Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
..............
APPLICATION NO. 124 of 2013
In the matter of :
Kehar Singh
S/o Shri Singh Ram,
R/o Village Narkatari, Tehsil Thanesar,
District Kurukshetra, Haryana-125007. .....Applicant
Versus
State of Haryana,
Through the Secretary,
Public Works Department (Water Supply and Sanitation)
Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh-160001
.......Respondent
Counsel for Appellants :
Mr.Rohit Sharma, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents :
Mr. Manjit Singh, Additional AG.
JUDGMENT
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.D. Salvi (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Hussain (Judicial Member) Hon'ble P.S. Rao (Expert Member) Hon'ble Mr. Ranjan Chatterjee (Expert Member) Dated : September 12 , 2013 JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) Besides controverting the factual averments made by the applicant in his application, the respondent has challenged the very maintainability of the present application on the ground that it is hopelessly barred by time and also in view of the fact that no environmental clearance is contemplated in law for establishing a 1 Sewage Treatment Plant (for short the 'STP'). It is contended by the respondent, State of Haryana, that the application under consideration has been filed much beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short 'the NGT Act'). The public at large, including the applicant had the knowledge when the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published in the newspaper on 14th/15th January, 2010 while the present application has been instituted on 24th May, 2013, which is highly delayed having been filed much beyond the period of six months + additional 60 days in terms of Section 14(3) of the NGT Act. The application is hopelessly barred by time and beyond that period the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in face of the language of Section 14(3) of the NGT Act.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this point of limitation in issue was treated as preliminary issue and thus, we proceed to deal with only the question of limitation at the first instance.
3. The applicant claims to be the owner in possession of the fertile agricultural land comprised in Hadbast No. 386, Khewat No.1, Khasra Nos. 300, 301, 302, 303, 307 and 308 in Village Narkatari, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana. The respondents are proposing to set up an STP in Khasra Nos. 200 to 222 across the 40 feet road from the applicant's land. The applicant has filed a map showing the location of the STP. According to that plan, the STP is located at a distance of only 35 mts. from the 2 residential colony across the road where the applicant's land is located. Just adjacent to the land of the applicant, there is an old Hanuman Mandir of immense religious and cultural significance for the entire locality. The STP, besides causing serious environmental issues, is also hurting the religious sentiments of the people and is contrary to the rules governing the subject. The Gram Panchayat for Village Narkatari had passed a resolution on 20th May, 2013 stating that the current location of the STP is not in general public interest and the STP should be located at some distance from the village abadi. The Trust, Bhishma Pitamah Ban Ganga Mandir Society, had also passed a resolution stating that the construction of the STP so close to the 26 foot image of Shri Hanuman ji would damage the historical significance of the temple besides hurting the religious sentiments of the villagers as well as the followers who visit the temple.
4. It is the specific case of the applicant that the action of the respondent in establishing the STP at the site in question is in direct contravention of the Environmental Clearance Notification, 2006 (for short the 'Notification of 2006') which stipulates the requirements for such projects to obtain prior EC even before the commencement of the work. In terms of this Notification, all the four stages of Screening, Scoping, Public Hearing and Appraisal have to be completed before the EC could be granted to such a project. The STP of the kind that is proposed to be established at the site in question falls in Category 'B' of projects in the schedule to the Notification. It is specifically covered under clauses 7(h) and 3
(i) of the Schedule. The EC is to be considered and granted by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), and since no prior EC has been obtained as envisaged under the Notification, no construction could be permitted to be commenced for the proposed STP. Even the action of the respondent in completing the acquisition process, without assessing the environmental impact of the proposed STP is in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. C. Kenchappa (2006) 6 SCC 371 where the Court stated that, "in future before acquisition of lands for development, the consequences and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment." The STP is located so near to the residential colonies, religious place and the agricultural lands that it would have an adverse effect on the surrounding environment like generation of odour, breeding of mosquitoes, which would result in various bacterial diseases, fungus, parasites, increase in noise levels and visual problems. On the above factual matrix of the case, the applicant has filed a petition under Sections 14, 15(b) and (c) read with Sections 18(1) and (2) of the NGT Act praying that the respondent be restrained from carrying on construction activity of the proposed STP at the site in question and also to direct it to re-locate the proposed project to an alternative location.
4
5. According to the applicant, he came to know of the setting up of the STP at the site in question from the newspaper dated 19th May, 2013 and he has filed the present application without any delay on 24th May, 2013. Not only this, even the Gram Panchayat had passed the resolution opposing establishment of STP at the site in question on 20th May, 2013 which was then widely circulated. In these circumstances, the knowledge attributable to the applicant, which would provide a 'cause of action' to the applicant to institute the present application would relate to 19th/20th May, 2013. Thus, the 'cause of action' relating to the environmental issues for institution of the present application arose when it was disclosed with certainty by the authorities concerned that STP shall be located at the site in question. Earlier proceedings relating to subject matters other than environment cannot be a 'cause of action' for invocation of the provisions of Section 14 of the NGT Act. The respondent filed its reply and took the stand that the STP at the site in question is based upon the latest technology that is Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) which works on aerobic process. The site is on natural flow/slope gradient and far away from the village abadi. The land had been acquired for this very purpose and no other suitable site was available. According to the respondent, there is neither a possibility of any kind of nuisance caused to the public or inhabitants residing nearby, nor is there any possibility of environmental pollution. Presently, the sewage water is flowing through an open drain. Once the plant is established the entire sewage water will flow through a rising main (pipe) from existing 5 disposal to the proposed Sewage Treatment through underground pipeline of 1000 mm i/d diameter from a distance of 2.1. kms., i.e. from the town itself. The Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) will reduce to 10 mg/l against the present level of 200 mg/l. After treatment, the effluent will be discharged in existing siphon under the SYL channel through RCC carrier pipes of 1000 mm i/d diameter of length 2.5 kms, i.e. at a distance of two and a half kilometer from the site of the STP. It is specifically averred that the Notification of 2006 does not cover a project relating to establishment of STP as none of the entries in the Schedule to this Notification specifically state or mention the establishment of STPs. Thus, the entire petition is stated to be ill-founded and untenable. With regard to the objection relating to limitation, it is stated that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published in different newspapers including the Times of India and Punjab Kesari on 14th January, 2010 and 15th January, 2010 respectively. Both these papers have circulation in the State of Haryana. Despite having gained knowledge that the land had been acquired for establishment of STP in the year 2010 the applicant did not take any action till 2013 and therefore, the petition is barred by time and laches. The Collector had also passed his award which was also known to all the persons. It is also stated that the notification under Section 4 was challenged in the case of Amar Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which came to be disposed of by an agreed order in regard to substitution of Khasra numbers stated in the 6 notification. The applicant had the complete knowledge about the intention of the State to set up an STP project at the site in question in the year 2010. Hence, the application now filed, in the year 2013, is hopelessly barred by time. In any case, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond six months' plus 60 days from the date the cause of action had arisen. The respondent has also averred that the project is likely to cause a loss of nearly 27 crores of rupees to the government out of which 1/3rd expenditure has already been incurred. The project is for public welfare and will help in the protection of environment, thus, they pray for dismissal of the application.
