Holding

The GPP, having been authorized and commenced before the 2016 Rules came into force, is governed by the 2000 Rules, rendering the NGT’s order to close it erroneous and therefore quashed.

Summary

The Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and its concessionaire Noble Exchange set up a Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) at Baner, Pune under a 2005 development plan that reserved the land for such a facility. The plant was authorized under the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and received environmental clearance in early 2016, before the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 came into force. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) ordered the plant’s closure, invoking the 2016 Rules, buffer‑zone requirements and alleging procedural violations. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that because the authorization, clearance and commencement occurred before 8 April 2016, the 2000 Rules, not the 2016 Rules, govern the plant; the NGT had erred in applying the newer regime, in finding a required 500‑metre buffer zone, and in treating the land as a biodiversity park. The Court quashed the NGT orders, dismissed the original application, and directed the PMC and the concessionaire to comply with specific environmental safeguards while allowing the plant to continue operating.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 versus the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 to the GPP.
Whether the NGT correctly applied the buffer‑zone requirement of the 2000 Rules to a waste‑processing plant.
Whether the land earmarked for the GPP was lawfully reserved for that purpose and not for a biodiversity park.
Whether the closure of the GPP would be contrary to public interest.
Whether the original application filed by Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch is barred by the limitation provision of Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010.
Whether the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board’s authorization prior to 2021 sufficed as consent under the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
Environment (Protection) Acts. Section 25, s. Section 3, s. Section 6
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Acts. Section 28
Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Ruless. Rule 1, s. Rule 15, s. Rule 20, s. Rule 4
National Green Tribunal Acts. Section 16
Solid Waste Management Ruless. Rule 1, s. Rule 15, s. Rule 20, s. Rule 4
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

Subjects

Garbage Processing PlantSolid Waste ManagementEnvironmental ClearancePublic InterestBuffer ZoneNational Green TribunalMunicipal Solid Waste RulesRight to Clean EnvironmentOdour ControlDecentralised Waste Processing

Judgment

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 374 : 2024 INSC 682

Pune Municipal Corporation
v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others
(Civil Appeal Nos. 258-259 of 2021)
12 September 2024
[B.R. Gavai,* Prashant Kumar Mishra and
K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi disposed of
the OA preferred by the Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, respondent
No. 1 herein, by directing the Pune Municipal Corporation to close
the Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) operated by Noble Exchange
Environment Solution Pune LLP, at Baner, Pune and to shift the
same to an alternate location in terms of the guidelines issued by
the Central Pollution Control Board.

Headnotes†
Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules,
2000 – Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Sus Road
Baner Vikas Manch, respondent No. 1 sought to restrain the
respondent-Concessionaire from operating the GPP at Survey
No. 48/2/1 at Baner, Pune since the same had been established
without following the procedure prescribed by law.
Held: A perusal of the proposed Land Use Map for village Balewadi,
Baner which was notified on 31.12.2002 would reveal that in the said
Plan, Plot No. 48/2/1 was reserved for GPP – The commencement
certificates insofar as all other buildings are also after the Draft
Development Plan was sanctioned by the State Government – It
is clear that the commencement certificates in respect of all the
buildings are after the date on which the Plot was reserved for
GPP – In the instant case, the application for authorization, the
grant of authorization, the grant of Environment Clearance by the
SEIAA and the commencement of the GPP all have taken place
prior to 08.04.2016 i.e. the date on which the 2016 Rules came into
force – As such, the Tribunal has grossly erred in observing that
the GPP in question was covered by the 2016 Rules – A perusal
of the Minutes of the 11th Consent Committee Meeting of 2015-

* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 375

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

16 held on 09.11.2015 would clearly reveal that the MPCB was
following the practice of granting authorization under the 2000 Rules
which covers all the aspects of the consent – The MPCB started
granting Consent only after 06.09.2021 and prior to that, it was
only issuing a composite authorization – The Tribunal has failed to
take this into consideration – Also, a perusal of the Checklist issued
by the MPCB which was published in 2003 would reveal that the
requirement of no-development zone or a buffer zone is only with
regards to landfill sites – The contention of the respondent No. 1 that
under the 2000 Rules, a buffer zone is required to be maintained
for GPP is without substance – The finding of the Tribunal that
initially the plot where GPP was constructed was reserved for
Bio-diversity Park is also erroneous and factually incorrect – As
discussed, the plot in question has been reserved for the GPP
since inception and it is only the adjoining plot which was reserved
for the Bio-diversity Park – Apart from that, the closure of the GPP
in question rather than subserving the public interest, would be
detrimental to public interest – If the GPP in question is closed, the
organic waste generated in the western part of Pune city would be
required to be taken all the way throughout the city to Hadapsar
which is in the eastern part of the city – This will undoubtedly
lead to foul odour and nuisance to the public – Therefore of
the considered view that the impugned judgment and order of
the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside – However,
the appellant-Corporation as well as the respondent-Concessionaire
is cautioned that they should take necessary steps so that the
residents residing in the nearby buildings do not have to suffer
on account of foul odour – The appellant-Corporation and the
respondent-Concessionaire are directed to ensure that all the
suggestions/recommendations made by NEERI should be strictly
complied with. [Paras 26, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 50]

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh [2002] 1 SCR 1060 : (2002) 3
SCC 481 : (2002) INSC 84 – relied on.
Bhavya Height Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai
Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Others (2019)
SCC OnLine Bom 1075 – referred to.

