from the Tribunal, the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha conducted an inspection on January 25, 2023. The report observed that while the area had been filled with sand, no visible pond existed on the alleged site. Local residents also supported the construction of a drainage system rather than a pond restoration.
   • However, the applicant insists that satellite images show the existence of the pond, contradicting the observations of the physical inspection.
   • The Collector and District Magistrate, Khurdha also conducted an inspection, confirming that no physical water body exists on the land in question. It was noted that the area is now occupied by a slum (Netaji Nagar Sabar Sahi Basti) and that any former pond or water body has long since been lost due to encroachment. 

ISSUE IN QUESTION: 

1. Environmental Impact: Dr. Bibhu Dash alleges that the construction by Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd. is damaging the pond, which serves as an aquifer for the region. The Applicant claims that filling the pond with debris threatens the local ecology and affects groundwater sources.

2. Land Use and Encroachment: The dispute hinges on whether the pond still exists as a functional water body or whether it has been encroached upon by slum dwellers and construction projects. Several government reports suggest that no water body currently exists, and the land in question is being used for other purposes (e.g., construction and slums).

3. Drainage and Infrastructure Development: Respondent No.8 claims that the construction, including the drainage system, was approved by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) and is necessary to manage rainwater and domestic sewage from the nearby colonies. This is supported by many local inhabitants who favor the new infrastructure.

4. Discrepancies in Reports: There are conflicting views on the existence and importance of the pond, with satellite imagery showing the existence of a pond, while local inspections and witnesses claim it hasn’t been a functional water body for over two decades.  

DECISION AND REASONING: 

Tribunal’s Direction:

• The Tribunal instructed the Collector & District Magistrate, Khurdha, to inspect the site and verify whether there was any encroachment on Sabarsahi Pond. The inspection would determine whether the area, supposedly covered under the AMRUT-II Scheme for water body revival, was being harmed.
• The Tribunal also permitted the applicant and a representative of the construction company to be present at the site during the inspection.

Findings from Inspection Reports:

1. Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB):
   • The land was found to be surrounded by colonies like Netaji Vihar and Manorama Estate.
   • The pond area had been filled with sand by the construction company.
   • No clear signs of garbage dumping were found, but there was no physical existence of a pond at the site.
   • A concrete wall had been constructed to facilitate drainage.
   • The residents (except the applicant) seemed to favor the construction for better drainage.
2. Collector & District Magistrate, Khurdha:
   • The inspection revealed that the plots in question had been encroached by a slum (Netaji Nagar Sabar Sahi Basti) with about 50 families living on the land.
   • There was no visible water body on the government plots, which had long lost their characteristics as a pond, although satellite images showed the historical presence of a pond.
   • The allegations of filling up the pond were found to be baseless, and the construction was being carried out in compliance with approvals.

IMPLICATIONS: 

1. Environmental Protection Framework

• Legal Provisions for Water Bodies: The National Water Policy and relevant provisions under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 emphasize the need to protect water bodies from encroachment and pollution. Violating these laws can result in stringent penalties for individuals and entities involved.
• Public Trust Doctrine: This legal doctrine asserts that certain natural resources, including water bodies, are held in trust by the government for public use. Any encroachment could be seen as a violation of the public’s right to access and utilize these resources.

4. Litigation Risks

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): This case could inspire PILs by local citizens or NGOs aimed at safeguarding environmental rights. Such litigation can create significant legal pressure on the construction company and regulatory bodies to enforce environmental protections.
• Criminal Liability: Depending on the severity of the violations, key individuals within M/s Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd. could face criminal charges, especially if negligence or intentional wrongdoing is established.

Potential Outcomes:

1. Injunctions and Legal Remedies

• Temporary or Permanent Injunctions: The Tribunal may issue injunctions to halt construction activities pending further investigation, potentially leading to permanent restrictions on future construction in the area.
• Restorative Orders: The Tribunal could order M/s Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd. to restore the pond to its original state, including reestablishing natural habitats and water quality.

2. Administrative Sanctions

• Revocation of Clearances: The Tribunal might revoke the environmental clearance, requiring the company to cease all operations. This could also lead to increased scrutiny of future projects.
• Fines and Penalties: Monetary fines could be levied against the company for violations of environmental laws, potentially including compensatory damages for harm caused to the ecosystem and the community.

Conclusion:

The legal implications and potential outcomes of this case extend beyond the immediate parties involved. They encompass broader issues of environmental protection, community rights, and sustainable development practices. The case could set significant precedents for how similar disputes are handled in India, influencing future legal interpretations and enforcement of environmental laws. The long-term consequences may lead to a more robust legal framework for environmental protection, ultimately benefiting both the community and the ecosystem.

 CASE 2

 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

EASTERN ZONE BENCH, FINANCE CENTRE

KOLKATA 

(By Hybrid Mode) 

Appeal Nos. 29 to 31/2022/EZ

Conservation Action Trust & Anr.                                                         Appellants

Versus

The Ministry of Environment Forest

& Climate Change & Ors.                                                                    Respondent(s)[2]

WITH

Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ

Ashis Kothari                                                                                       Appellant

Versus

The Ministry of Environment Forest

& Climate Change & Ors.                                                                 Respondent(s)

Date of hearing:      03.04.2023

 AREA OF DISPUTE:

 The area of dispute in this case revolves around the Forest Clearance (FC) and Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for a large-scale infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIDCO). This project includes an International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT), a Greenfield International Airport, a Township & Area development, and a 450 MVA Gas and Solar power plant over a massive area of 16,610 hectares of the island.