6. In light of the above contentions and pleadings of the parties, we are called upon to consider and answer the following two questions:
1. Whether the application filed by the applicant is barred by time and whether the Tribunal has any jurisdiction to condone the said delay?
2. Whether it is mandatory for a project proponent to obtain environmental clearance prior to the establishment of STP?
7. At the very threshold, it will be useful to refer to the relevant provision of the NGT Act that prescribes limitation for institution of an application. Section 14 of the NGT Act reads as under:
"14. Tribunal to settle disputes -
(1)The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such 7 question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
(2)The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.
(3)No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
8. From a bare reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases where substantial question relating to environment is involved and such question arises out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the NGT Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 deals with the period of limitation. It opens with a negative expression and requires that the application for adjudication of disputes under Section 14 has to be filed before the Tribunal within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. However, this sub-section contains a proviso which empowers the Tribunal to entertain an application beyond the period of six months but not exceeding a further period of sixty days, provided the applicant is able to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the application within the prescribed period of six months.
8
9. The unassailable position of law that emerges from the reading of Section 14(1), 14(3) and the proviso to Section 14(3) of the NGT Act is that the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond sixty days after the expiry of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. The legislature, in its wisdom, has worded Section 14(3) of the NGT Act in a negative manner and has placed a limitation upon the power of the Tribunal to condone the delay. This is the provision governing the limitation, and therefore, must be construed upon its plain reading. Firstly, the Tribunal, in the absence of the proviso to Section 14(3), would have no jurisdiction to entertain the application raising an environmental issue beyond the prescribed period of six months. It is only with the aid of proviso to Section 14(3) of the NGT Act that the Tribunal can exercise the power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period of six months but with a further restriction that the application ought to have been filed within sixty days of expiry of the period of six months, as prescribed under Section 14(3) of the NGT Act.
10. This Tribunal, in one of its recent judgments in the case of Nikunj Developers & Others v. the State of Maharashtra & Others [2013 ALL(I) NGT(1) PB 40] has taken a view that the statutorily prescribed limitation has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed merely on equitable grounds. Further, applying the rule of literal construction, the Tribunal also stated that it cannot be vested with the power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days, as prescribed under Section 16 of the NGT Act, which is worded 9 identically to the proviso to Section 14(3) of the NGT Act. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 5 SCC 23, the Tribunal stated that keeping in view the language of Section 16 of the NGT Act and such similar provision like Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which are para materia, the authorities cannot entertain the appeal by condoning the delay beyond the specified period, even if there was complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Normally, the grammatical construction of the limitation provision is the only safe guide. The Supreme Court in the case of R. Rudraiah & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [1998 (3) SCC 23] held that it is the duty of all courts of justice to take care of general good of the community. Hard cases do not make bad law. Limitation may work to cause injustice in particular cases but hardship is not a reason to depart from the normal rule to relieve the hardship. Thus, on a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that the contention of the respondent that beyond the period of six months plus sixty days, the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to condone the delay, cannot be faulted.
11. However, the incidental but most significant question that has to be answered by the Tribunal is, as to whether the application filed by the applicant was filed beyond the above stated period (six months plus sixty days) or not.
12. Before we refer to the factual aspects of the present case relating to limitation, it will be imperative for us to examine various 10 legal niceties of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Section 14 of the NGT Act vests a very wide range of powers in the Tribunal to entertain applications including enforcement of legal rights relating to environment, where they arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the NGT Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 can be dissected as follows:
(a) No application for adjudication of disputes under this Section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose.