List of Acts
Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000;
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
376 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Garbage Processing Plant (GPP); Public interest; Organic waste;
Foul odour; Nuisance to public; Odour control system; Slurry
sampling; Waste processing; Recycling; Treatment; Right to clean
environment.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 258-259 of
2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.2020 and 22.12.2020 of
the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in Original
Application No.210 of 2020 and Review Application No.49 of 2020 in
Original Application No. 210 of 2020 respectively
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 265-266 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., K. Parameshwar, A. N. S. Nadkarni,
Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Advs., Aman Varma, Dhaval Mehrotra, Rahul
Garg, Adith Deshmukh, Ms. Aditi Desai, Ms. Riya Wasade, Ms.
Nishtha Kumar, Shrom Sethi, Ms. Pallavi Mohan, S. S. Rebello,
Ms. Deepti Arya, Ms. Arzu Paul, Ninad Laud, Saurabh Kulkarni, Ivo
D’Costa, Guru Prasad Naik, Ms. Ishani Shekhar, Ms. Anshula Vijay
Kumar Grover, Mukesh Verma, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Kamal Kumar
Pandey, Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Shashank Singh,
Devanshu Gupta, Krishna Prakash Dubey, Avijit Roy, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, Piyush Beriwal, Mohdd. Akhil,
Ishaan Sharma, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Rohan Gupta, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla,
Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. These Civil Appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 27th
October 2020 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench,
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 377

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

New Delhi1 in Original Application2 No. 210 of 20203 wherein the
Tribunal disposed of the OA preferred by the Sus Road Baner Vikas
Manch, Respondent No. 1 herein, by directing the Pune Municipal
Corporation4 to close the Garbage Processing Plant5 operated by
Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP,6 at Baner, Pune and
to shift the same to an alternate location in terms of the guidelines
issued by the Central Pollution Control Board,7 within 4 months from
the date of the order. Having directed the closure of the GPP, the
Tribunal further granted liberty to the Maharashtra Pollution Control
Board8 to recover environmental compensation on the basis of ‘polluter
pays’ principle from the GPP for the entirety of the period during
which the environmental norms were violated by the GPP. Seeking
a review of the aforesaid order, the respondent-Concessionaire,
the operator of the aforementioned GPP, filed a Review Application
being No. 49 of 2020 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal
vide order dated 22nd December 2020. The said order is also under
challenge in these present appeals.
2. We have two Civil Appeals before us. The first set of Civil Appeals
being CA Nos. 258-259 of 2021 have been filed by the Pune Municipal
Corporation. The second set of Civil Appeals being CA Nos. 265-66
of 2021 have been filed by Noble Exchange Environment Solution
Pune LLP. For the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion, the parties
will be referred to according to their positions in the first set of civil
appeals.
3. The facts which give rise to the present appeals are as under:
3.1. Upon the municipal limits of the appellant-Corporation being
extended to include Baner Balewadi, a Development Plan
was drawn up in 2002 wherein land situated at Survey No.
48/2/1 in Baner Balewadi, Pune was reserved for the purpose

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’.
2 Hereinafter referred to as OA
3 Earlier OA No. 34 of 2019 (WZ). Initially the OA was preferred before the Tribunal, Western Zone, and
was subsequently transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi.
4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant-Corporation’.
5 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘GPP’.
6 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent-Concessionaire’.
7 Hereinafter referred to as the “CPCB”.
8 Hereinafter referred to as the “MPCB”.
378 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of a GPP. In 2004, a public hearing was conducted for the
purpose of drawing up a new development plan, subsequent
to which, the Planning Committee of the appellant-Corporation
submitted its report on 30th December 2004 to the General
Body of the appellant-Corporation earmarking the aforesaid
land for a GPP in the Draft Development Plan of 2005. The
said Plan was submitted to the Government of Maharashtra
on 29th November 2005 whereafter the Plan came to be
sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification dated
18th September, 2008.
3.2. In the interregnum, while the aforesaid Plan was pending
approval, in 2005, permission was sought for constructing a
residential building being Tarai Heights at a site which was
approximately 100 metres away from the earmarked land in
Survey No. 48/2/1 and subsequently, in 2008, permission was
sought for constructing another residential building being 52
Green Woods at a site which was approximately 140 metres
away from the aforesaid earmarked land. In said fashion,
over the years, permission for construction of similar such
residential projects were sought in and around the earmarked
portion of land. The last such permission was sought in 2019
for the construction of a residential building being Platinum 9.
3.3. Subsequent to the Development Plan of 2005 being sanctioned,
the appellant-Corporation and the respondent-Concessionaire,
Respondent No. 7 in the first appeal, entered into a Concession
Agreement on 30th March 2015 for setting up an Organic Waste
Processing Plant at the land situated at Survey No. 48/2/1.
The purpose of the Concession Agreement was to set up an
operational waste-processing facility where pre-segregated,
non-compacted organic waste received from the appellant-
Corporation would be crushed into a slurry, after removing
any non-biodegradable material, and the said slurry would be
transported to a facility in Talegaon where raw biogas would
be generated from the slurry. The Concession Agreement was
for a period of 30 years.
3.4. Subsequently, in compliance of the notification dated 14th
August 2006, for the setting up of GPP, the respondent-
Concessionaire sought Environment Clearance from the State
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 379