The appellants—Conservation Action Trust and Ashis Kothari—have challenged the clearances on multiple environmental, social, and procedural grounds, arguing that:

1. Environmental Impact:
   • The diversion of 130.75 square kilometers of pristine tropical rainforest will cause irreversible damage to biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and tribal communities.
   • Endangered species, including leatherback sea turtles and other unique flora and fauna, would face significant risks due to habitat destruction, especially with the lack of comprehensive cumulative impact assessments.
   • The project threatens turtle nesting grounds and the habitat of several endangered species.
2. Indigenous Rights:
   • The project overlooks the rights of the Shompen (Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, PVTG) and Nicobarese (Scheduled Tribe, ST) communities, whose settlements are in the affected area.
   • There was a failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the Forest Rights Act to protect the rights of forest-dwelling communities.
3. Procedural Flaws:
   • The appraisal process conducted by the Environmental Appraisal Committee (EAC) did not fully adhere to regulations under the EIA Notification 2006.
   • The public hearing was allegedly flawed, and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report was not prepared per the Terms of Reference (ToRs).

The appellants argue that the project’s approvals violated the ICRZ Notifications, 2019, as well as principles under various environmental and tribal rights protections. The project also faces criticism for inadequate conservation measures despite claims of mitigating actions for species like the leatherback turtle, Nicobar megapod, and saltwater crocodiles. Overall, the case highlights the tension between large-scale development and environmental conservation, especially in ecologically sensitive areas like Great Nicobar Island.

 FACTS AND LAW:

Facts:

• The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIDCO) proposed a large-scale integrated project on Great Nicobar Island, including an International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT), Greenfield International Airport, Township & Area Development, and a 450 MVA Gas and Solar Power Plant, spanning 16,610 hectares.
• The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) granted Stage-I Forest Clearance (FC) for diversion of 130.75 sq km of forest land and Environmental Clearance (EC) for the entire project.
• Environmental groups (Conservation Action Trust) and an individual (Ashis Kothari) challenged these clearances, arguing that the project would:
  • Destroy pristine tropical rainforests, harm biodiversity (including endangered species like leatherback turtles), and displace indigenous tribes (Shompen and Nicobarese).
  • Procedurally, the EIA report was not as per the Terms of Reference (ToRs), and public hearings were flawed.

Law:

• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Protects forest land; challenge against the diversion of forest land without proper consideration of tribal rights and biodiversity.
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006: Requires thorough impact assessments before granting clearance; appellants argue the process was flawed.
• Forest Rights Act, 2006: Ensures rights of indigenous communities; procedural non-compliance is alleged, affecting Shompen and Nicobarese communities.
• ICRZ Notifications, 2019: Regulates coastal zone development; alleged violations concerning turtle nesting sites and coastal ecology.

ISSUE IN QUESTION: 

Whether the Forest Clearance (FC) and Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for the integrated development project on Great Nicobar Island—involving large-scale deforestation, destruction of habitats, and displacement of indigenous communities—were legally valid, considering potential violations of environmental laws, biodiversity protection, and tribal rights, and whether the clearances were granted without following proper procedures under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, EIA Notification, 2006, Forest Rights Act, 2006, and ICRZ Notifications, 2019. 

DECISION AND REASONING:

Tribunal’s Decision:

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has, in principle, upheld the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted for the Great Nicobar Island integrated project. The Tribunal found that the project is largely compliant with environmental regulations, including compensatory afforestation, mangrove plantations, and the Indian Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) 2019 guidelines. However, it recognized that there were some unanswered deficiencies raised by the appellants, which require further examination.

Tribunal’s Reasoning:

1. Environmental Studies: The Tribunal agreed that there is no dispute over the need for adequate studies on the impact of the project on coral reefs, mangroves, turtle nesting sites, wildlife, and issues like erosion and disaster management. The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ position that such studies had already been undertaken, and more were planned to ensure compliance with the necessary regulations.
2. ICRZ 2019 Compliance: The Tribunal emphasized that the project must fully comply with ICRZ 2019 regulations, particularly concerning the location of the port and the protection of sensitive areas like coral reefs. Although the respondents committed to following these regulations, the Tribunal noted concerns raised about certain aspects, such as the potential destruction of coral colonies and part of the project being in the CRZ IA area, where port development is prohibited.
3. Tribal Rights: The Tribunal reiterated the importance of ensuring the rights and rehabilitation of the indigenous Shompen and Nicobarese tribal communities. The respondents expressed their commitment to protecting these rights, and the Tribunal expects further measures to ensure compliance.
4. Deficiencies Identified by Appellants: The Tribunal acknowledged some valid concerns raised by the appellants. Specifically, it pointed out:
   • Out of 20,668 coral colonies, 16,150 were proposed to be translocated, but there was no clarity on the fate of the remaining 4,518 coral colonies.
   • The ICRZ Regulations prohibit the destruction of corals, raising concerns about project compliance.
   • The data used for the environmental impact assessment was based on only one season of study, rather than the required three seasons.
   • A part of the project falls within the CRZ IA area, where port development is prohibited.
5. Constitution of a High-Powered Committee (HPC): To address these concerns, the Tribunal constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC), led by the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), to revisit and review the EC and its conditions. This Committee will also include senior officials from relevant government agencies and scientific institutions, such as the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), Botanical Survey of India (BSI), Wildlife Institute of India (WII), and others. The HPC is tasked with completing its review within two months.
6. Stay on Further Work: The Tribunal ordered that no further work related to the EC should proceed, except for activities that are not of an irreversible nature, until the HPC completes its review and submits its recommendations.