(b) The Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
13. The NGT Act has been enacted with the object of providing for establishment of this Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and for giving other contemplated reliefs and even dealing with matters incidental thereto. The Tribunal thus, has original jurisdiction in terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act. This wide jurisdiction is expected to be exercised by the Tribunal in relation to substantial questions relating to environment or enforcement of legal rights relating to environment, when it arises from the implementation of one or more of the Acts specified in Schedule I to the NGT Act. The pre-requisite 11 for the applicant to invoke original jurisdiction of the Tribunal, subject to other limitations stated in Section 14 of the NGT Act, is that the application must raise substantial question relating to environment. This Tribunal, in the case of Goa Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., pronounced on 18th July, 2013, on the scope of the expressions 'substantial question relating to environment' as well as 'dispute', as referred to in Section 14 of the NGT Act, held as follows:
"24. Section 2(m) of the NGT Act classifies 'substantial question relating to environment' under different heads and states it to include the cases where there is a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation as a result of which the community at large, other than an individual or group of individuals, is affected or is likely to be affected by the environmental consequences; or the gravity of damage to the environment or property is substantial; or the damage to public health is broadly measurable. The other kind of cases are where the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of pollution. In other words, where there is a direct violation of a statutory duty or obligation which is likely to affect the community, it will be a substantial question relating to environment covered under Section 14(1) providing jurisdiction to the Tribunal. When we talk about the jurisdiction being inclusive, that would mean that a question which is substantial, debatable and relates to environment, would itself be a class of cases that would squarely fall under Section 14(1) of the NGT Act. Thus, disputes must relate to implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the NGT Act. At this stage, reference to one of the scheduled Acts i.e. Environment Protection Act, 1986 may be appropriate. The object and reason for enacting that law was primarily to address the concern over the state of environment that had grown the world over. The decline in environmental quality has been evidenced by increasing pollution, loss of vegetal cover and biological diversity, excessive concentrations of harmful chemicals in the ambient atmosphere and 12 in food chains, growing risks of environmental accidents and threats to life support systems.
These were the considerations that weighed with the legislature to ensure implementation of the UN Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972 to take appropriate steps for protection and improvement of human environment. The essence of the legislation, like the NGT Act, is to attain the object of prevention and protection of environmental pollution and to provide administration of environmental justice and make it easily accessible within the framework of the statute. The objects and reasons of the scheduled Acts would have to be read as an integral part of the object, reason and purposes of enacting the NGT Act. It is imperative for the Tribunal to provide an interpretation to Sections 14 to 16 read with Section 2(m) of the NGT Act which would further the cause of the Act and not give an interpretation which would disentitle an aggrieved person from raising a substantial question of environment from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. ***
35. The expression 'disputes' arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the NGT Act, is required to be examined by us to finally deal with and answer the contentions raised by the parties before us. The expression used in sub-section (1) supra is the expression of wide magnitude. The expression 'question' used in sub-section (1) in comparison to the expression 'dispute' used in sub-section (2) of section 14 is of much wider ambit and connotation. The disputes must arise from a question that is substantial and relates to environment. This question will obviously include the disputes referred to in Section 14(2). It is those disputes which would then be settled and decided by the Tribunal. These expressions are inter-connected and dependent upon each other. They cannot be given meaning in isolation or de hors to each other. The meaning of the word 'dispute', as stated by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. National Thermal Power Corporation (2001)1 SCC 43 is "a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. It postulates the assertion of a claim by one party and its denial by the other". The term dispute, again, is a generic term. It necessarily need not always be a result of a legal injury but could cover the entire range between genuine differences of opinion to fierce controversy. Conflicts between parties arising out of 13 any transaction entered between them is covered by the term 'dispute'.
36. The counsel appearing for the respondents, while referring to this expression, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Rekhi v. DDA , (1988) 2 SCC 338 to support the contention that the dispute, as referred under the Arbitration Act, 1940 arises where there is a claim and there is a denial and repudiation of such claim.
37. The judgment relied upon by the respondents is not of much help to them inasmuch as the Arbitration Act, 1940 operates in a different field and the meaning to the expression dispute appearing in that Act has to be understood with reference to the provisions of that Act specifically. The said Act is only intended to resolve the disputes between two individuals arising out of a transaction under the Arbitration law. However, the present case, the NGT which relates to environment as such. It is not individual or a person centric but is socio-centric, as any person can raise a question relating to environment, which will have to be decided by the Tribunal with reference to the dispute arising from such a question. It is not necessary that such a question must essentially be controverted by other person or even the authority. The essence of environmental law is not essentially adversarial litigation. To give an example, could any authority or person deny the question relating to cleanliness of river Yamuna? Any person could approach the Tribunal to claim that the pollution of Yamuna should be controlled, checked and even prevented. None of the parties or authorities may be able to dispute such a fact may even contend that steps are required to be taken to control, prevent and ensure restoration of clean water of Yamuna. Thus, dispute as understood to be raising a claim and being controverted by the other party is not apparently the sine qua non to invocation of Tribunal's jurisdiction under the scheme of Sections 14 to 16 of the NGT Act. This approach is further substantiated from the use of the expressions 'cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto' used in the preamble of the Act" 14
14. In the present case, the applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act with regard to establishment of STP on a location which, according to the applicant, is bound to create environmental problems and would adversely affect the public health. It will result in pollution of underground water besides causing emission of obnoxious gases and creating public nuisance, owing to being adjacent to residential colony and religious places. Thus, it would certainly involve a question relating to environment arising from the implementation of Acts specified in Schedule I to the NGT Act. Thus, the present case indisputably falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, of course, subject to the plea of limitation.
15. To further examine the question of limitation, we must deliberate upon what does the expression 'cause of action' mean. Furthermore, such cause of action has to relate to 'such dispute', as stated in Section 14 of the NGT Act. The period of six months shall be computed from the date on which the cause of action first arose in relation to such dispute. Both the expressions - 'cause of action' and 'such dispute' - have to be read together. One of the settled rules of construction is noscitur a sociis i.e. the meaning of a word or an expression is to be judged by the company it keeps. Deliberating upon the application of this rule of interpretation, Justice G.P. Singh, in his book "Principles of Statutory Interpretation", 13th ed. 2012, while referring to a decision by Privy Council, inter alia, has stated:
15
"It is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them. It is a rule wider than the rule of ejusdem generis; rather the latter rule is only an application of the former." The rule has been lucidly explained by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. in the following words: "This rule, according to MAXWELL, means that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. The same rule is thus interpreted in Words and Phrases. Associated words take their meaning from one another under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the philosophy of which is that the meaning of the doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than the maxim ejusdem generis."