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority9 on 13th August
2015. Thereafter, pursuant to a public hearing the SEIAA granted
Environment Clearance to the respondent-Concessionaire for
establishment of Organic Waste Management Plant on 1st
February 2016. The Environment Clearance accorded was to
be valid for a period of 7 years.
3.5. In the meanwhile, on 2 nd December 2015, the MPCB,
Respondent No. 2 herein, granted authorization to the
respondent-Concessionaire to set up and operate a solid waste
processing/disposal plant in accordance with the Municipal
Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.10 The
said authorization was valid till 31st December 2016.
3.6. The authorization granted by the MPCB was subsequently
renewed on two occasions. On 4th May 2017, the MPCB further
granted authorization to the appellant-Corporation to set up and
operate waste processing/recycling/treatment/disposal facilities
at various sites, 48 in total, including at the concerned site
i.e. Survey No. 48/2/1, at Baner, Pune. The said authorization
was to be valid till 31st December 2021. The authorization was
renewed once again on 3rd August 2022 and the same is valid
up till 31st July 2027.
3.7. In 2019, Respondent No.1-Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch,
a registered Trust that had been established to protect the
interests of the citizens residing at the Sus Road and Baner
areas in Pune, preferred an OA being No. 34 of 2019 before the
National Green Tribunal, Western Zone, seeking to restrain the
respondent-Concessionaire from operating the aforementioned
GPP at Survey No. 48/2/1 at Baner, Pune since the same had
been established without following the procedure prescribed
by law.
3.8. Deeming it appropriate to verify the factual details set out in
the OA, the Tribunal vide its order dated 5th September 2019
constituted an expert committee comprising of the CPCB and
the MPCB to inspect the GPP and the area in question, and
to submit a report within a month.

9 Hereinafter referred to as ‘SEIAA’.
10 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘2000 Rules’.
380 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

3.9. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the CPCB and the
MPCB conducted a joint inspection of the GPP and area in
question. Subsequently, a report was submitted before the
Tribunal wherein the joint inspection team had made several
observations about the operational capacity of the GPP, its
authorization status and certain procedural shortcomings.
3.10. Based on the Joint Inspection Report, the Tribunal vide the first
impugned order dated 27th October 2020 held that the GPP was
in violation of the right to clean environment of the inhabitants
and was against the statutory norms. In that view of the matter,
the Tribunal disposed of the OA in the aforementioned terms.
While directing a shut-down of the plant, the Tribunal further
directed that the site in question might be used for the purpose
of developing a bio-diversity park, for which purpose the site
had been originally designated. The Tribunal further constituted
a Joint Committee comprising of the CPCB, the MPCB, District
Magistrate of Pune and the Municipal Corporation of Pune
to monitor the subsequent course of action in light of the
aforesaid decision.
3.11. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-Concessionaire filed a
Review Application before the Tribunal being Review Application
No. 49 of 2020 which came to be dismissed vide second
impugned order dated 22nd December 2020.
3.12. Being aggrieved thereby, the present statutory appeals have
been filed under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010.11
4. We have heard Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant in CA Nos. 258-259 of 2021, Shri
K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant in CA Nos. 265-266 of 2021 and on behalf of respondent
No.7 in CA Nos.258-259 of 2021, Shri Ninad Laud, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 in both the matters and
Shri Rahul Kaushik, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.2-MPCB in both the appeals.

11 Hereinafter referred to as the “NGT Act”.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 381

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

5. Shri Nadkarni submitted that the Draft Development Plan 2002 for
Pune city was sanctioned on 18th September 2008. He submitted
that this was done after inviting and hearing objections under Section
28 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.12 He
submitted that, at that stage, no objection was raised by anyone.
He further submitted that the advertisement inviting Expression of
Interest for setting up Waste Segregation and Processing Unit was
published on 4th March 2014. He submitted that the Concession
Agreement was entered into on 30th March 2015. It is submitted
that the Waste Segregation Unit is set up within Pune city limits and
the Processing Plant is situated at Talegaon that is outside the city
limits. It is further submitted that the MPCB granted its authorization
to set up and operate on 2nd December 2015 and the Environmental
Clearance was also issued on 1st February 2016.
6. Shri Nadkarni submitted that the respondent No. 1 herein despite
having knowledge of the reservation in the Development Plan, EC
and grant of authorization for the Waste Segregation and Processing
Unit, filed an OA seeking cancellation and revocation of EC only
on 2nd March 2019. It is therefore submitted that the OA was filed
belatedly almost after a period of three years from the date of grant
of EC. It is therefore submitted that the OA was filed much beyond
the period prescribed under Section 16 of the NGT Act. As such, the
OA ought to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
7. Shri Nadkarni further submitted that the learned Tribunal had mixed
up the facts. Whereas the GPP reservation is in Plot No. 48/2/1 under
the Development Plan, the Bio-diversity Park is in Plot No. 49 which
is an adjoining plot. As such, the direction issued by the learned
Tribunal to use Plot No. 48/2/1 for Bio-diversity Park is unsustainable.
8. Shri Nadkarni further submitted that the reservation for the GPP in
the Draft Development Plan is since 2002 which was subsequently
sanctioned in 2008. The residential buildings had come up at a
much later point in time. He submitted that only one project was
commenced on 27th December 2005 whereas the second project
was commenced on 25th March 2008 and all other projects that is 17
in number were commenced only from 2010 onwards that is much
after sanction of the Development Plan.