IMPLICATION: 

1. Project Progress Temporarily Halted: The Tribunal’s decision temporarily stops any further work on the Great Nicobar Island project, except for activities that won’t cause permanent damage. This means that construction and major development work will be on hold until a deeper review is conducted.
2. High-Powered Committee Review: A special committee (High-Powered Committee) has been set up to review the environmental clearance (EC) and assess whether the project is truly following all necessary environmental rules, such as protecting coral reefs, turtle nesting sites, and tribal rights. The project will not move forward until this review is completed, and the committee submits its findings.
3. Protection of Sensitive Areas: The Tribunal highlighted the importance of protecting sensitive ecosystems like coral reefs and mangroves, as well as ensuring the survival of endangered species, including turtles and the Nicobar megapode. This means that stricter measures may be put in place to avoid damage to these areas.
4. Stricter Compliance with Environmental Rules: The Tribunal made it clear that the project must strictly follow the Indian Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) 2019 rules, especially regarding where ports can and cannot be built. If the project violates these regulations, it may face further legal hurdles or have to change its plans.
5. Tribal Rights and Rehabilitation: The decision reinforces the need to protect the rights of the indigenous Shompen and Nicobarese communities living on the island. The project cannot move forward without ensuring that these tribal groups are properly compensated, relocated, and their cultural and environmental rights are respected.
6. Further Environmental Studies Required: The Tribunal pointed out that some of the environmental studies done were incomplete, such as only studying the impact for one season instead of the required three seasons. The project developers will likely have to conduct more thorough research on environmental impacts, which could delay the project.

In Summary:

The project is facing delays and stricter scrutiny to ensure that it does not harm the environment or violate the rights of indigenous tribes. The developers will need to address these issues before they can proceed, and any further development will depend on the outcome of the special committee’s review.

CASE 3 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.49/2023/EZ

 IN THE MATTER OF:
Ankur Sharma,
S/o Shri Ambooj Sharma,
R/o 13/3, Dr. P.K. Banerjee Road,
P.O., P.S. & District-Howra, W.B.  Pin – 711101,

                                                                                                         …Applicant(s)

Versus
State of West Bengal.
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Government of West Bengal,
Nabanna (13th Floor), 325, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Shibpur,[3]|   Howrah – 711102,

2. The Central Pollution Control Board,

   Represented by Member Secretary,

   Parivesh Bhawan East Arjun Nagar,

   Delhi – 110032,                                              …(Deleted vide order dtd. 04.05.2023)

3. The Principal Secretary,

   Department of Environment,

   Government of West Bengal,

   Pranisampad Bhawan, Block (5th Floor),

   LB-II, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Bidhannagar,

   Kolkata – 700106,

4. West Bengal Pollution Control Board,

   Represented by Member Secretary,

   Paribesh Bhavan, 10, Block-L.A.,

   Sector-III, Salt Lake City,

   Kolkata – 700106,

5. Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs,

   Government of West Bengal,

   Through its Principal Secretary,

   Nagarayan Bhavan, Block-DF-8,

   Sector-I, Salt Lake City, 6, 2nd Avenue,

   DF Block, Sector 1, Kolkata,

   Pin – 700064,                                                …(Deleted vide order dtd. 04.05.2023)

6. The District Magistrate, Howrah,

   Rishi Bankim Chandra Road,

   Howrah – 711101,

7. Howrah Municipal Corporation,

    Through its Commissioner,

    4, M.G. Road, Howrah,’

    Pin – 711101,                                            …(Deleted vide order dtd. 04.05.2023)

8. The Commissioner of Police,

    Howrah City Police,

    28, Nityadhan Mukherjee Road,

    Howrah – 711101,

9. The Chief Medical Officer of Health,

    District & Family Welfare Samiti,

    11, Biplabi Haren Ghosh Sarani,

    Howrah – 711101,

10. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarter),

    Howrah City Police,

    28, Nityadhan Mukherjee Road,

    Howrah – 711101,                                       …(Deleted vide order dtd. 04.05.2023)

[4]

11. The Superintendent,

    Howrah District Hospital,

    11, Biplabi Haren Ghosh Sarani,

    Howrah – 711101,

                                                                                                                   …Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 09.08.2023

 AREA OF DISPUTE:

The area of dispute in this case revolves around the improper management and operational deficiencies of the Howrah Police Morgue, which allegedly exceed its holding capacity and have malfunctioning air conditioners and freezing units, leading to the decomposition of bodies. The Applicant contends that this has resulted in unbearable foul smells affecting the surrounding densely populated area and claims that the morgue lacks proper infrastructure. Furthermore, the Applicant alleges that the dead bodies are being transported on trolley rickshaws in the open, which is a breach of public health and dignity standards.

The key issues of the dispute are:

1. Overcapacity: The morgue’s holding capacity is 40 bodies, but more than 80 are allegedly stored at any given time, leading to hygiene and public health concerns.
2. Non-functional Cooling Systems: The air conditioning and freezing units are reportedly defunct, causing decomposition of bodies, resulting in foul odors.
3. Public Nuisance: The morgue is located in a densely populated area, and the mismanagement is allegedly causing discomfort and potential health hazards for nearby residents.
4. Improper Transportation: Dead bodies are allegedly being transported on trolley rickshaws, raising concerns about sanitation and the dignity of the deceased.
5. Need for Relocation: The Applicant suggests the morgue should be relocated to a more appropriate area with better infrastructure to mitigate these issues.

The dispute calls into question the morgue’s adherence to operational standards and its impact on the surrounding community’s health and well-being.