16. 'Cause of action', therefore, must be read in conjunction with and should take colour from the expression 'such dispute'. Such dispute will in turn draw its meaning from Section 14(2) and consequently Section 14(1) of the NGT Act. These are inter- connected and inter-dependent. 'Such dispute' has to be considered as a dispute which is relating to environment. The NGT Act is a specific Act with a specific purpose and object, and therefore, the cause of action which is specific to other laws or other objects and does not directly relate to environmental issues would not be 'such dispute' as contemplated under the provisions of the NGT Act. The dispute must essentially be an environmental dispute and must relate to either of the Acts stated in Schedule I to the NGT Act and the 'cause of action' referred to under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 should be the cause of action for 'such dispute' and not alien or foreign to the substantial question of environment. The cause of 16 action must have a nexus to such dispute which relates to the issue of environment/substantial question relating to environment, or any such proceeding, to trigger the prescribed period of limitation. A cause of action, which in its true spirit and substance, does not relate to the issue of environment/substantial question relating to environment arising out of the specified legislations, thus, in law cannot trigger the prescribed period of limitation under Section 14(3) of the NGT Act. The term 'cause of action' has to be understood in distinction to the nature or form of the suit. A cause of action means every fact which is necessary to establish to support the right to obtain a judgment. It is a bundle of facts which are to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining the relief claimed in the suit. It is what a plaintiff must plead and then prove for obtaining the relief. It is the factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court remedy against another. A cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. The expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense, cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In wider sense, it means the necessary 17 conditions for the maintenance of the suit including not only the infraction coupled with the right itself. To put it more clearly, the material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. (Refer: Rajasthan High Court Advocates Asson. V. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 294]; Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ramai v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1975) 2 SCC 671]; A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem [(1989) 2 SCC 163]; Bloom Dekor Limited v. Sujbhash Himatlal Desai and Ors. with Bloom Dekor Limited and Anr. v. Arvind B. Sheth and Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 322]; Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair and Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 277]; Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. [(2004) 8 SCC 100]; Liverpool and London S.P. and I. Asson Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.[(2004) 9 SCC 512]; Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and Anr. [(2005) 4 SCC 417]; Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 100])
17. Upon analysis of the above judgments of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the factual situation that existed, the facts which are imperative for the applicant to state and prove that give him a right to obtain an order of the Tribunal, are the bundle of facts which will constitute 'cause of action'. This obviously means that those material facts and situations must have relevancy to the essentials or pre-requisites provided under the Act to claim the relief. Under the NGT Act, in order to establish the cause of action, pre-requisites are that the question must relate to environment or it 18 should be a substantial question relating to environment or enforcement of any legal right relating to environment. If this is not satisfied, then the provisions of Section 14 of the NGT Act cannot be called in aid by the applicant to claim relief from the Tribunal. Such question must fall within the ambit of jurisdiction of the Tribunal i.e. it must arise from one of the legislations in Schedule I to the NGT Act or any other relevant provision of the NGT Act. For instance, the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to determine any question relating to acquisition of land or compensation payable in that regard. However, it would have jurisdiction to award compensation for environmental degradation and for restoration of the property damaged. Thus, the cause of action has to have relevancy to the dispute sought to be raised, right to raise such dispute and the jurisdiction of the forum before which such dispute is sought to be raised.
18. Having dealt with the legal aspect relating to limitation, we must now deal with the facts of the present case. It is an undisputed position before us that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land to set up an STP had been issued by the competent authority on 10th January, 2010 and was published in the newspapers on 14th/15th January, 2010. Thereafter, the news item was published on 19th May, 2013 and 20th May, 2013 declaring that the path for installation of STP outside the city had been finally cleared and the plant shall be set up soon and would become a reality. On 20th May, 2013, the Gram Panchayat, Narkatari, passed a resolution stating that it had come 19 to know that the land stated in the notification, measuring about 18 acres, had been acquired and the STP was being set up there, and for the reasons stated therein, was opposing the same. The resolution also noticed that the Government was bent upon installing the plant, which was not in public interest. The Municipal Councillor, Thanesar, upon a meeting with the residents of Ward No.27, Shanti Nagar, Kurukshetra, had also raised serious objections with regard to the construction of the STP at the site in question. He, inter alia, referred to the adverse impact on the life of Dalit Colony near the plant. Also, there was the Bhism Kund Baan Ganga religious spot in close proximity of the plant, where pilgrims come from various parts of the country. Further, a petition was filed before the High Court challenging the acquisition of the land in question which came to be known as Civil Writ Petition No. 18732 of 2011 and was disposed of by the High Court by a consented order dated 21st December, 2012.
19. It is evident from the above facts that the establishment of the STP at the site in question or the substituted Khasra numbers came to public light and became a contentious issue between the Government and the public at large raising health and environmental issues in the year 2013. It is noteworthy that all the representations, objections, etc. were made to the declaration notified in the newspapers on 19th May, 2013 that the STP was going to be set up at the site in question.
20. According to the applicant, the limitation will trigger from 19/20th May, 2013, when the matter in relation to finally setting up 20 the STP at the site in question was published in the newspapers. The applicant filed the application on 24th May, 2013 i.e. within a few days of his acquiring the knowledge when the cause of action arose in his favour. Furthermore, the establishment of the STP at the site in question received wide publicity on 19/20th May, 2013 whereafter many individuals, public organisations and, in fact, the public at large, raised objection to the construction of the STP, thus, giving rise to various environmental issues during that period. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant is within the prescribed period of limitation.
21. On the contrary, according to the respondent, the cause of action arose when the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on or about 7/10th January, 2010. This notification was published in the newspapers. Therefore, the applicant would be deemed to have knowledge of establishment of the STP in January, 2010 whereas the petition was filed in the year 2013. The application is, therefore, barred by time as the delay is more than 60 days over the prescribed period of six months from the date of cause of action and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.