12 Hereinafter referred to as the “MRTP Act”.
382 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

9. Shri Nadkarni further submitted that the Environmental Clearance
for the GPP was received on 1st February 2016 and the Plant was
set up and commenced in the same year. He submitted that, at the
relevant time, the 2000 Rules were in force. It is submitted that the
Solid Waste Management Rules, 201613 granted two years period
for the migration and upgrading of the existing Plant to the 2016
Rules and as such, the provisions pertaining to the waste disposal
came into force on 8th April 2018 i.e. after two years from the date
of notification of the 2016 Rules.
10. Shri Nadkarni further submitted that the provisions as regards the
buffer zones around waste processing and disposal facility came into
force in 2017 and as such, would not apply to a plant which was
conceived, set up and became functional in 2016. It is submitted
that, even the 2016 Rules envisage decentralization of the process
i.e. segregation at source. It is submitted that the present location of
the GPP conforms to the requirement of the 2016 Rules inasmuch as
only the waste generated from surrounding areas alone is segregated
and crushed at the Baner Plant.
11. Shri Nadkarni further submitted that in pursuance of the observations
made by this Court, the appellant-Corporation took steps to look
for an alternative site, but it has not been possible to find out an
alternative site on account of variety of reasons.
12. Shri Nadkarni further submitted that the reasoning given by the learned
Tribunal that there was no consent of MPCB for establishment of
the GPP is also unsustainable. It is submitted that, at the relevant
time, the MPCB was not issuing a separate “consent to establish”
under the Water Act, 1974 or the Air Act, 1981 but was issuing a
composite authorization to “set up and operate” across the State. It is
submitted that the circular issued by the MPCB dated 6th September
2021 would clarify this position. It is further submitted that the said
practice was followed throughout the State. Shri Nadkarni relies on
the proceedings of the Minutes of the Consent Committee Meeting
dated 9th November 2015.
13. Shri Nadkarni submitted that, since initially the authorization granted
by MPCB on 2nd December 2015 was valid till 31st December 2016,
the appellant-Corporation and the respondent-Concessionaire applied

13 Hereinafter referred to as the “2016 Rules”.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 383

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

for renewal and the authorization, vide communication of the MPCB
dated 4th May 2017, was renewed for a period of five years i.e. till 31st
December 2021. It is submitted that, before the expiry of five years
period which was to expire on 31st December 2021, the appellant-
Corporation and the respondent-Concessionaire again applied for
renewal of the authorization to set up and operate on 26th October
2021 and vide communication dated 3rd August 2022, the authorization
to set up and operate was renewed till 31st July 2027. Not only that,
but on 1st November 2022, consent to operate was also obtained as
per notification dated 6th September 2021. The consent to operate
has been further renewed till 30th September 2025.
14. Shri Nadkarni further submitted that the Joint Inspection Committee
appointed by the learned Tribunal erroneously applied the 2016 Rules
which did not apply to the GPP which was conceived and became
functional prior to 2016.
15. Insofar as the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding buffer zone
is concerned, Shri Nadkarni submitted that the said buffer zone of
500 meters is to be maintained from land fill sites and does not
apply to Waste Segregation Plant. Shri Nadkarni further submitted
that the continuation of the Project was in the larger public interest.
It is submitted that the GPP processes the organic waste generated
in the western part of the city i.e., Aundh, Baner, Kothrud, Sinhagad
road and Katraj. It is submitted that, prior to commencement of the
said Plant, the organic waste generated in the western part of the
city was taken all the way to Hadapsar which is in the eastern part
of the city. It is submitted that this led to foul odour and nuisance
to public. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order of the
learned Tribunal rather than subserving in public interest, would be
detrimental to the public interest.
16. Shri Nadkarni submitted that, in any case, in order to address the
concern of the respondents, the appellant-Corporation is in the process
of installing portable compactors with hook lifting mechanism to ensure
that the reject waste generated does not touch the ground. It is
submitted that the tenders for the same have already awarded to one
M/s Global Waste Management and the installation of the machinery
would be completed by December 2024. He further submitted that
the construction of shed to cover the reject area would also be
completed by December 2024. Shri Nadkarni further submitted that
the appellant-Corporation would construct bitumen road to the Waste
384 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Segregation Plant and concrete the Reject Area immediately. This will
in turn enhance the clean transfer of waste and avoid accumulation
of water around the Waste Segregation Plant. He submitted that
though the appellant-Corporation desired to do it earlier, it could not
be done since the appellant-Corporation was facing objections from
protestors due to pendency of the present proceedings.
17. Shri Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-Concessionaire also supported the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant-Corporation. He submitted that the
respondent-Concessionaire specializes in processing food waste with
cutting edge anaerobic digestion technology – a process in which
microorganisms break down biodegradable waste to produce biogas
and organic manure. He submitted that, when cleaned and purified
to 96% purity, Bio CNG/CBG can replace fossil fuels such as LPG,
diesel, petrol, etc. It is further submitted that the anaerobic digestion is
an efficient and controlled biological process that productively utilises
waste in an enclosed space, rather than dumping it in a landfill,
which causes environmental harm through leaching, contamination
of groundwater, risk of fires, etc. It is further submitted that Indian
food waste is unique in its composition, with a high concentration of
antibacterial ingredients like turmeric and spices, and greases such
as ghee that cannot be broken down using conventional enzymes
and cultures. He submitted that the respondent-Concessionaire,
through years of research and experience, has successfully developed
enzymes, cultures, and processes to biologically break down Indian
food. It is submitted that the Project commissioned by the respondent-
Concessionaire, as a matter of fact, is environment friendly inasmuch
as it converts the food waste into biogas which has also been used
to run public transport buses in Pune City.
18. Shri Parameshwar submitted that, in order to carry out the conversion
of food waste into biogas, the respondent-Concessionaire has
established two plants – one in Baner and one in Talegaon. He
submitted that the site at Baner is a waste processing facility where
pre-segregated, non-compacted organic waste is received from the
appellant-Corporation. The waste is segregated again to remove
any non-biodegradable materials, and the residual organic waste is
crushed to make a slurry. The slurry produced is then transported to
a different site in Talegaon, which is about 34 kms away from Pune
City, where raw biogas is generated from the slurry.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 385