FACTS AND LAW:

Facts:

1. Capacity Overload:
   • The morgue has a holding capacity of 40 dead bodies but reportedly stores over 80 at any given time.
2. Condition of Facilities:
   • The air conditioning and freezing units are alleged to be in a defunct condition, leading to decomposition and foul odors.
   • The inside of the morgue is maintained clean, but the smell becomes noticeable when bodies are present.
3. Location and Infrastructure:
   • The morgue is situated in a densely populated area without adequate infrastructure, affecting the local residents.
   • There are complaints regarding the transportation of dead bodies on trolley rickshaws in the open.
4. Regulatory Actions:
   • The West Bengal Pollution Control Board and other authorities have acknowledged these issues and have taken steps, including forming a Morgue Managing Committee.
   • An inspection committee was formed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to evaluate the conditions of the morgue, which resulted in various recommendations for improvement.
5. Inspection Findings:
   • On May 26, 2023, an inspection revealed that there were only seven bodies present and that cooling facilities were functional at the time of the visit.
   • Recommendations were made for better operational management, including regular monitoring and maintenance.

Relevant Laws:

1. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010:
   • The NGT has jurisdiction over environmental matters and can issue directives to prevent pollution and ensure environmental justice. This includes monitoring facilities that have a significant impact on public health, such as mortuaries.
2. The Environment Protection Act, 1986:
   • This Act mandates measures for the protection and improvement of the environment, including managing waste (biomedical waste) and preventing environmental degradation.
3. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002:
   • Although primarily focused on biodiversity, aspects related to maintaining public health and environmental standards can be drawn from this Act, particularly concerning the management of biological waste.
4. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
   • Certain provisions under the IPC can be invoked if it is proven that the morgue’s operation constitutes a public nuisance (Sections 268-294).
5. The West Bengal Health Act, 1939:
   • This Act governs public health matters in West Bengal and provides for the regulation of healthcare facilities, including morgues. It includes provisions for sanitary conditions and health standards that should be maintained.
6. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Post Mortem Examination:
   • The SOPs established by the West Bengal Department of Health and Family Welfare outline the processes and protocols for conducting post-mortem examinations, including the handling of dead bodies, maintaining hygiene, and ensuring proper facilities for conducting such examinations.

ISSUE IN QUESTION:

Whether the Howrah Police Morgue is being managed in a manner that complies with public health standards and ethical considerations is the primary issue in question. This involves concerns about overcapacity, malfunctioning cooling systems, the impact of odors on the surrounding community, inappropriate transportation of dead bodies, and inadequate infrastructure. These factors collectively raise critical questions about the morgue’s operational effectiveness and its adherence to legal and regulatory requirements. Are the current practices at the morgue sufficient to protect public health and uphold the dignity of the deceased?

DECISION AND REASONING:

 Tribunal’s Decision:

The tribunal decided to dispose of the Original Application concerning the Howrah Police Morgue while directing the State Respondents, Government of West Bengal, to take several corrective actions to ensure the morgue’s proper management and maintenance. The key directives included:

1. Ensuring Proper Maintenance: The State Respondents were directed to maintain the morgue properly and ensure that dead bodies are disposed of according to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
2. Facility Improvements: The tribunal ordered the installation of a shed for the family members of deceased individuals visiting the morgue, along with the provision of adequate drinking water and toilet facilities.
3. Cooling System Compliance: The tribunal mandated that the morgue must maintain a proper cooling system to prevent the deterioration of bodies and the emission of foul odors.
4. Capacity Management: It was emphasized that the number of bodies in the morgue should not exceed permissible limits as outlined in the SOP.
5. Compliance Affidavit: The District Magistrate of Howrah was instructed to file a compliance affidavit, along with supporting documents, within a stipulated timeframe.

Reasoning Behind the Decision:

1. Public Health Concerns: The tribunal recognized the significant public health implications related to the overcrowding and inadequate management of the morgue. It noted the applicant’s allegations regarding the emission of foul odors and potential health hazards posed to residents in the densely populated area surrounding the morgue.
2. Adherence to SOP: The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the established SOP for morgues, which includes requirements for maintaining cleanliness, ensuring proper cooling of bodies, and timely disposal of unclaimed dead bodies.
3. Empathy for Families: The tribunal acknowledged the distress faced by the families of deceased individuals due to inadequate facilities at the morgue. By directing the provision of seating, drinking water, and toilet facilities, it aimed to uphold the dignity of the deceased and their families during a challenging time.
4. Regulatory Oversight: The formation of the Morgue Managing Committee and the tribunal’s intervention underscore the necessity of regulatory oversight to ensure compliance with health and safety standards, which had been lacking as evidenced by the applicant’s concerns.
5. Responsibility of Authorities: The decision reflected the tribunal’s view that the responsibility for ensuring the morgue’s proper functioning lies with the state authorities and municipal corporation. The tribunal highlighted that any decision regarding the relocation of the morgue should be undertaken by the appropriate government bodies based on a collaborative assessment of the situation.

IMPLICATIONS:

 Implications of the Tribunal’s Decision

1. Public Health Safeguards: The tribunal’s directives highlight the importance of maintaining public health standards in facilities such as morgues. Ensuring proper storage conditions and timely disposal of bodies helps mitigate health risks posed by decomposing remains and foul odors, safeguarding the well-being of nearby residents.
2. Increased Accountability: The establishment of a Morgue Managing Committee and the directive for the District Magistrate to file a compliance affidavit impose a framework of accountability on state and local authorities. This mechanism encourages regular oversight and adherence to established protocols, fostering a culture of responsibility in managing public facilities.
3. Enhanced Infrastructure: By mandating the provision of basic facilities such as drinking water, toilets, and sheltered waiting areas, the tribunal’s decision sets a precedent for improving infrastructure in public health facilities. This could lead to better conditions not only at the Howrah Morgue but potentially at other similar facilities across the state, promoting a more humane approach to dealing with death.
4. Guidance for Future Operations: The emphasis on following the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) serves as a critical reminder for all morgues and similar establishments regarding operational best practices. It establishes a benchmark for how such facilities should function, leading to potential legislative or policy revisions to ensure compliance across the board.
5. Awareness and Sensitivity: The tribunal’s acknowledgment of the emotional distress experienced by families visiting the morgue indicates a growing sensitivity towards the needs of bereaved individuals. This shift in focus may encourage similar considerations in other public service sectors, enhancing the overall quality of service provided to citizens.
6. Legal Precedent: The tribunal’s ruling may set a legal precedent for addressing similar complaints regarding morgues or public health facilities in other jurisdictions. It demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to intervene in matters of public health and safety, potentially influencing future cases and policy decisions.
7. Collaboration Between Authorities: The decision reinforces the need for collaboration among various governmental bodies—such as health, municipal, and police departments—to effectively manage public health facilities. This collaborative approach could lead to comprehensive strategies for addressing systemic issues in morgue operations.
8. Encouragement for Complaints and Oversight: The outcome of this case may empower other citizens to voice concerns regarding public health facilities. It highlights the importance of judicial oversight and the effectiveness of legal channels in prompting governmental action and reform.
9. Long-term Health Strategy: The directives may lead to a re-evaluation of public health strategies concerning the management of deceased individuals, which could include better training for personnel, improved logistics for body transport, and more effective systems for identifying and disposing of unclaimed bodies.
10. Resource Allocation: Finally, the implications of this ruling may necessitate a reassessment of resource allocation within public health departments. The government may need to invest in better facilities, technology, and training for personnel to comply with the tribunal’s directives, ultimately benefiting the public health infrastructure as a whole.

In summary, the tribunal’s decision serves as a crucial step towards improving the standards of morgue operations, enhancing public health safety, and ensuring the dignity of the deceased and their families in West Bengal.

 

CASE 4 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

 Original Application No.21/2024/EZ

IN THE MATTER OF

     Smt. Haripriya Patel,

                                                                                                 ……….Applicant(s)

Versus

1. Department of Environment and Forest,

   Government of Odisha, through its Principal Secretary

2. Odisha State Pollution Control Board,

   Through its Member Secretary

3. Central Pollution Control Board,

   Through its Member Secretary

4. Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation,

   Through its Municipal Commissioner, Bhubaneswar

                                                                                                       ………..Respondent(s)[5]

Date of hearing: 08.08.2024

 AREA OF DISPUTE:

Health Hazards from Garbage Dumping: The primary concern raised by Smt. Haripriya Patel is the public health hazard posed by the large garbage dump at the Temporary Transit Station (TTS) of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC). The accumulation of approximately 54,000 tonnes of garbage, exceeding the city’s handling capacity, leads to foul odors and potential health risks, particularly affecting nearby institutions like Sainik School and Kendriya Vidyalaya.

Inadequate Waste Management Practices: There are allegations that bulk waste generators, including hotels, eateries, and commercial establishments, are not complying with the BMC’s waste segregation and disposal norms. This non-compliance contributes to the mixed garbage situation, further exacerbating the problem at the TTS.

Violation of Siting Criteria: The proximity of the garbage dump to educational institutions, which forces them to keep windows closed to mitigate unpleasant odors, raises concerns about adherence to the siting criteria for waste disposal sites. This proximity could be considered a violation of environmental and public health regulations.

Effectiveness of Waste Management Initiatives: Despite the establishment of Micro Composting Centers (MCCs) and Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) aimed at managing waste, there are questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of these facilities in addressing the actual volume of waste generated. The reported discrepancies in waste generation versus processing capacity indicate systemic issues in the city’s waste management framework.

Community Engagement and Segregation Initiatives: The effectiveness of community engagement initiatives, including awareness campaigns and source segregation efforts, is under scrutiny. With a source segregation efficiency reported at around 50%-60%, it raises questions about the ability of the BMC to fully implement effective waste management strategies.

Government Accountability: There is an underlying issue regarding the accountability of government agencies, such as the BMC and the Odisha State Pollution Control Board, in addressing the concerns raised. The effectiveness of their actions and compliance with existing laws and regulations regarding waste management is a critical point of contention.

Impact on Residents: The implications of the garbage dump on the quality of life for residents in the vicinity, as well as the potential health risks posed by the accumulation of waste, form the crux of the dispute. This includes concerns over air quality, potential disease vectors, and overall environmental health in the area.

FACTS AND LAW:

Facts

1. Complaint Initiation: The case was initiated suo motu by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) based on a complaint filed by Smt. Haripriya Patel regarding an article published in The Times of India on December 15, 2023, that highlighted health hazards associated with a large garbage dump at the Temporary Transit Station (TTS) of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC).
2. Extent of Garbage Accumulation: The TTS reportedly holds approximately 54,000 tonnes of garbage, while the city generates around 700 tonnes of waste daily, exceeding its handling capacity of 300 tonnes per day. During monsoon, the waste generation further increases to over 800 tonnes.
3. Operational Measures: BMC has established 36 Micro Composting Centers (MCCs) and 22 Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) aimed at processing 250-300 tonnes of dry and wet waste through door-to-door collection by involving NGOs. However, bulk waste from generators, mainly hotels, eateries, and industries, is often not properly segregated or disposed of, contributing to the issues at the TTS.
4. Impact on Nearby Institutions: Educational institutions like Sainik School and Kendriya Vidyalaya are affected, as they have to keep windows closed to mitigate the smell and potential health impacts from the garbage dump, which is located less than 100 meters away from these schools.
5. Inspection Report: An inspection committee was constituted by the NGT to assess the situation. This committee found that the current waste management practices by the BMC are insufficient in addressing the actual volume of waste generated, leading to a public health hazard.
6. Government and Regulatory Responsibilities: BMC is responsible for sanitation and waste management under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The inefficiencies in managing municipal solid waste and the failure to adhere to siting criteria for waste disposal facilities are central issues.