22. The entire controversy revolves as to the effect of the issuance of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and whether it will constitute cause of action under the NGT Act. We have no hesitation in answering this question in the negative. The reasons for the same are that the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act per se 21 does not raise a substantial question relating to environment. This notification is for a different and distinct purpose. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act operate in an entirely different realm/field and have distinct consequences. The questions arising in relation to the validity of acquisition or payment of compensation do not constitute 'dispute' within the meaning of and for the purpose of Section 14 of the NGT Act. The Tribunal, in any case, would have no jurisdiction to venture upon the adjudication of such an issue. Furthermore, the Government was competent to change the 'public purpose' stated in the notification under Section 4 and even could de-notify the area or give up the entire project upon hearing objections under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act. Change of purpose and de-notification by the State Government in accordance with law is permissible. If the Government would have de-notified the land from acquisition or if the High Court had quashed the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, then the entire project of STP would have come to an end and the proceedings, if any, initiated by the applicant under the NGT Act would have been an exercise in futility.
23. Another important aspect is that the location, the Khasra number, etc. sought to be acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act could be changed by the competent authority while issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court, vide its order dated 21st December, 2012 permitted the change of Khasra number by agreement. In other words, the very location of the STP, from the initial site, stood changed to 22 khasra number recorded in the order of the High Court. These were very material changes but fell within the field of acquisition proceedings. They do not have any impact on environmental issues in regard to establishment of the STP.
24. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the cause of action contemplated under Section 14 of the NGT Act could be related to and deemed to have triggered the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 14 of the NGT Act. The cumulative effect of the above discussion would be that, the limitation has to be computed from the date when there was a firm decision by the Government or other authorities concerned to establish the STP at the site in question and it was so publicly declared and the date for the same being 19/20th May, 2013 and the applicant having filed the petition within a few days (within the prescribed period of limitation of six months), the question of the application being time barred does not arise. Another contention was also raised before us that it being a continuing cause of action, the objection raised by the respondent would be of no consequence. We do not consider it necessary to deal with this contention in any elaboration in view of the finding returned by us above that the petition is not at all barred by time.
25. In the recent past, there had been global environmental concerns. Environmental and ecological issues drew the attention of various authorities and bodies all over the world as adverse impact on environment of one country could prejudicially affect the citizenry and environment of the other country. These concerns at 23 different quarters led to the United Nations Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm in June 1972. India participated in this Conference and then decided to take steps for protection and improvement of environment in India resulting in, amongst others, the enactment of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short 'Act of 1986'). This Act of 1986 defines in Section 2(a) "Environment" as follows:
"environment" includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property."
26. It may be noticed at this stage itself that the NGT Act also defines 'environment' in identical terms to the definition of 'environment' in the Act of 1986. The term 'environmental pollutant' has also been defined under the Act of 1986 to mean any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to the environment. 'Handling' in relation to any substance means the manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, offering for sale, transfer or the like of such substances. 'Hazardous substance' means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling is liable to cause harm to human being, other living creatures, plants, micro-organisms, property or the environment. These definitions under the Act of 1986 give us an idea of the legislative intent in relation to the protection and improvement of environment contemplated under the scheme of the Act of 1986. The expression 'environment' has been defined in very 24 wide terms and its definition being inclusive in nature, would not be exhaustive and would cover everything that a human being can think of in relation to water, air and land, living creatures, plants etc. The 'environmental pollutants' again have been defined in terms of very wide magnitude so as to include all kinds of pollutants which will or are even likely to adversely affect the environment or injure the same.
27. The word 'environment' is an expression of broad spectrum which inculcates in its sweep both hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance. The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit the preservation of environment, ecological balance free from air and water pollution. It also includes maintaining proper sanitation without which it may not be possible to enjoy life. The conduct or actions, which would cause environmental pollution and disturb the ecological balance should be regarded as violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of environment as a whole comprising the man-made and the natural environment. It is, therefore, not only the duty of the State but also the duty of every citizen to maintain hygienic environment. Thus, there is a constitutional imperative on the State Governments and the municipalities to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the man-made and the natural environment (Refer: Virender Gaur vs. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577).
25
28. The judicial precedents by various Courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, have expanded Article 21 of the Constitution of India to include the right to clean and decent environment. Right to live with human dignity, hence includes, the right to clean environment, as no human being can properly enjoy his life and living unless the environment surrounding him is hygienic, clean and decent. This is the concept of environment as understood under the Indian Environmental and Constitutional jurisprudence. When one makes a conjoint reading of the Act of 1986 and other environment legislations along with the provisions of the NGT Act, only one conclusion is possible and that is, that the Legislature intended to give environment the widest meaning on the one hand and protection to the same of highest order on the other. It has equated the right to clean environment to the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter III of our Constitution and has also provided for effective and expeditious disposal of the environmental issues. Once the environment is understood in its wide spectrum and correct perspective, then all the matters which cause or are likely to cause environmental pollution or injury would be the matters covered under the provisions of the above referred legislations. The Notification of 2006 deals with the manner and methodology in accordance with which the EC is to be granted to various projects and activities. Under Regulation 2 of the Notification of 2006, it is prescribed that the projects or activities which are specified in the Schedule to the Notification of 2006, would require EC from the competent authority. Projects falling 26 under Category 'A' in the Schedule of the Notification of 2006 would require EC from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) while the projects falling in the Category 'B' would be required to be granted EC by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Such projects should take EC before any actual or even preparatory works are carried out by the project proponent except to the extent of securing land for the project. All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule would require such clearance. The expansion or modernization of the projects or activities, which crosses the threshold limits given in the Schedule, would also require such clearance. Thereafter the process of categorization of the project, selection of site, screening, scoping and appraisal has to be followed, finally culminating into grant or refusal of the EC by the said authorities. The Schedule to the Notification of 2006 refers to various projects and activities that would require such environmental clearance. In the present case, the applicant has placed reliance upon Clause 7(h) and (i) of the Schedule, which is relatable to Regulation 2 and 7 of the Notification of 2006. The said entries of the Schedule read as under: -
Category with threshold limit Conditions if any Project or Activity A B 7 Physical Infrastructure including Environmental Services (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 7(h) Common Effluent All projects General Condition shall apply Treatment Plants (CETPs) 27 7(i) Common Municipal All projects General Condition shall apply Solid Waste Management Facility (CMSWMF)
29. In terms of the above entries of the Schedule, all projects relating to common effluent treatment plants and common municipal solid waste management facility fall in category 'B' of the Schedule and would, therefore, require EC from SEIAA.
30. The contention of the applicant is that both these entries have to be construed liberally so as to achieve the object of the Act, thus, covering even the STPs under these entries. On the contrary, the contention on behalf of the respondent is that, since the STPs have not been specifically included in the Schedule to the Notification of 2006 when other projects or activities have been, it must follow that STP has been excluded from the operation of the Schedule and thus, no EC needs to be obtained by the project proponent from SEIAA. Thus, firstly we have to consider whether these entries should be construed strictly or liberally and if so to what effect.
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Teja Singh AIR 1959 SC 352 held that a statute or any enacting provision therein, must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
28
32. While dealing with a social welfare legislation, the provisions and the words therein are to be given a liberal and expanded meaning. Of course, liberal construction does not mean that the words shall be forced out of their natural meaning but they should receive a fair and reasonable interpretation so as to attain the object for which the instrument is designed and the purpose for which it is applied. Both the object and purpose in relation to its application are thus, relevant considerations for interpretation. The Courts have also permitted departure from the rule of literal construction so as to avoid the statute becoming meaningless or futile. In the case of Surjit Singh v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87 and Sarajul Sunni Board v. Union of India AIR 1959 SC 198, the Supreme Court has also held that it is not allowable to read words in a statute which are not there, but where the alternative allows, either by supplying words which appear to have been accidentally omitted or by adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supply the words. It is also a settled cannon that in case of a social or beneficial legislation, the Courts or Tribunals are to adopt a liberal or purposive construction as opposed to the rule of literal construction. 33 In light of the above stated three principles, let us examine the object and purpose of the above legislations and the meaning that the entries under Clause 7(h) and (i) of the Schedule to the Notification of 2006 should receive. The object of the legislation is to protect, sustain and improve the environment. So an interpretation, which would further this object has to be adopted 29 rather than a strict construction, which may result in rendering the very object and provisions of such legislations ineffective and futile. We are not oblivious to the restrictions to the rule of liberal construction, but in the case of a social or beneficial legislation, particularly relating to a subject like the environment, adoption of the liberal rule of construction would be more appropriate. An interpretation which would practically frustrate the very purpose of inclusion of the common affluent treatment plants and municipal solid waste management plants to entries 7(h) and (i) should be avoided and the one which would attain the object and further the purpose of these provisions should be adopted. It cannot be disputed, even by any stretch of imagination, that STP is established to treat a very serious pollutant i.e. sewage, and STP itself is a potential pollutant in the event of any mis-happening. It has the potential to cause environmental degradation and adversely affect the public health. Thus, it could be said that the framers of the law on the one hand intended to make the provisions prescribing stringent measures, imposing heavy penalties and ensuring adherence to the prescribed standards of environment for its prevention and control, while on the other hand excluded from the scope of Notification of 2006, such projects which are dealing with serious pollutants and are in itself potentially hazardous.
34. The legislative intent behind enacting a particular statute is one of the relevant considerations in regard to the interpretation of the same. The courts do examine the legislative intent to find the real object and purpose of an Act and the scope of application of its 30 various provisions. The entries in the Schedule to the Notification of 2006 have to be construed purposively so as to achieve the object of the principle legislation and not to interpret them so narrowly as to frustrate the very object behind enactment of the same i.e. for prevention and control of environmental pollution.
35. It is an acknowledged fact that the sewage in any town travels through open drains where large amounts of industrial waste, domestic discharge and trade effluents are directly or indirectly discharged into such drains. Before these drains reach the STPs, they undoubtedly contain sewage and other trade effluents, including chemical effluents. In other words, it is mixed effluent and not a sewage waste simplicitor.
36. Entry 7(i) of the Schedule to the Notification of 2006 deals with establishment of the projects relating to any municipal solid waste management facility. The Notification of 2006 does not define 'municipal solid waste'. However, the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, under Rule 3 (xv) defines 'Municipal Solid Waste' as follows:-
""municipal solid waste" includes commercial and residential wastes generated in a municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-solid form excluding industrial hazardous wastes but including treated bio-medical wastes;"
37. From the plain language of the above provision, it is clear that such waste would include commercial and residential waste generated in a notified area. Importantly, it includes both solid and semi-solid waste but excludes industrial hazardous waste. This definition opens with inclusive words, then specifically provides 31 what is excluded from its ambit and scope then further includes even the bio-medical wastes. This definition is generic and is an inclusive definition which simultaneously provides for exclusion of industrial hazardous waste. When the framers have specifically provided for the exclusion in no uncertain terms and the definition being inclusive and not exhaustive in nature, the other wastes, and particularly wastes of semi-solid nature, would be deemed to be included in this definition. It is a uniformly accepted norm of interpretation that the word 'includes' when used in a definition clause would reflect that the Legislature does not intend to restrict the definition. It makes the definition enumerative but not exhaustive. 'Sewage' primarily arises from the residential areas and contains amongst others, as noticed above, other domestic waste and some trade effluents as well. This definition, therefore, would include municipal waste of the semi-solid nature, which is not resulting from the industrial hazardous wastes.