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

19. Shri Parameshwar submitted that though the reservation in the
Draft Development Plan is of 2002 which was sanctioned in 2008,
no challenge has been made in the OA challenging the reservation
of this Plot as GPP. He therefore joins Shri Nadkarni in submitting
that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is not
sustainable in law.
20. Shri Ninad Laud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 in both the matters submitted that the checklist prescribed by
the MPCB in 2003 would also apply to waste processing facility and
the same is not restricted to landfill sites. He submitted that, as per
the said checklist, no development zone of 500 meters is prescribed
for Municipal Solid Waste Processing Plants and Landfill sites. He
further submitted that a mere reservation in the municipal land will
not absolve the appellant-Corporation of the environmental obligation.
He submitted that the appellant-Corporation itself has sanctioned the
plans of the buildings where the residents of respondent No.1 reside.
Having sanctioned the Plans, the appellant-Corporation cannot run
away from its duty of preventing pollution in the area on account of GPP.
21. Insofar as the contention that the MPCB was only granting authorization
and not consent, Shri Laud submitted that merely because the MPCB
was following a particular practice, it cannot absolve the appellant-
Corporation of obtaining consent under the Water Act, 1974 or the
Air Act, 1981 which are statutory requirements. Shri Laud submitted
that the 2003 checklist is traceable to 2000 Rules.
22. Shri Laud further submitted that, a perusal of the Joint Inspection
Committee Report itself would reveal that the Joint Inspection officials
felt prevalence of odour in and around the plant premises. He further
submitted that the Joint Inspection Committee also found that the
segregation rejects has been transported in open truck without any
cover. He has submitted that the said Report also suggests that
such open carriage would cause nuisance during transportation.
He therefore submitted that it is clear that the GPP was causing
pollution in the area thereby making the life of the residents of
respondent No. 1 miserable. He submitted that, not only that even
the suggestions which are given by the National Engineering and
Environment Research Institute14 have also not been implemented.

14 Hereinafter referred to as the “NEERI”.
386 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

23. Shri Laud, in the alternative, submitted that, in the event this Court
is inclined to hold that the GPP is entitled to continue its operations,
the Court should issue stringent directions so that the residents are
not compelled to suffer the pollution.
24. Shri Kaushik, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
MPCB also accepts the position that, at the relevant time i.e. when
the GPP commenced, the MPCB was following the practice of only
granting authorization and only after its circular dated 6th September
2021, it has started granting consent. He therefore submitted that
accordingly, the first consent was granted on 1st November 2022 and
the second consent has been granted on 16th March 2024.
25. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the materials placed on record.
26. A perusal of the proposed Land Use Map for village Balewadi,
Baner which was notified on 31st December 2002 would reveal that
in the said Plan, Plot No. 48/2/1 has been reserved for GPP. Plot
Nos. 49/289/50 and 7 have been shown in Green Belt. The Draft
Development Plan was published under Section 28(4) of the MRTP
Act on 30th November 2005. In the said Plan also, Plot No. 48/2/1
has been shown as reserved for GPP. Plot Nos. 49/289/50 and 7
have been reserved for Bio-diversity Park (BDP). The Government of
Maharashtra vide notification dated 18th September 2008 sanctioned
the said Draft Development Plan. It could thus clearly be seen that
right from 2002, the Plot in question has been reserved for GPP.
As already observed hereinabove, the first building was granted
commencement certificate on 27th December 2005 whereas the
second was granted commencement certificate on 25th March 2008
and all other, that is 17 buildings, have been granted commencement
certificate only after 2008. It is thus clear that the commencement
certificate insofar as the first building is concerned is also after the
Draft Development Plan was statutorily notified. The commencement
certificates insofar as all other buildings are also after the Draft
Development Plan was sanctioned by the State Government. It is
thus clear that the commencement certificates in respect of all the
buildings are after the date on which the Plot was reserved for GPP.
27. The learned Tribunal while allowing OA of respondent No.1 has also
come to a conclusion that the GPP is also in violation of Rule 20
of 2016 Rules. For considering the correctness of the said finding
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 387