Law

1. Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016: These rules govern the management and disposal of solid waste in urban areas. They stipulate the responsibilities of urban local bodies (ULBs) like the BMC in ensuring proper waste collection, segregation, treatment, and disposal, as well as the involvement of the community in waste management practices.
2. Environmental Protection Act, 1986: This Act provides the legal framework for the protection and improvement of the environment in India. The provisions related to air quality and public health can be invoked if it is found that the garbage dump is contributing to pollution and health hazards.
3. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This Act establishes the NGT as a specialized forum to address environmental disputes. The tribunal has the authority to enforce environmental laws and issue directives to ensure compliance with statutory provisions concerning environmental protection.
4. Siting Criteria for Waste Disposal Sites: Regulatory guidelines outline criteria for the location of waste disposal sites, including distance from sensitive areas such as schools and hospitals. Violations of these criteria can be grounds for legal action.
5. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The case may also involve elements of public interest, as it addresses community health and safety concerns, which can be addressed under PIL principles that allow individuals to seek judicial intervention on behalf of the public.

ISSUE IN QUESTION:

 

• Whether the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation has complied with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, in managing the municipal solid waste generated in the city, considering the reported excess waste accumulation at the Temporary Transit Station?
• Whether the current waste management practices of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation are adequate to address the health hazards posed to residents, particularly students in nearby educational institutions, due to the improper handling of waste?
• Whether the location of the garbage dump at the Temporary Transit Station violates the siting criteria established for waste disposal sites, particularly concerning its proximity to sensitive areas like schools?
• Whether the complaints raised by Smt. Haripriya Patel and the subsequent findings by the inspection committee warrant judicial intervention to compel the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation to implement effective waste management measures?
• Whether the Odisha State Pollution Control Board has fulfilled its regulatory responsibilities in monitoring the waste management practices of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation and addressing the environmental concerns raised in this case?

DECISION AND REASONING:

 

Decision:

The Tribunal has decided to dispose of the Original Application with specific directions to the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) concerning its solid waste management practices. The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by BMC in addressing the challenges of municipal waste disposal and the measures proposed to enhance waste management capabilities.

Reasoning:

1. Identification of Issues: The fact-finding committee has highlighted several critical issues, including the accumulation of legacy waste, inadequate emergency plans for monsoon waste management, and compliance with environmental regulations. The report indicates that as of November 5, 2023, the estimated legacy waste at the Temporary Transit Station (TTS) was 101,165 metric tons, significantly higher than previously reported figures.
2. Urgent Need for Emergency Planning: The committee emphasized the necessity for BMC to develop an emergency plan to manage waste during the monsoon season, recognizing the difficulty in processing wet waste. This proactive approach is crucial to prevent further accumulation of waste and mitigate health risks to the surrounding community, particularly schools located near waste sites.
3. Compliance with Regulatory Standards: The Tribunal directs BMC to ensure compliance with all relevant environmental regulatory requirements, including obtaining Consent to Establish (CTE) wherever applicable. This compliance is vital for maintaining environmental integrity and safeguarding public health.
4. Monitoring and Reporting: Continuous monitoring of BMC’s waste management performance is to be undertaken by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB). BMC is required to submit monthly balance sheets detailing waste processing activities by the 10th day of the following month. This accountability will enhance transparency and allow for timely intervention if performance standards are not met.
5. Waste Transportation and RDF Management: The Tribunal stresses the importance of swift transportation and disposal of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) to prevent backlog at waste processing sites. The establishment of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with interested parties for co-processing of RDF is also recommended to streamline disposal processes.
6. Integration with Horticultural Efforts: The Tribunal notes the potential for utilizing processed good earth from waste management activities for horticulture, thereby contributing to the aesthetic enhancement of the city. This initiative aligns with sustainable development goals and enhances the city’s green cover.
7. Future Capacity Planning: The need for an integrated plan to expand waste processing capacity in line with projected population growth over the next 15-20 years is emphasized. This long-term planning is crucial for ensuring that waste management infrastructure keeps pace with increasing waste generation.
8. Timelines for Legacy Waste Processing: The Tribunal sets a deadline of March 31, 2026, for the complete processing of legacy waste at the TTS. BMC is required to submit an affidavit of compliance by April 30, 2026, ensuring accountability for this critical task.
9. Development of New Facilities: BMC’s plans to establish a Bio-Methanization Plant and Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) are noted, with the Tribunal emphasizing the need for timely implementation. A deadline of December 31, 2024, is set for the establishment of the semi-automatic MRFs, with an affidavit of compliance due by January 31, 2025.
10. Final Observations: Given the comprehensive measures already implemented and proposed by BMC, the Tribunal finds that sufficient steps are being taken to address the challenges of solid waste management in Bhubaneswar. Consequently, it concludes that no further adjudication is necessary at this time.

Implications:

 

1. Enhanced Regulatory Compliance:

The Tribunal’s directive for the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) to adhere to environmental regulations, such as obtaining necessary permits, underscores the importance of legal compliance in waste management. This may lead to more rigorous enforcement of environmental laws across municipalities, setting a precedent for accountability.

1. Increased Accountability and Transparency:

The requirement for BMC to submit monthly balance sheets to the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) ensures ongoing scrutiny of waste management practices. This could foster greater transparency and public trust in municipal operations, as residents gain insights into waste processing activities and outcomes.

1. Proactive Emergency Planning:

The emphasis on developing an emergency plan for monsoon waste management reflects a shift towards proactive approaches in waste management. Other municipal bodies may adopt similar strategies, enhancing preparedness for seasonal challenges and minimizing environmental risks.

1. Improved Waste Processing Infrastructure:

The decision highlights the necessity for modern waste processing facilities, such as Bio-Methanization Plants and Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). This could stimulate investment in waste management infrastructure not only in Bhubaneswar but also in other urban areas facing similar challenges, driving technological advancements in the sector.

1. Sustainability and Environmental Protection:

The integration of processed waste for horticultural use promotes sustainable practices and encourages other municipalities to explore innovative ways to recycle waste. This aligns with broader goals of environmental protection and sustainable urban development.

1. Long-Term Urban Planning:

The Tribunal’s insistence on preparing a long-term integrated plan for waste management in conjunction with population growth anticipates future challenges and positions BMC to respond effectively. This foresight may inspire other cities to incorporate waste management strategies into their urban development plans.

1. Community Health and Safety:

By addressing legacy waste and emphasizing timely waste processing, the decision contributes to improved public health and safety. It highlights the responsibility of local authorities to mitigate health risks associated with improper waste management, potentially leading to better living conditions for residents.

1. Collaboration with Private Entities:

Encouraging BMC to establish partnerships with private agencies for waste processing indicates a shift towards collaborative governance. This may open avenues for public-private partnerships in waste management, promoting efficiency and innovation in handling municipal waste.

1. Capacity-Building and Resource Allocation:

The directive to enhance capacity tied to projected waste generation encourages BMC to allocate resources effectively and invest in human capital. Other municipalities may also prioritize capacity-building initiatives, leading to a more skilled workforce in waste management.

1. Potential Legal Precedents:

The case may serve as a benchmark for future litigation involving waste management practices, influencing how courts interpret municipal responsibilities and regulatory compliance in environmental matters. Legal precedents established in this case could shape future decisions related to waste management and environmental law.

Conclusion

The implications of this decision extend beyond Bhubaneswar, potentially influencing waste management practices, regulatory frameworks, and urban planning strategies across India. By setting clear directives for accountability, sustainability, and proactive planning, the Tribunal’s ruling may catalyze a broader movement toward effective waste management in urban areas, contributing to healthier and more sustainable communities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE 5

 

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

(Through Video Conferencing)

 

Original Application No.97/2022/EZ

 

 

Subrata Debnath                                                                                         Applicant(s)

Versus

State of Tripura & Ors.                                                                               Respondent(s)[6]

Date of hearing: 01.11.2022

 

 

AREA OF DISPUTE:

 

The area of dispute in this case primarily revolves around the operation and management of the waste processing site in Debendra Chandra Nagar, Agartala, and the associated environmental concerns. Here are the key points of contention:

1. Compliance with Environmental Regulations: There are allegations regarding the municipal dumping ground’s failure to comply with mandatory safety or statutory regulations as directed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The adequacy of clearances and consents obtained by Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) is also in question.
2. Pollution Impact on Nearby Habitations: Concerns have been raised about the lack of treatment and proper routing of waste, which may be causing pollution to nearby habitation, schools, and agricultural lands. Although the Committee reported no habitation or agricultural land in the buffer zone, this issue remains contentious.
3. Contamination of Groundwater and Air Quality: The potential contamination of groundwater and air pollution attributed to the waste processing plant is a significant concern. While the Committee noted that surface water monitoring was not conducted due to no water bodies within 200 meters, the adequacy of air and noise monitoring is still under scrutiny.
4. Existence of Nearby Industrial Facilities: There were claims regarding the proximity of an Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) bottling plant within the buffer zone of the waste processing site. The Committee’s finding that no such establishment was found raises questions about the accuracy of these claims.
5. Legacy Waste Management: The presence of legacy waste and the alleged burning of such waste is a significant point of dispute. The Committee found no evidence of burning, but acknowledged the large quantity of legacy waste due to legal interventions affecting the operational capabilities of AMC.
6. Waste Segregation Practices: The adequacy of waste segregation practices at the site is disputed. While the Committee noted that segregation was partially carried out, concerns persist about the effectiveness and efficiency of these practices.
7. Illegal Diversion of Land: The report indicated the presence of illegal land diversion within the buffer zone, which raises additional legal and environmental concerns.
8. Operational Challenges: The ability of the AMC to make the compost plant operational and manage the site effectively, particularly after the appointment of a new agency for waste processing, is also a critical area of dispute.

FACT AND LAW:

 

Facts

1. Parties Involved:
   • Applicant: Represented by Mr. Dipankar Saha, learned Counsel.
   • Respondent No. 8: District Magistrate, Agartala, represented by Mr. Ashok Prasad, learned Counsel.
2. Filing of Affidavit:
   • An affidavit dated 28.10.2022 has been filed by the District Magistrate, Agartala, which includes a Committee Report detailing the current status of the waste processing site.
3. Site Inspection:
   • The site was visited by the Committee on 20.08.2022, which noted that activities were ongoing by Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) for fresh waste processing, with around 100 MT of compost on-site.
   • A joint venture firm, Mandy Enterprises, has been selected for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the site since April 2022, with workers repairing and upgrading various infrastructure.
4. Historical Context:
   • The compost plant and allied infrastructures had not been operational for several years due to legal interventions by the Hon’ble High Court and District Court, following appeals by a previously terminated firm.
5. Legacy Waste:
   • Significant quantities of legacy waste remain on-site, and AMC has engaged the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) for a site study and quantification of this waste.
6. Key Issues Raised:
   • Allegations regarding non-compliance with safety regulations, pollution of nearby areas, contamination of groundwater and air, and illegal activities within the buffer zone were investigated by the Committee.
   • The Committee found that no violations occurred in terms of habitation or agricultural land being affected and reported that no burning of waste was observed during inspection.
7. Recommendations by the Committee:
   • Emphasized the need for source segregation of waste, operationalization of the plant by 20th September 2022, proper waste transportation practices, and the establishment of monitoring systems.
8. Next Steps:
   • Mr. Dipankar Saha was granted two weeks to file a rejoinder affidavit, with the next hearing scheduled for 05.12.2022.

Law

1. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010:
   • The NGT has jurisdiction over matters relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources. It can enforce compliance with environmental laws and issue directions to various authorities to take corrective action.
2. Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016:
   • These rules provide a regulatory framework for the management of solid waste in India, outlining the responsibilities of local authorities (like AMC) in waste collection, segregation, treatment, and disposal.
3. Environmental Protection Act, 1986:
   • This Act lays down the framework for the protection and improvement of the environment and the prevention of hazards to human beings, other living creatures, and property. It empowers authorities to take measures for maintaining environmental quality.
4. Right to a Healthy Environment:
   • The Indian Constitution, under Article 21, guarantees the right to life, which has been interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
5. Polluter Pays Principle:
   • This principle holds that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. This principle is integral to environmental law in India.
6. Judicial Precedents:
   • Previous judgments by the NGT and the Supreme Court concerning waste management, environmental clearances, and the obligations of municipal bodies can influence the interpretation of laws and the outcomes of the current case.

ISSUE IN QUESTION:

• Whether the Agartala Municipal Corporation has complied with the mandatory safety and statutory regulations as directed by the National Green Tribunal regarding the operation of the waste processing site?
• Whether the alleged pollution caused by the waste processing plant is impacting the nearby habitation, schools, and agricultural lands, despite the Committee’s findings?
• Whether the lack of monitoring for groundwater contamination and air quality around the waste processing site is a violation of environmental regulations?
• Whether the claims regarding the existence of an Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) bottling plant within the buffer zone of the waste processing site are substantiated by evidence?
• Whether the Agartala Municipal Corporation’s failure to address the legacy waste and the alleged burning of waste constitutes non-compliance with environmental laws?
• Whether the current waste segregation practices employed by the Agartala Municipal Corporation are sufficient to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016?
• Whether illegal land diversion activities occurring within the buffer zone of the waste processing site pose a threat to environmental integrity?
• Whether the measures recommended by the Committee are adequate to ensure the effective operation of the compost plant and proper management of waste?

DECISION AND REASONING:

 

Tribunal’s Decision

Decision: The Tribunal directs the Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) to ensure compliance with all statutory regulations regarding the operation of the waste processing site in Debendra Chandra Nagar. The Tribunal also mandates immediate measures to address the concerns raised regarding pollution, waste management practices, and environmental integrity.

Reasoning Behind the Decision

1. Compliance with Environmental Regulations:
   • The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to mandatory safety and statutory regulations as set out by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The findings that AMC had obtained necessary clearances and authorizations were noted; however, the Tribunal highlighted the need for active compliance to ensure public health and environmental protection.
2. Impact on Nearby Areas:
   • Despite the Committee’s findings indicating no habitation or agricultural land within the buffer zone, the Tribunal recognized the public’s right to a clean environment as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Tribunal stressed that any potential pollution impacting nearby areas must be addressed proactively to prevent health hazards.
3. Groundwater and Air Quality Monitoring:
   • The Tribunal noted the lack of monitoring for groundwater and air quality, which could lead to long-term environmental damage. It ruled that regular monitoring and reporting must be established by AMC to ensure transparency and compliance with environmental standards.
4. Verification of Claims:
   • The Tribunal found that the absence of verification regarding the presence of an IOCL bottling plant and other alleged violations warranted a thorough investigation. The decision mandated that AMC provide clarity and documentation to address any claims of regulatory violations.
5. Legacy Waste Management:
   • Given the substantial quantities of legacy waste present at the site, the Tribunal ordered AMC to prioritize its management and remediation. The Tribunal recognized that legal interventions had hindered progress but emphasized the need for a prompt resolution to this ongoing issue.
6. Waste Segregation Practices:
   • The Tribunal acknowledged the partial segregation of waste but ruled that AMC must improve its practices to ensure full compliance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. It ordered the implementation of effective segregation and recycling initiatives to minimize waste sent to the processing plant.
7. Addressing Illegal Land Diversion:
   • The Tribunal took a strong stance against any illegal land diversion within the buffer zone, reinforcing that such activities threaten environmental integrity. It ordered an immediate halt to any unauthorized land use and mandated AMC to restore the area to its designated purpose.
8. Implementation of Recommendations:
   • The Tribunal affirmed the Committee’s recommendations and ordered their immediate implementation, including the establishment of an ICT-based monitoring system, proper waste transportation practices, and increased vegetation around the site to act as a natural barrier.

Conclusion

The Tribunal’s decision aimed to reinforce the need for effective waste management practices, compliance with environmental laws, and protection of public health and safety. By mandating immediate action and oversight, the Tribunal sought to ensure that the Agartala Municipal Corporation meets its obligations under the law and addresses the legitimate concerns raised by the applicant and the community.

 

 

 

[1]  Dr. Bibhu Das and ors. V. Bhubneshwar Municipal Corporation and ors. 10/2023/EZ

[2] Conservation Action Trust & anr. V. The ministry of environment Forest& climate change and ors. 31/2022/EZ

[3] Ankur Sharma vs State Of West Bengal Through The Chief 49/2023/EZ

 Ankur Sharma vs State Of West Bengal Through The Chief 49/2023/EZ

[5] Smt Haripriya Patel vs State Of Odisha  21/2024/EZ

[6] Subrata Debnath v. State of Tripura and ors. 97/2022/EZ