Supreme Court Restores Bio-Medical Waste Facility Clearances, Rules CPCB Guidelines Are Mandatory
A Division Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala holds the Revised Guidelines 2016 binding, reverses NGT's order quashing environmental and consent permissions for a Uttar Pradesh CBWTF.
The Supreme Court has set aside a National Green Tribunal order that had quashed the Environmental Clearance and Consent to Establish granted to M/S Punahchakran Private Limited for a Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility in Babrala, District Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. Deciding Civil Appeal No. 7367 of 2024 on 7 September 2026, a Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016) are mandatory and enforceable, that successful land allotment is not a pre-condition for a Form 1 application under the EIA Notification 2006, and that the CBWTF site falls within a rural area qualifying for land-size relaxation under Clause 7(b) of the RG, 2016. The Court found the NGT's impugned judgment of 5 July 2024 to be an egregious error and allowed the appeal.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
Punahchakran Private Limited applied on 6 July 2021 to the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) for allotment of plots E-25 and E-26, admeasuring 0.45 acres and 0.44 acres respectively, in the UPSIDC Industrial Area, Babrala, to establish a CBWTF. Before allotment came through, the company filed a Form 1 application on 11 August 2021 before the UP State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (UP SEIAA) seeking Terms of Reference (ToR). UPSIDA rejected the allotment application the following day. The company then sought allotment of the same plots for a different purpose — fabrication of industrial equipment — which was granted on 15 September 2021.
The UP SEIAA issued a first ToR on 17 August 2021. Following a GAP Analysis report submitted in June 2022 covering eight nearby districts, the UP State Expert Appraisal Committee recommended the grant of Environmental Clearance. The first EC was issued on 13 July 2022. The UP Pollution Control Board had already granted a conditional Consent to Establish on 26 April 2022.
Both the first CTE and the first EC were challenged before the NGT in Original Application No. 622 of 2022 by Aniruda Panwar and others. The NGT, converting the application into an appeal, allowed it vide judgment dated 31 July 2023. It held that Clause 2 of the RG, 2016 required procurement of land as a condition precedent before seeking EC and CTE, that the UPSIDA's subsequent approval of a change in land use could not retrospectively validate the clearances, and that the plot size of 0.89 acres fell short of the one-acre minimum under Clause 7 of the RG, 2016 without any relaxation having been duly granted. The Tribunal set the first CTE and first EC aside as illegal, null and void, but granted liberty to Punahchakran to reapply either after procuring additional land or after seeking relaxation in accordance with law.
The company pursued both paths. It approached UPSIDA for plot E-27 and also applied to the UPPCB for land-area relaxation in consultation with the CPCB. The CPCB, on 17 November 2023, granted relaxation from 1 acre to 0.89 acres subject to additional control measures including zero liquid discharge, increased stack height, stringent emission norms, odour controls and a restricted initial operating capacity of 2.5 tonnes per day for the incinerator. Punahchakran then withdrew the second ToR (which had included plot E-27) and proceeded with the first ToR. The UP SEAC recommended the grant of EC on 20 November 2023, and the second EC and second CTE were both issued on 20 December 2023.
The respondent, Indotech Waste Solution — a competitor CBWTF operator in District Kasganj — challenged the second EC and second CTE before the NGT. The Tribunal, vide the impugned decision of 5 July 2024, set them aside on grounds that Clause 7(b) of the RG, 2016 was inapplicable because Babrala is a Nagar Panchayat and not a rural area, that the authorities acted mechanically, and that the grant of relaxation was vitiated by malice in law. Punahchakran appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Core Legal Questions
The Court identified four issues: whether the RG, 2016 is mandatory or directory; whether the CPCB's grant of land relaxation was permissible; what the status of land acquisition must be at the Form 1 stage, at appraisal, and at the CTE application stage respectively; and whether the second EC could validly be granted on the basis of the first ToR.
Mandatory Nature of the RG, 2016 and the Gulf Goans Question
Project proponents had repeatedly argued before the NGT that under Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 673, guidelines not published in the Official Gazette and not authenticated under Article 77 of the Constitution cannot have the force of law. The Supreme Court engaged with this argument at length.