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

of the learned Tribunal, we will have to first consider as to which of
the Rules are to be applicable to the said GPP.
28. It is the contention of the appellant-Corporation that the GPP would
be covered by the 2000 Rules whereas it is the contention of the
respondent No. 1 that the same would be covered by the 2016 Rules.
29. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the 2016 Rules, the Rules were to be
given effect from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
The 2016 Rules were notified on 8th April 2016. As per Entry No. 7
under Rule 22 of the 2016 Rules, the time frame for establishment of
necessary infrastructure for implementation of these Rules was to be
created by the local bodies and other concerned authorities within a
period of two years from the date of the said Rules coming into force.
It is further to be noted that the application for authorization as per
sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the 2000 Rules was made by the appellant-
Corporation on 10th August 2015 in Form-I and the authorization was
granted in Form-III of the 2000 Rules on 2nd December 2015. The
processing plant also became operational on 17th December 2015.
It is also to be noted that the SEIAA granted Environment Clearance
in respect of the Organic Waste Management Plant at Talegaon,
Dabhade after public hearing on 1st February 2016. The GPP and the
Organic Waste Management Plant at Talegoan, Dabhade are part of
the same Concession Agreement which was entered into between
the appellant-Corporation and the respondent-Concessionaire on
30th March 2015. It could thus clearly be seen that the application for
grant of authorization, grant of authorization, grant of Environment
Clearance by the SEIAA and the commencement of the project
was all prior to 8th April 2016 i.e. the date on which the 2016 Rules
came into force.
30. It will also be relevant to refer to the Preamble of the said 2016
Rules, which reads thus:
“Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 (29 of 1986) and in supersession of the Municipal
Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000,
except as respect things done or omitted to be done
before such supersession, the Central Government hereby
makes the following rules for management of Solid Waste,
namely:-”
388 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

31. It could thus clearly be seen that the Preamble itself states that
though the 2016 Rules are in supersession of the 2000 Rules, they
will apply except as respect things done or omitted to be done before
such supersession.
32. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court
in the case of State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh,15 wherein this Court
after considering the earlier decisions has observed thus:
“16. The words “anything duly done or suffered thereunder”
used in clause (b) of Section 6 are often used by the
legislature in saving clause which is intended to provide that
unless a different intention appears, the repeal of an Act
would not affect anything duly done or suffered thereunder.
This Court in Hasan Nurani Malak v. S.M. Ismail, Asstt.
Charity Commr., Nagpur [AIR 1967 SC 1742] has held
that the object of such a saving clause is to save what
has been previously done under the statute repealed. The
result of such a saving clause is that the pre-existing law
continues to govern the things done before a particular
date from which the repeal of such a pre-existing law takes
effect. In Universal Imports Agency v. Chief Controller of
Imports and Exports [AIR 1961 SC 41 : (1961) 1 SCR
305] this Court while construing the words “things done”
held that a proper interpretation of the expression “things
done” was comprehensive enough to take in not only the
things done but also the effect of the legal consequence
flowing therefrom.”
33. It can thus be seen that this Court has in unequivocal terms held
that the term “things done” was comprehensive enough to take in not
only the things done but also the effect of the legal consequences
flowing therefrom.
34. In the present case, as already discussed hereinabove, the application
for authorization, the grant of authorization, the grant of Environment
Clearance by the SEIAA and the commencement of the GPP all have
taken place prior to 8th April 2016 i.e. the date on which the 2016
Rules came into force. As such, we hold that the learned Tribunal
has grossly erred in observing that the GPP in question was covered
by the 2016 Rules.

15 [2002] 1 SCR 1060 : (2002) 3 SCC 481 : 2002 INSC 84
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 389

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

35. The next finding of the learned Tribunal is with regard to the consent
under the Water Act or the Air Act. A perusal of the Minutes of the
11th Consent Committee Meeting of 2015-16 held on 9th November
2015 would clearly reveal that the MPCB was following the practice
of granting authorization under the 2000 Rules which covers all the
aspects of the consent. As such, MPCB did not find it necessary to
cover such processing plant for the consent management.
36. It will be relevant to refer to the Circular issued by the MPCB dated
6th September 2021, which reads thus:
“Board is receiving applications from solid waste
Management Facilities and ULBs for grant of consent
for installation and operation of the facility. As there is no
comprehensive categorization of all Solid waste processing
operations/activities in modified CPCB categorization for
Solid Waste Management, Board is not granting the consent
for Solid Waste Management Facility/operations/activities.
Presently, Board is granting authorization under The
Solid Waste Management rules, 2016, for setting up and
operation of solid waste management facilities.
The Board in its 176 th meeting held on 25/O2/2O2I
passed resolution on consent management for solid waste
processing plants / facilities and decided to grant Consent
to Establish/Operate for Solid Waste Management facilities.
The Consent fees is charged as per Env. Dept. GoM
GR dated 25.8.2011 to individual/Integrated Solid Waste
Management facility depending upon type of ULB. The
term of consent for Red, Orange, and Green category of
Industry is one, two and three years respectively”.
Local Bodies to pay the consent fees to the Board as per
the statement given below.
• Urban Local Bodies-
Sr. No. Urban Local Body Fees
1. Municipal Corporation Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Municipal Council Class-A Rs.50,000/-
3. Municipal Council Class-B Rs.5,000/-
4. Municipal Council Class-C Rs.2,000/-
390 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