38. At this stage, we may also refer to some literature that have been relied upon by the applicant. United Nations Environment Programme, in the guidelines for the preparation of an environmental impact assessment document for STP's, in 1991 in particular have provided that the STP's are constructed to transport raw sewage into municipal waste and retrieve and re-use treated sewage water. End products of STP's are sludge and treated sewage water. Both can contain, in addition to organic bio-medical substances and micro-organisms, non-biogradable and toxic substances as well, due to contamination of sewage with industrial 32 water. Most STP's and disposal processes are serious sources that create offensive odour.
39. The MoEF, Government of India, has provided a technical EIA Guidance Manual for common municipal solid waste management facilities. Annexure VII to this Manual is the application form prescribed for obtaining EIA Clearance in Form 1. A project proponent is required to take clearance upon filling up of such form. Clause 4 of this Form deals with production of solid waste during construction or operation or decommissioning, under which in Column 4.6, the project proponent is supposed to provide details of the sewage sludge or other sludge released from effluent treatment and under Column 4.2, it is supposed to state with details of municipal waste (domestic and/or commercial waste) which the unit is likely to discharge. This shows an appropriate linkage between municipal solid waste and the sewage to determine the proper impact on environment. We may also refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Almritra H. Patel and Ors. vs. Union of India (2002) SCC 679 where in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held "domestic garbage and sewage is a large contributory of solid waste. The drain system in a city is intended to cope with household effluents. This is so in a planned city. But when a large number of inhabitants live in unauthorised colonies with no proper dealing with the domestic effluents or in slums with no care for hygiene, the problem becomes more complex." This itself shows that the highest Court of the land treated domestic waste as containing both the elements, i.e garbage 33 and sewage. The above discussion clearly demonstrates that the 'common municipal solid waste management facility' would take within its ambit, even such plants that deal with sewage, which essentially is a semi-solid municipal waste and is required to be treated and managed by the municipal authorities in discharge of their statutory duty. As already noticed, even with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the municipal authorities are under an obligation to ensure proper collection, treatment and utilization of the end product in relation to sewage.
40. Now, we shall proceed to discuss the alternative contention on behalf of the applicant that such STP's would be covered under Clause 7(h) of the Schedule to the Notification of 2006. By framing the Schedule to the Notification of 2006, the legislature has attempted to specify the projects which are required to take EC from the competent authorities before establishment and operation of any projects specified therein. The Schedule has a reference to Regulations 2 and 7 of the Notification of 2006. In terms of paragraph (2), every project and activity specified in the Schedule requires environmental clearance. The expression 'activity' is of a very generic nature and in fact, is incapable of being described in definite terms. This expression has been used in addition to the term 'project'. Projects normally are referred to an industrial or other process which are of definite character. The expression 'activity', being of a very generic nature is capable of wide connotation. Paragraph (4) of the 2006 Notification, while categorizing all projects and activities into Category A and Category 34 B, uses in sub-para (ii) of Para 4 the word 'included', which again, would mean that these are not exhaustive in definite terms. Certain leverage has to be provided while expanding or explaining the terms used under various entries of the Schedule to Notification of 2006. They would require liberal construction to achieve the object of the legislations enumerated in Schedule I to the NGT Act. The same has been held even in regard to the entries in the Constitutional lists, the same being the fields of legislation, which have received liberal construction, inspired by a broad and generous spirit and not a narrow or pedantic approach (Refer : Rajiv Sarin and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 708).
41. 'Common effluent treatment plant' (for short the 'CETP'), on its plain reading would mean a treatment plant that treats the common effluents to produce a non-pollutant end product, is non-pollutant. The expression 'effluent' has neither been defined under the Act of 1986 nor under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short the 'Water Act'). Even the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2008 do not define the term 'effluent'. In common parlance, 'effluent' is explained as liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea or any water body. (Refer: Oxford English Dictionary and the Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition). However, the same dictionary defines 'industrial effluent' as an effluent contaminated with trade effluents.
42. The above explanation shows that 'effluent' can be in various forms and is discharged into different water bodies or places where 35 it would affect the water and in turn the environment in one form or the other.
Need for Environment Clearance
43. The Notification of 2006 is the regulatory regime in relation to protection and betterment of environment. It provides how and in what manner clearance is to be granted to various projects and activities to ensure adherence to maintenance of environmental standards. What should be the prescription for trade and industrial effluent and what kind of standards are to be maintained, including whether a project has satisfactorily installed STP and other anti- pollution devices, is primarily intended to ensure that no injury is caused to the environment. Thus, the Notification of 2006 furthers the cause and object of the environmental legislations in our country.
44. Effluent means discharge of any liquid gaseous or other substances into water bodies etc., and would take within its ambit even discharge of sewage coupled with other industrial and trade effluents. Such effluent would be required to be treated at a CETP of which STP itself may be an integral part. As we have already noticed and even anticipated, the drains which carry the sewage also contain other domestic discharge. Industrial and trade effluents get discharged directly into the drains by the industries or other activities which generate polluted effluents. Thus STP would have to treat effluents which contain even other pollutants than sewage simplicitor.
36
45. MoEF, Government of India, while dealing with the operational requirements of technical EIA clearance of effluent treatment plants, have, in paragraph 4.1 of the guidance manual stated as follows:
"Coverage of CETPs under the Purview of
Notification
All new CETP projects including expansion and
modernization require prior environmental
clearance. Based on pollution potential, these projects irrespective of the capacities are classified into Category B.
The Notification covers treatment plants which serve different industries not in the same premises for common/combined wastewater. The Notification excludes ETPs serving different production units within the same individual industry premises, which are integrated to operation.
Besides there are general conditions, when it applies, a Category B project will be treated as Category A project. These conditions are discussed in subsequent sections.
It also covers sludge handling, discharging pipeline and disposal point studies.
It covers combined wastewater treatment plants i.e., CETPs accepting sewage also along with industrial effluents for better treatability. For clarity, any treatment plant having more than 10% of industrial contributions by volume shall be treated as a combined treatment plant.
The sequence of steps in the process of prior environmental clearance for Category B and Category A projects are shown in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 respectively. Each stage in the process of prior environmental clearance for the CETP is discussed in subsequent sections. The timelines indicated against each stage are the maximum permissible timelines set in the Notification for said task. In case the said task is not cleared/objected to by the concerned Authority, within the specified time, said task is deemed to be cleared, in accordance to the proposal submitted by the proponent.
In case of Expansion or Modernization of the developmental Activity:
37
Any developmental activity, which has an EIA clearance (existing project), when undergoes expansion or modernization (change in process or technology) with increase in production capacity or any change in product mix beyond the list of products cleared in the issued clearance is required to submit new application for EIA clearance.
Any developmental activity, which is listed in Schedule of the EIA Notification and due to expansion of its total capacity, if falls under the purview of either Category B or Category A, then such developmental activity requires clearance from respective authorities."
46. The bare reading of the above shows that establishment, expansion and even modernisation of CETPs require EC, being a category B project. Any treatment plant that deals with such effluents having more than 10% of industrial contributions by volume has to be treated as a combined treatment plant. On the strength of this guide, it becomes clear that the material consideration for determining the nature of the project or activity is the kind of effluent that it receives for the purpose of treatment. There is nothing on record before us to show that the STP in question is so established as to treat exclusively sewage and nothing else. On the contrary, the sketch filed by the respondent (Annexure R.3) shows that the sewage is carried by an open drain and would be so carried to the site of STP (for treatment). It is just by the side of a metal road and travels through the abadi and the sludge is carried through an open drain from the entire city. This is demonstrable of the fact that it is not sewage per se that is taken by the open drain to the site but is a mixture of various distinct effluents. Thus, such an STP would even fall under the entry 7(h) 38 because this plant would be treating the effluents in the semi-solid form and even sludge and would contain more than 10% of industrial or other contaminated chemical effluents. Such a plant is not only treating the effluents/sewage but also has to ensure that the ultimate discharge from such plant is strictly within the parameters prescribed so that the waste water is capable of being used for irrigation or recycled for other purposes while the other waste/sludge is to be properly disposed of. This is where the respondent has failed to place scientific data on record to show that it is exclusively the sewage which is capable of being treated to bring the ultimate discharge within the prescribed parameters of Bio- chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and others and also to ensure its proper re-use or recycling. We can reasonably conclude that the open nallah does not carry only the sewage waste but other effluents as well which are required to be treated by a CETP and the capability of the STP requires scientific and appropriate scrutiny from an expert body before it can be permitted to become operational and it is a fit case where it would cover combined waste water treatment plant i.e. CETP excepting sewage along with industrial effluents.
47. The above deliberations now bring us to another important facet of the present case as to the necessity for such a plant to obtain EC under the Notification of 2006. The very purpose of setting up an STP is to attain betterment in the field of environment. Under this project, it is expected to bring the entire sewage for treatment to the plant and then to ensure that the end products 39 from such treatment are in conformity with the prescribed parameters and the water in relation to the sludge and the water content both. The water should be capable of being recycled for irrigation and other allied purposes. This object would stand frustrated if the sewage is containing other contaminated effluents i.e. trade effluents, industrial effluents and other domestic discharge containing high pollutants. Then the end result would be that even if the sewage is treated, still the ultimate product being discharged from the plant would remain contaminated, acidic or unusable for different purposes. On account of the experience gained and on account of improvements in the field of science, it is now possible to anticipate as to what ought to be a broad activity of the project. The authorities should be able to take scientific view at the initial stages of installation of an STP. The expert bodies like SEIAA and EAC would, at the stage of scoping and appraisal contemplated in terms of the Notification of 2006, be able to take an objective and rational view in regard to establishment and operation of the STP simplicitor or requirement of any additional anti-pollution measures to be taken by the project proponent in the interest of environment and public health. It is the stage whether they should proceed with the project or the project needs other supplementary treatment plants to ensure adherence to prescribed standards. They can have a comparative study of the harmful effects of the project, considering it on the touchstone of sustainable development and human environment and welfare. Sewage itself is a very serious pollutant. It can result in tremendous health hazards and cause injury to the 40 environment including intolerable odour. It carries pathogenic organisms that can transmit diseases to humans and animals, hold nutrients that may cause eutrophication of receiving water bodies and can lead to eco toxicity. The purpose of the environmental legislations referred to in the NGT Act is to prevent environmental degradation on the one hand and its improvement on the other. To perform these functions collectively and effectively, it would be necessary for such projects to get EC at the very threshold. It would help to further the cause of the legislations as well as the larger public purpose. On the contrary, it may prove to be a futile exercise if the plant is established and still it is unable to treat the mixed waste of different components which comes from the drain to the site of the plant. At the present stage, it may be a remedial measure but later on it may prove to be a disaster and a complete waste of public money.
48. For the reasons afore-recorded, we answer both the questions in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. While allowing the application, we direct the respondent to seek EC from SEIAA at the earliest and in any case not later than one month from today. We further direct SEIAA to process the application and complete the entire exercise of granting clearance - conditional or otherwise - or refusing the same within two months thereafter. In the circumstances of the case, we would not direct removal of the plant to the extent to which it has already been constructed at the site as all acts done so far and that may be done hereafter would be 41 subject to the grant of EC to the project in question by the competent authority.
49. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Justice Swatanter Kumar Chairperson Justice U.D. Salvi Judicial Member Justice S.N. Hussain Judicial Member P.S. Rao Expert Member Ranjan Chatterjee Expert Member New Delhi;
September 12, 2013 42