The Court traced the RG, 2016 to its statutory roots. Section 8 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 requires compliance with prescribed safeguards for handling hazardous substances. Sections 6 and 25 of that Act empower the Central Government to make rules, which were exercised to frame the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (BMWM Rules). The BMWM Rules themselves, across Rules 3(c), 5, 14 and 17, explicitly require the RG, 2016 to be made and followed. Schedule III to the BMWM Rules mandates the CPCB to prepare guidelines and lay down criteria for establishing CBWTFs. The RG, 2016 itself states in its introductory paragraph that the guidelines “are mandatory henceforth under the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016.”
The Court distinguished Gulf Goans on authentication. Relying on Air India Cabin Crew Assn. v. Yeshaswinee Merchant, (2003) 6 SCC 277, the Court held that non-compliance with Article 77 does not automatically invalidate an executive action; it only removes the irrebuttable presumption that the order was made in the name of the President. The RG, 2016 was made by the CPCB, the appropriate authority, in pursuance of clear statutory mandates. Gulf Goans itself had noted that the Air India position may apply where guidelines are issued in exercise of statutory power — unlike the guidelines in that case which had no statutory backing.
On publication, the Court applied the three-category framework from B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 1 SCC 658. Where neither the parent statute nor the subordinate legislation prescribes a specific mode of publication, the general rule is Official Gazette publication, but “some other reasonable mode” may suffice. Since neither the EP Act nor the BMWM Rules prescribe a mode of publication for the RG, 2016, the Court held that publication of such technical guidelines on the official website of the CPCB was reasonably sufficient. The RG, 2016 forms the foundation for the grant of ECs and CTEs to CBWTFs and is so deeply embedded in the authorisation mechanism that all project proponents are made aware of it at the outset of the approval process. Reliance on Gulf Goans to resist compliance with the RG, 2016 would, therefore, be misplaced.
The Rural Area Question and Land Relaxation
The NGT's central ground for quashing the second EC and second CTE was that Babrala is a Nagar Panchayat, not a rural area, and therefore the pre-condition under Clause 7(b) of the RG, 2016 for relaxing the one-acre plot requirement was not fulfilled. Clause 7(b) permits relaxation only for new CBWTFs in municipal limits with a population exceeding 25 lakh or in rural areas.
This Court had, by order dated 15 July 2024, directed the District Magistrate, Sambhal to report on whether the CBWTF site fell within Babrala Nagar Panchayat limits or in a rural area. The District Magistrate's report confirmed that the UPSIDC Industrial Area was formed in Village Noorpur, Pargana Asadpur, Tehsil Gunnaur, District Sambhal, and does not fall within the limits of Babrala Nagar Panchayat. The distance from the industrial area to the Nagar Panchayat border is approximately 2.6 km. The Executive Officer of Babrala Nagar Panchayat, the Tehsildar at Gunnaur and the Regional Manager of UPSIDA all confirmed that the plots fall within rural limits. A State Gazette notification under Section 2(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 had also declared the Industrial Area at serial no. 78 to be located at Village Noorpur.
The Court held that the pre-condition under Clause 7(b) was plainly fulfilled. The CPCB had granted relaxation after due consultation and prescribed additional control measures addressing operational effectiveness in the smaller area. The fact that the UPPCB's letter of 16 October 2023 to the CPCB had incorrectly characterised the first CTE and first EC as only “null and void and not illegal” did not, on examination, affect the actual grant of relaxation. The investment made by the appellant was one factor among others and was not the sole or decisive consideration. The respondent had not argued that the additional control measures imposed were insufficient. The Court found no malice in law in the grant of relaxation.
Land Acquisition as a Condition Precedent: Form 1, Appraisal, and CTE
The Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar had held that Clause 2 of the RG, 2016, by using the words “land procured” and “upon allocation of site,” required successful land procurement as a condition precedent even before a Form 1 application could be made. The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning, though it ultimately upheld the conclusion reached in that case on different grounds.
Clause 6 of the EIA Notification, 2006 requires a Form 1 application to be made after the “identification of prospective site(s)” but before commencing construction. The Office Memorandum dated 7 October 2014 issued by the MoEF&CC clarified that full acquisition of land may not be a pre-requisite for consideration of the EC application, but some credible document showing the status of land acquisition must be available when the case is brought before the SEAC or SEIAA for appraisal (Stage IV).
The Court read Clause 2(d) of the RG, 2016 — which speaks of land “procured by an entrepreneur” — and Clause 2(e) — which says approvals must be obtained “upon allocation of site” — as not conveying a stricter standard than the EIA Notification. Clause 2(e) uses “upon allocation” only to identify which among multiple EoI respondents must proceed to obtain approvals — the successful allocatee. It does not mandate that allotment precede the Form 1 application.
The Court therefore held: land allotment is not a pre-condition for making a Form 1 application; identification of prospective site(s) for the specific project is sufficient. At the appraisal stage, a credible document — such as a successful allotment or a provisional acknowledgment from UPSIDA for the establishment of a CBWTF — must be available. As for CTE applications, Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 require previous consent before establishing or taking steps to establish such a facility. Since the MoEF&CC's order of 20 September 2021 confirmed that the EC and CTE/CTO processes may proceed in parallel, successful land allotment for a CBWTF cannot be a condition precedent for either making an application for CTE or for the grant of CTE itself — though relaxation under Clause 7 of the RG, 2016 must be obtained before a CTE can issue for land of less than one acre.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the first EC had been rightly quashed in Aniruda Panwar: at the time of appraisal in June and July 2022, the only allotment in the appellant's favour was for fabrication of industrial equipment, not for a CBWTF. No credible document existed at that stage showing that the land could be used for the proposed facility. By contrast, when the second EC and second CTE were being appraised in November and December 2023, allotment of plots E-25 and E-26 for a CBWTF had been granted by UPSIDA on 19 September 2022 and land relaxation had been approved by the CPCB on 17 November 2023. The second permissions therefore satisfied the land acquisition requirements at each stage.
Whether the First ToR Survived the Quashing of the First EC
Indotech argued that when the first EC was set aside in Aniruda Panwar, the first ToR was also rendered null and void, making the second EC invalid because it was granted on a defunct ToR.
The Court rejected this argument. It held that the consequence for a ToR when an EC is set aside depends on the ground for the EC being quashed and how far back the defect had crept into the four-stage EIA process. If the defect arose only at the appraisal stage, the project proponent need not return to the Form 1 stage. A ToR becomes invalid only if the Form 1 application itself was tainted by deliberate concealment or submission of false or misleading information material to screening, scoping or appraisal, in terms of Clause 8(vi) of the EIA Notification, 2006.
The Court noted that the first ToR was issued on 17 August 2021 on the basis of a Form 1 filed on 11 August 2021. At that point, the company had applied to UPSIDA on 6 July 2021 for allotment of plots E-25 and E-26 specifically for establishing a CBWTF. This was sufficient to establish identification of prospective site(s). The Form 1 was therefore not defective. The concealment that vitiated the first EC was the failure to disclose, at the appraisal stage, that UPSIDA had allotted the plots for a different purpose. That concealment was relevant to appraisal, not to Form 1 or the ToR.
The Court further noted that the second ToR had been issued only because Punahchakran was then pursuing plot E-27. Once it became clear that land relaxation was obtainable and plot E-27 was unnecessary, the second ToR was rightly withdrawn on 21 November 2023. The first ToR remained unaffected by the decision in Aniruda Panwar.
On validity period, the Court referred to Office Memorandums dated 29 August 2017 and 8 June 2022 issued by MoEF&CC, which fix the validity of a ToR at three years extendable by one year — giving an outer limit of four years. The first ToR was issued on 17 August 2021. Relying also on Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar Hegde, (2020) 15 SCC 63, which explained that ToR validity limits exist because environmental data becomes outdated over time, the Court held that the first ToR remained within its validity period. No argument was raised that the baseline data was outdated or faulty. The second EC was validly granted on the basis of the first ToR.
Order
The Supreme Court held that the NGT committed an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 5 July 2024. The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the NGT, Principal Bench, New Delhi is set aside. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. The Registry was directed to forward one copy of the judgment to the NGT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which shall circulate it to all circuit benches of the Tribunal.