• Other than Local Body-

Individual Operator/ Based on gross capital
Industry installing MSW investment as per prevailing
based processing plant. rules for industries.
Delegation of powers to various authorities for grant of
consent will be as per “revised delegation of powers for
consent Management” issued vide Office Order No. 12,
Dated- 23/12/2O2O.
Therefore, all Ros and SROs are hereby directed to
communicate all local Bodies/Cantonment Boards of
Concern area of jurisdiction for submission of application
to obtain Consent to Establish/Operate for setting up and
operation of existing as well as proposed solid waste
management facilities.”
37. It could thus be seen that prior to 6th September 2021, the MPCB
was not granting Consent for Solid Waste Management facility/
operations/activities. The MPCB was granting authorization for
setting up and operation of solid waste management facilities. Only
in the meeting dated 25th February 2021, a Resolution was passed
on consent management and it was decided to grant Consent
to operate for Solid Waste Management Facilities. Vide the said
communication, all ROs and SROs were directed to communicate
to all local Bodies/Cantonment Boards of concerned areas for
submission of applications to obtain Consent to establish/operate
for setting up and operation of existing as well as proposed Solid
Waste Management Facilities.
38. Admittedly, after the said date i.e. 6th September 2021, the Consent
to Operate was granted by the MPCB on 1st November 2022. The
said Consent to Operate has been further renewed till 30th September
2025 and authorization to set up and operate has been granted till
31st July 2027. It can thus clearly be seen that the MPCB started
granting Consent only after 6th September 2021 and prior to that, it
was only issuing a composite authorization. We find that the learned
Tribunal has failed to take this into consideration and as such, the
finding in that regard also deserves to be set aside.
39. The next contention is that the Checklist issued by the MPCB which
was published in 2003 would also apply to the GPP. The learned
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 391

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the said Checklist
specifically prescribes that no development zone of 500 metres was
required to be kept from the boundary of the landfill site. Further
relying on the Checklist, the learned counsel submitted that the buffer
zone of 500 metres was required to be kept from the Solid Waste
Processing Plant as well. A perusal of the said Checklist would
reveal that the requirement of no-development zone or a buffer zone
is only with regards to landfill sites. It can further be seen that the
Schedules framed under Rules 6 (1)(3) and 7 (2) of the 2000 Rules
prescribe separate Schedules for landfill sites on one hand and
Composting, Treated Leachates and Incineration by waste processing
or disposal facilities on the other hand. From the said Schedule-III
which is applicable to landfill sites, it can be seen that under clause
9, a buffer zone of no-development is required to be maintained
around the landfill site and the same shall be incorporated in the
Town Planning Department’s land use plans. However, insofar as
the Standards for Composting, Treated Leachates and Incineration
are concerned, the same read as under:
“3. In order to prevent pollution problems from compost
plant and other processing facilities, the following shall be
complied with, namely :-
i. The incoming wastes at site shall be maintained
prior to further processing. To the extent possible,
the waste storage area should be covered. If,
such storage is done in an open area, it shall be
provided with impermeable base with facility for
collection of leachate and surface water run-off
into lined drains leading to a leachate treatment
and disposal facility;
ii. Necessary precautions shall be taken to
minimise nuisance of odour, flies, rodents, bird
menace and fire hazard;
iii. In case of breakdown or maintenance of plant,
waste intake shall be stopped and arrangements
be worked out for diversion of wastes to the
landfill site;
iv. Pre-process and post-process rejects shall be
392 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

removed from the processing facility on regular
basis and shall not be allowed to pile at the site.
Recyclables shall be routed through appropriate
vendors. The non-recyclables shall be sent for
well designed landfill site(s).
v. In case of compost plant, the windrow area
shall be provided with impermeable base. Such
a base shall be made of concrete or compacted
clay, 50 cm thick, having permeability coefficient
less than 10 –7 cm/sec. The base shall be
provided with 1 to 2 per cent slope and circled
by lined drains for collection of leachate or
surface run-off;
vi. Ambient air quality monitoring shall be
regularly carried out particularly for checking
odour nuisance at down-wind direction on the
boundary of processing plant.”
40. We are therefore of the considered view that the contention of the
learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that under the 2000 Rules,
a buffer zone is required to be maintained insofar as the GPP is
concerned is without substance.
41. We further find that the finding of the learned Tribunal that initially the
plot where GPP was constructed was reserved for Bio-diversity Park
is also erroneous and factually incorrect. As discussed hereinabove,
the plot in question has been reserved for the GPP since inception
and it is only the adjoining plot which was reserved for the Bio-
diversity Park.
42. We are therefore of the considered view that the learned Tribunal
has erred in allowing the OA of the respondent No. 1 and directing
closure of the GPP. Apart from that, we find that the closure of the
GPP in question rather than subserving the public interest, would
be detrimental to public interest. If the GPP in question is closed,
the organic waste generated in the western part of Pune city would
be required to be taken all the way throughout the city to Hadapsar
which is in the eastern part of the city. This will undoubtedly lead to
foul odour and nuisance to the public.
43. It will be relevant to refer to clauses (q) and (v) of Rule 15 of the
2016 Rules, which read thus:
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 393

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

“15. Duties and responsibilities of local authorities
and village Panchayats of census towns and urban
agglomerations.- The local authorities and Panchayats
shall,-
…………..
(q) transport segregated bio-degradable waste to the
processing facilities like compost plant, bio-methanation
plant or any such facility. Preference shall be given for on
site processing of such waste;
……………
(v) facilitate construction, operation and maintenance
of solid waste processing facilities and associated
infrastructure on their own or with private sector participation
or through any agency for optimum utilization or various
components of solid waste adopting suitable technology
including the following technologies and adhering to the
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development
from time to time and standards prescribed by the Central
Pollution Control Board. Preference shall be given to
decentralized processing to minimize transportation cost
and environmental impacts such as-
a) bio-methanation, microbial composting,
vermi-composting, anaerobic digestion or any
other appropriate processing for bio-stabilisation
of biodegradable waste;
b) waste to energy processes including refused
derived fuel for combustible fraction of waste or
supply as feedstock to solid waste based power
plants or cement kilns;”
44. It can thus be seen that the 2016 Rules also give preference to the
on-site processing of the waste. It also emphasizes preference to
be given to decentralized processing to minimize transportation cost
and environmental impact. It has been submitted on behalf of the
appellant-Corporation that 48 such GPPs have been commissioned
throughout the city of Pune wherein the non-compacted, organic
waste is segregated to remove any non-biodegradable materials
and the residual organic waste is crushed to make a slurry. The said
394 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

slurry is then transported to a site in Talegaon where raw biogas is
generated from the slurry. At the Talegaon plant, biogas is produced
which is used for providing fuel to the public transport buses. As
such, the entire Project is environmentally friendly.
45. The approach of respondent No. 1 appears to be that such
a Facility though could be established in the vicinity of the
other buildings, it should not be established in their backyard.
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Bhavya Height Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai
Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Others 16
had an occasion to consider a similar situation, wherein the High
Court observed thus:
“36. …….. To this affidavit there are sketch plans annexed
prepared by the Petitioner’s architects. These propose that
the Monorail Station staircase be shifted to a point to the
south, directly in front of Rehab Building No. 5. In other
words, it would prima facie seem that this is the classic
NIMBY principle — Not In My Back Yard. For what the
Petitioner seems to be suggesting is that it is perfectly
all right if the lives of the residents of the seven-storey
slum rehab building (all previously slum dwellers) are
endangered by the same staircase, but the Petitioner’s
members’ interest must remain paramount. We cannot
and do not countenance any such submission.”
46. We agree with the said observations of the High Court.
47. We are therefore of the considered view that the impugned judgment
and order of the learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set
aside and the OA of the respondent No. 1 is to be dismissed.
48. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments
and orders dated 27th October 2020 passed by the learned Tribunal
in OA No. 210 of 2020 and dated 22nd December 2020 in Review
Application being No. 49 of 2020 are quashed and set aside. OA
No. 210 of 2020 filed by respondent No. 1 is also dismissed.
49. However, before we part with the judgment, we find it necessary
to caution the appellant-Corporation as well as the respondent-

16 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1075
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 395

Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch and Others

Concessionaire that they should take necessary steps so that the
residents residing in the nearby buildings do not have to suffer on
account of foul odour. The NEERI, in its Report, had made the
following recommendations:
“Recommendations:
Based on the observations and good engineering practices,
following suggestions are offered:
Plant A:
• The slurry making area needs proper cover in the
hopper area to reduce odour / foul smell,
• A suitable odour control system / misting system (e.g
carbon filters, etc) needs to be installed immediately,
• Better material of construction and design could be
employed to avoid corrosion problems and frequent
shut downs,
• The space is too congested for capacity enhancement.
PMC may think of additional/alternative space,
• The food bags need to be stored properly before
using them.
• Slurry sampling and analysis needs to be done
frequently to understand the decomposition of food
waste and control it to the level so that maximum
methane can be produced in the Talegaon plant.
• The technology provider must also look into reducing
the transporting cost between slurry making facility
at Baner and Talegaon plant by finding an optimum
slurry density.”
50. We direct the appellant-Corporation and the respondent-
Concessionaire to ensure that all the aforesaid suggestions made
by NEERI should be strictly complied with. We further direct the
appellant-Corporation to install the portable compactors with hook
mechanisms so as to ensure that the reject waste does not touch
the ground by 31st December 2024.
51. The appellant-Corporation is further directed to construct bitumen
road to the Waste Segregation Plant and concrete the reject area
396 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

which will enhance clean transfer of waste and avoid accumulation
of water around the Waste Segregation Plant.
52. We further direct the appellant-Corporation as well as the respondent-
Concessionaire to construct a shed so as to cover the reject area
by 31st December 2024.
53. We further direct the appellant-Corporation/respondent-Concessionaire
to carry out plantation with thick density so that there would be a
green cover on all the sides of the GPP.
54. A perusal of the sanctioned plan would reveal that, on one side, there
is a reservation for the Bio-diversity Park. As such, the plantation
would be required to be done to cover the three sides.
55. Insofar as the Bio-diversity Park is concerned, we direct the State
Government to consider the possibility of growing Miyawaki forests
so as to provide green lungs to the nearby areas.
56. We further direct the NEERI to conduct an environmental audit of
the GPP every six months and in turn, the appellant-Corporation
and the respondent-Concessionaire are directed to ensure that the
suggestions made in the said audit are strictly complied with.
57. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the Case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan