BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONAL BENCH

CHENNAI
Application No. 100 of 2015 (SZ)

1. M. Paul Rose
Vice-President
Kombuthurai Oor Nala Committee
92, Kombuthurai
Kayalpattanam Municipality
Thiruchendur Taluk
Tuticorin District
2. M. Senthamil Selvan
Secretary
Kombuthurai Mangrove Forest Protection Committee
CEDA Trust, Tsunami Rehabilitation Project
Kombuthurai
Kayalpattinam Muncipality
Thiruchendur Taluk
Tuticorin District

....Applicants
Vs.

1. The Secretary to Government

Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
State Government of Tamil Nadu
Chennai
2. The Commissioner
Town & Country Planning
807, Anna Salai
Chennai-600 002
3. Deputy Director
Town and Country Planning
Tirunelveli Division
Tirunelveli District

4. The District Collector

Collectorate
Tuticorin
5. The Member Secretary
Local Town Planning Officer
Kayalpattinam
Tuticorin District

6. The Commissioner
Kayalpattinam Municipality
Kayalpattinam
Thirucenthur Taluk
Tuticorin District
7. The Chairman
Kayalpattinam Municipality
Kayalpattinam
Thirucenthur Taluk
Tuticorin District
8. The District Environmental Engineer
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
C7 and C9, SIPCOT Industrial Complex
Meelavittan
Tuticorin District
9. The District Management Coastal Regulation Zone Committee
Represented by its Chairman cum the District Collector
Tuticorin District
10. M/s. S. K. & Co.
C3, 3rd Floor
Vijaya Gem Appartment
State Bank Colony III
Salem
11. The union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
New Delhi

.....Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant

Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
Counsel for the Respondents
1. M/s.M.K. Subramanian &
Mr. Kamalesh Kannan
2. M/s. Abdul Saleem,
Mr. S. Saravanan &
Mrs. Vidyalakshmi
3. Mr. R. Vishnu
4. Mrs. Yasmeen Ali
5. Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi
6. Mrs. C. Sangamithrai

- Counsel for Respondent No. 1, 4 & 9

- Counsel for Respondent No. 2, 3, 5& 6

- Counsel for Respondent No. 7
- Counsel for Respondent No. 8
- Counsel for Respondent No. 10
- Counsel for Respondent No.11

ORDER
QUORAM
Honble Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member)
Honble Professor Dr. R. Nagendran (Expert Member)
_________________________________________________________________
Delivered by Justice Dr.P. Jyothimani dated 25th January, 2016
_________________________________________________________________
1) Whether the judgement is allowed to be published on the internet

----- yes / no

2) Whether the judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Report -----yes / no

1. The 1st applicant is stated to be the Vice president of the Kombuthurai Oor Nala
Committee which has authorised him to file the application in the resolution dated 0504-2015 and the 2nd applicant is stated to be Secretary of Kombuthurai Mangrove
Forest Protection Committee functioning under the auspices of CEDA Trust which
has undertaken many projects towards Tsunami rehabilitation and projecting various
environmental causes. The applicants are stated to be aggrieved by the action of 6th
respondent Municipality in attempting to setup a municipal land fill facility in
Survey. No. 278 Kayalpattinam South village which according to the applicants is in
violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification,1991, Municipal Solid Wastes
(Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (MSW Rules), Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution )
Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and other provisions
of law and therefore prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the said
respondents from establishing/setting up of any composting yard or bio-methanation
plant or any solid waste land fill or procuring facility in the said Survey Number and
also sought for a direction against respondent Nos. 1 and 11 to initiate appropriate
action against 6th and 7th respondents for violating EIA Notification, 2006 and to
direct respondent Nos.1, 8 and 11 to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 6
and 7 for violating MSW Rules 2000, Water Act 1974, Air Act1981 and to restore its
status quo by demolishing all constructions.
2. According to the applicants, the Kayalpattinam Municipality which is situated on the
coastal Bay of Bengal has a total population of 50,000 divided into 18 wards, it being

one of the very thickly populated areas in Tuticorine District having a total area of 12
sq km. As on date, the said Municipality has been upgraded as 2nd grade Municipality
and nearly 8000 MT of waste generated every day is dumped in Papprapalli region in
ward No.13. It is stated that based on the allotment of fund by the Government for the
purchase of land and setting up of biomethanation plant, many areas were considered
and rejected and ultimately S.R.No. 278 has been selected by the Municipality with
vested interest of hiking the market value to enable real estate business to flourish and
for the reason best known to the Municipality. The said area in S.R.No. 278 is
covered in 25 acres and according to the applicant it is in the midst of thickly
populated area and is situated within 500 m of Kombuthurai Kadakudi Village and is
an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) situated within 30m from Thamarabharani river
estuary catering to the needs of nearly 10000 acres of agricultural lands. It is also a
rich biodiversity area with an abundant scope for development of mangrove forest. In
fact, 1 lakh saplings of mangrove were planted in the year 2005 covering 20 ha
situated within 50 m from the proposed land site situated at S.R.No.278. The
mangrove forests which are of great environmental significance and socio economic
value are situated on the east coast along the Bay of Bengal to an extent of 60%, on
the west coast and to an extent of 27% and 13% on the Andaman Nicobar Islands
with larger deltas and runoffs due to the presence of mighty rivers. It serves hatchery
for fishes and prawns, prevents soil erosion, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and
contributes to rain forest. The mangroves are protected under the Coastal Regulation
Zone Notification, EIA Notification 1994 & 2006, Indian Forest Act 1927 and Forest
(Conservation) Act 1980.
3. It is the case of the applicants that 2/3 portion of S.R.No. 278 has been declared as
CRZ-1 which includes the approach road to the landfill site and approach road to
S.R.No. 278. The site proposed is prone to cyclones and storms as it is situated near
Kayalpattinam sea area and a large number of cashew trees have been planted in a
stretch of 15 km which are situated 200 m from the site. According to the applicants,
the area is a breeding ground for fishes and the environmental factors dictate that any
developmental activity near the area like landfill and composting yard will affect the
ecological balance by virtue of large scale dumping of municipal waste resulting in

leachate. It is also stated that the site selected is located within 500 m of sea and
closer to HTL and therefore within CRZ zone and no clearance has been obtained as
per CRZ Notification, 2011. Even though such clearance cannot be granted, even the
road to the site would be required to be built under the CRZ-1 area.
4.

It is also stated that the State Pollution Control Board (the Board) has rejected the
proposal for landfill and compost yard in S.R.No. 278 and directed the Municipality
to find alternative site in the communication dated 12-01-2015. Further, the said
respondent No. 6 and 7 have not obtained consent from the Board under Water and
Air Acts which contemplate that no person shall without previous consent of the
Board establish or operate any Industrial Plant, for which the applicants have relied
upon a Supreme Court Judgement in A.P Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V.
Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62. Further, it is stated that while the MSW Rules, 2000
require a mandatory prior permission by the Board by way of authorisation which can
be done only after considering the views of other agencies and in as much as the
Board has already rejected the application for Consent to Operate, in the absence of
any permission under the MSW Rules the 6th and 7th respondents have no right to
proceed with the project. The applicants have also narrated that the site selection itself
is not in conformity with the mandate of MSW Rules, 2000 firstly, because it is the
Development Authority which has to identify the landfill which shall be based on
examination of environmental issues decided in coordination with Department of
Urban Development of State or the Union Territory with proper documentation of
construction plan as well as closure plan, the biomedical waste should be disposed in
accordance with the Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 and
hazardous waste to be managed in accordance with Hazardous Waste (Management
and Handling) Rules 1989, the landfill site should be large enough to last for 20-25
years, it should be away from human habitation clusters, forest areas, water bodies,
monuments, national parks, wetlands and places of important cultural, historical and
religious interests, maintenance of a buffer zone of no development area
incorporating it in the Town Planning and Land-Use Plans and that the site selection
is improper since it is close to at least 2 schools which are situated within 800 m and
the St.Stephens Church within 400 m and therefore, the selection of the site without

considering the above said environmental factors are prone to cause harmful effects.
The subsequent resolution of Municipality dated 25-04-2014 in approving the tender
in favour of 10th respondent for construction of Composting and Bio Methanation
Plant giving a chance to do away with the compulsory requirement of 500 m no
development buffer zone is a statutory violation and therefore all the said resolutions
as well as choosing of the tender are void and liable to be quashed. It is stated that in
fact the Chairman of 7th respondent Municipality has recorded an objection and in
spite of the majority resolution, the work order was issued in favour of 10th
respondent on 15-12-2014.
5. It is further stated by the applicant that the 6th respondent has not obtained prior EC as
required under Entry No.7(i) of schedule to EIA Notification, 2006 wherein Common
Municipal Solid Waste Facility is listed in category B requiring EC from State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). In the absence of prior EC, the
6th and 7th respondents cannot carry on any construction activity and therefore
construction of compound wall by the said respondents without prior EC is not
permissible and even as on date the Municipality has not submitted EC before the
Authority concerned. The applicants also relied upon the Judgement of this Tribunal
in Rayons Enlighting Humanity & another v. MoEF in Application No.86 of 2013,
where the MSW facility was directed to be closed. The applicant also questions the
project as opposed to the Judgements of Honble Supreme Court in Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board v. K.C. Kanjappa and Ors., and State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant singh Chaufal & Ors., wherein the Honble Supreme Court
has held that before a project come into force a balance is to be stuck between
sustainable development and environment and that was held even in the land
acquisition process and as far the present project of the 6th and 7th respondents are
concerned, the same are to be brought for Environmental Impact Assessment. Raising
the above points and also other legal grounds including that the act of said
respondents violates the rights conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and there was no Environmental Impact Assessment study made in this case and
consequently no public hearing was conducted and the applicants have made many

representations and as the same were not considered, the application has been filed
before this Tribunal with the prayers stated above.
6. The 6th respondent, Municipality in its reply has stated that the Kayalpattinam
Municipality is a second grade Municipal and the Municipality has applied for
Authorisation for the proposed Municipality Solid Waste Facility at SF No. 278/1
Kayalpattinam village before the Board on 08-12-2014 and the application was
retuned saying that the site was classified as falling under water logged area as per
the Revised Coastal Regulation Zone Map, with a direction to the Municipality to
select an alternate site for MSW processing facility in the communication dated 1201-2015. It is stated that after subdividing the site as S.No. 278/1B, the Municipality
has again applied on 24-03-2015 afresh requesting to issue NOC for MSW Facility at
S. No.278/1B in the extent of 4.2 acres at Kayalpattinam South village. The
Municipality was also directed to furnish the Land Use Classification Certificate and
a certificate from Anna University Remote Sensing Department to show that the land
does not fall under Coastal Regulation Zone. Accordingly, the Anna University
Remote Sensing Department conducted a GPS Survey regarding the distance of the
proposed site at 278 /1B and HTL of sea coast and from the Creek on the eastern
side of the proposed site. On submission of the said report, the Joint Chief
Environmental Engineer, Madurai in his proceedings dated 25-05-2015 has granted
Authorisation.
7. In addition to that, the Municipality has also made online application under Water and
Air Acts for consent on 10-04-2015 for the proposed Biomethanation Plant to install
an electric power Plant of 400 KV capacity to generate electricity by digesting of
waste vegetable, market waste etc., in an extent of 0.3 acre within S. R. No. 278/1B.
The additional technical details required by the Board for the Bioamethanation Plant
were furnished on 11-05-2015 and ultimately after placing before the Zonal Level
consent Clearance Committee, consent order was issued on 24-06-2015 under Water
and Air Acts in favour of Municipality for installing 5 TPD capacity Biomethanation
cum Power Generation Plant. It is also stated that the 6th respondent Municipality has
a total population of 40542 in an extent of 12.50 sq km. It is also stated that
Kayalpattinam Municipal area generates 12T of municipal solid waste every day out

of which 8T are biodegradable waste and the Municipality has no proper compositing
yard as there is no sufficient land, apart from the fact that there is no segregation
facility to treat the municipal solid waste and at present the Municipality is dumping
the waste in Papaarapalli region which is within 200 m of the habitation. It is stated
that while it is the responsibility of the Municipality to obtain Authorisation under
Solid waste (Management and handling) Rules 2000, the Papaarapalli region in which
the municipal solid wastes are dumped is inadequate for further development. With
an allotted amount of Rs. 5 lakhs by the Government for purchase of Compost Yard
in 2006, the Municipality has been searching for a suitable land. It is further stated
that the Municipality has been allotted Rs. 90 lakhs to process the biodegrable waste
into power generation and organic manure as by-products and the same was unable to
be started for want of land facility. The Collector has suggested three places on 0801-2013, a place for Biomethanation Plant along with a big ground site situated in
392/5 which was subsequently rejected by the Council since those sites were in the
midst of habitation. Ultimately, the Regional Executive Engineer has inspected and
suggested 278/1B for setting up the Biomethanation Plant as per inspection dated 1710-2014. The Council had also approved it in the resolution dated 11-10-2013 and 2511-2014. It is stated that while S.R.No. 392/5, burial ground can be used for the
Biomethanation Plant it is inadequate for establishing the Composting Yard. Both the
Biomethanation Plant as well as Composting Yard must be situated adjacent to each
other to be cost effective and that is the reason why the Council has resolved to have
both the Biomethanation Plant and Composting Yard at S.R.No. 278/1B. It is stated
that no development zone will be mentioned around landfill site and incorporated in
Town Planning regarding land use plans. It is further stated that 278/1B is surrounded
by vacant lands with thorny plants on all four sides and there are no habitations
within 950 m which is more than 500 m as per the Rules. It is also stated that the total
extent is 4.5 acres and there are no water channels nearby except a back water creek
which is situated 121 m from the shortest boundary of the site and the HTL is at a
distance of 535 m as per the GPS survey done by Anna University, an authorised
agency of MoEF and CC, Government of India.

8. It is also stated that there are no mangrove vegetation in the vicinity and the same is
also mentioned in the report of Anna University and Casuarina trees are grown along
the coastal line of the sea. The approach road will be formed on the western side of
the proposed site which is outside of the CRZ area and there is a cart track which is
available at Kayalpattinam south part. The HTL on the eastern side of the proposed
site is at a distance of 530 m. It is also stated that every area in the Municipal Zone is
prone to cyclone irrespective of the location and that is not one of the criteria for
establishment of a Solid Waste Management Facility. As the proposed site is 530 m
away from the HTL of sea, no clearance is required from Coastal Zone Management
Authority as per CRZ Notification 2011. It is also stated that the contract has been
finalised for establishment of Biomethanation Plant and placed before the Council
and work order was given. The Municipality has also obtained new Patta for the
subdivided area and applied for authorisation on 24-03-2015 and applied online for
the establishment of a Biomethanation Power Plant in the remaining areas of 0.3 acres
on 10-04-2015 and thus the Municipality has complied with all legal requirements.
That apart, the Municipality has applied for Authorisation under MSW Rules, 2000
apart from applying separately for consent under Air and Water Acts. It is stated that
regarding Bio-medical wastes, as per the rules the hospitals are responsible and such
waste in Tuticorine District is collected through a special vehicle and taken to
Common Biomedical Treatment Facility at Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. The
hazardous waste generated from industries are disposed of, as per Hazardous Waste
(Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 which has no relevance to the municipal
solid waste. There are no schools, hospitals or residences surrounding the proposed
project site up to 1 km except a Church which is located at distance of 1 km on the
southern side. The Municipal Council considered all environmental aspects and
public interest before deciding to set up the composting yard. The Municipality is a
small town including CRZ zone with major area occupied by habitation and all
factors were considered before choosing the place. The project which is needed for a
civilised society to avoid dumping of waste in open and burning, is a Government
project proposed by following all mandatory procedures enunciated by law. The legal
grounds raised by the applicant are denied and it is especially stated that after 9 years

as there are no alternate locations available and the plant itself has been proposed for
maintaining clean environment in the habitation, the site has been chosen. It is stated
that the applicant who originally filed a Writ Petition in High Court of Madras in its
Madurai Bench in W.P. No. 7730 of 2015 which was disposed of, has moved before
this Tribunal for the same prayer in the above said application. Therefore, it is stated
that the application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
9. The 7th respondent, the Chairman of the 6th respondent Municipality has filed a
separate reply. It is the case of the 7th respondent Chairman that S.R.No. 278 which is
a Patta land belongs to the then Chairman of Municipality is situated close and within
CRZ area and in spite of the fact it is not known as to how the Municipality has
passed a resolution in choosing S.R.No. 278 and the site selection was to favour the
then Chairman. S.R.No.392/5 which was once accepted as suitable site was rejected
by the 6th respondent Municipality for no reason. Subsequently, in respect of another
land in S.R.No. 42/1 Kayalpattinam South village- Burial Poramboke land and the
said request was also turned down.
10. It is stated by the7threspondent that the Superintending Engineer of Commissionerate
of Municipal Administration (CMA) has already opined that the proposed site is not
suitable for setting up of Biomethanation Plant as it is situated close to the sea and
lacking all facilities. It is stated by the 7th respondent that by brushing aside the
environmental issues contract has been awarded to the 10th respondent which was
suppressed by the 6th respondent Municipality while seeking approval from the
Council. The 6th respondent has chosen to give tender in favour of 10th respondent on
ground of lowest bidding and the same is against objection raised regarding the
setting up of Biomethanation Plant in S.R.No. 278. The proposal to setup the plant at
S.R.No. 278, in spite of the fact that it is no development zone, according to the 7th
respondent is only to promote real estate. It is stated by the 7th respondent that he has
written a letter to Chief Secretary to Government on 27-11-2014 that 278/1 is not
suitable for Biomethanation Plant and there are other lands available. Therefore, the
8threspondent has rightly returned the application filed by the 6th respondent for
authorisation on 12-01-2015 and the said application has been resubmitted
unauthorisedly. It is stated that the conduct of the 6th respondent in not obtaining

10

necessary permission from Coastal Zone Regulatory Authority makes the project
illegal and opposed to CRZ Notification, 2011 apart from the fact that the proposed
project site is eco sensitive. The 7th respondent has stated that there is no approach
road and therefore the project should not be permitted. It is also stated that the entire
area is classified as water logged zone and therefore the subdivision made by the 6th
respondent is not going to change the zonal character. It is further stated that S.R.No.
278/1 and 278/1B are close to sea and estuary and the same are not suitable for setting
up of Biomethanation Plant or Compost Yard as per the Ready Reckoner issued by
the Government of Tamil Nadu on municipal solid waste management for urban local
bodies in 2008 and an environment impact assessment has to be done mandatorily in
respect of the project as the project is covered under EIA Notification. It is stated that
the 8th respondent who has originally refused to give permission under MSW Rules
and consent under Water and Air Acts has changed its stand and granted consent
under Water and Air Acts simply because the original area was subdivided. It is
stated that the authorisation granted on 25- 05-2015 deals only with landfill and not
Biomethanation Plant and the Authorisation itself is without application of mind and
should be treated as non est. The non application is clear on the face of record as one
of the conditions in the Authorisation refers to the Airport of Madurai and to file
annual report which has nothing to do with any project of the Municipality.
11. According to the 7th respondent, the consent order under Water and Air Acts have lot
of infirmities since the same were passed based on fabricated records. Normally, in
the consent order general conditions would be followed by additional conditions
while in the consent given by the 8th respondent it is vice versa which itself shows
that it is sham and liable to be rejected. It is stated that the official respondents are
bent upon clearing the way for project proponent ignoring the CRZ Notification and
provisions of MSW Rules. In as much as the consent order has failed to consider that
the proposed land (CRZ 1) area is close to mangrove forest, the Biomethanation Plant
as well as Compost Yard and the scheme are to be rejected.
12. The 8th respondent, District Environment Engineer in his reply has stated that he has
inspected the site proposed by the 6th respondent Unit in S.F.No. 278/1B for MSW
processing facility and Biomethanation Plant on 15-07-2015 in the presence of the

11

Municipal Commissioner. It is stated that the Municipality has applied for

Authorisation of its Municipal Solid Waste Facility in S.F.No. 278/1 on 12-01-2015
in the total area of 25 acres which contains a water logged creek and originally the
application was returned on 12-01-2015. The Municipality again applied on 24-032015 for the subdivided portion of 278/1B in the extent of 4.5 acres in the extreme
south west of the total extent in S.F.No. 278 and the S.F. No 278/1B is out of CRZ
Zone. It is also stated that the distance between the proposed site and creek is 121 m
and the distance from the HTL is 535 m as confirmed by the GPS survey conducted
by Anna University. Therefore, it is stated categorically by the 8th respondent that
S.No.278/1B is out of CRZ Zone and does not attract the CRZ Notification dated 0601-2011. In addition to the above said report the 8th respondent has also filed a reply
and it is reiterated that the proposal was viewed from environmental aspects and out
of total 25 acres in S.F.No. 278, after subdivision S.F.No. 278/1B in an extent of 4.2
acres which is outside CRZ for which a 2nd application was made for having
municipal solid waste management facility in 4.2 acres and Biomethanation Plant in
0. 3 acre. It is also stated that the said Survey Number is surrounded by vacant lands
and no habitation is situated nearby as the Kayalpattinam South village is 950 m from
the project site on the southern direction. The nearest creek is at a distance of 121m
and HTL is at a distance of 530 m as identified by the authorised agency approved by
the MoEF and CC, Government of India namely Anna University, Chennai. It is also
stated that there are no mangroves in the vicinity. The Municipal Commissioner has
given an undertaking that the approach road will be formed outside the CRZ area, on
the western side of project site. The 8th respondent has given reason for return by
Municipality on 08-12- 2014 stating that the said application was for the total extent
of S.No.278 which contained water logged area and therefore it was returned with a
request to select alternate site and not rejected. Subsequently, on 24.03.2015, the
Municipality applied for authorisation in respect of the subdivided S.R.No 278/1B
having found the said area is an extent of 4.5 acres out of which 4.2 acres was
earmarked for establishing a MSW facility and 0.3 acre for Biomethanation power
plant, and as both the proposed sites are situated away from the CRZ zone, the Board
has given Authorisation as well as Consent.

12

13. It is also stated by the Board that the present application filed by the 6th respondent
Municipality for establishment of a MSW project facility for a single local body. It is
stated that entry 7 (i) of EIA Notification 2006 relates to common Municipal facility,
common for more than 1 local body in which event it is listed as B Category. Being a
single local body, the present proposal does not attract the provisions of EIA
Notification, 2006. The nearest creek namely water logged area is situated at a
distance of 121 m from the proposed S.F.No. No.278/ 1B and there are no water
bodies found in the GPS Survey by Anna University. In fact, the said survey indicated
that there are no mangroves. The proposed project is not an income based
developmental activitiy but to bring out better quality life in the community.
14. The 10th respondent contractor in the reply has denied the contention raised by the
applicant as conjectures and surmises. The processing facility of the 6th respondent
ensures that the solid waste collected around the vicinity is put to effective use for
production of biogas which helps in generation of electricity which is a form of
renewable energy to be used for the welfare of residents of the Municipality. Such
facilities are prevalent in various local bodies in the urban and rural areas. It is for
proper handling of waste collection and utilisation for generation of energy, in which
State of Tamil Nadu is a pioneer in implementation of the such projects. It is stated
that the 10th respondent has been a successful tenderer by following procedure
prescribed by law and in a transparent manner. Pursuant to the work order issued,
construction commenced in the early part of 2015 and the identification was done to
ensure that the site duly complied with CRZ Notification and is situated far away
from the river bed of Tamarabharani river. According to 10th respondent, this
application is filed without verifying the factual circumstances. The plant is proposed
only in 278/1B and not in S.No.278/1 and therefore the application is liable to be
rejected summarily. The 10th respondent has reiterated all the averments made by the
6th and 8th respondents and stated that it is the bonafide tenderer having been selected
in a transparent manner and the intention of applicant is only to stall the project which
has been undertaken by 6th respondent and substantial part of the work has been
completed and because of the conduct of applicants the public money should not be
allowed to be wasted.

13

15. Mr. T. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants has taken pains to
explain the term Common Municipal Solid Waste Facility contemplated under
item 7 (i) of the schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 stating that it means Common
Land filling Yard and Biomethanation Plant. According to him, the Compositing
Yard and Biomethanation Plant are components of a single solid waste management
facility proposed by the 6th respondent and they are not separate entities and therefore
mere non mentioning of Biomethanation Plant does not mean that it does not require
EC. It is also his submission that by the 6th respondent Municipality, separately
applying for Authorisation and Consent to Establish for treatment facility has
committed breach of Rule 4 (ii) MSW Rules, which enables an application in Form 1
for grant of Authorisation. The proposed facility includes landfill and according to
him the project as a whole is a waste processing and disposal facility requiring
authorisation and therefore there is no separate authorisation to be obtained for
composting yard. The conduct of the 6th respondent in applying separately to the
Board for Biomethanation Plant and Authorisation for composting yard is misreading
of Rule 3(iv) and (vi) of MSW Rules and therefore the authorisation as well as
consent stated to have been obtained by the 6th respondent is not valid. It is his
submission that the statute is to be read, keeping in mind the intention of its makers
and if more than one meaning is possible, the Court has to interpret based on the true
intention of the legislature. He has also relied up on the Judgement in Surjit Singh v.
Union of India, and Sarajul Sunni B v. Union of India to substantiate his
contention. This has also been followed by the National Green Tribunal in respect of
the Sewage Treatment Plant under item 7(h) and 7(i) of the schedule to EIA
Notification in the case of Kehar Sigh v. State of Haryana. The liberal interpretation
of the provisions especially in respect of the welfare legislation has been reiterated by
the National Green Tribunal in Haat Supreme Wastech Pvt Ltd and Others v. State
of Haryana and ors. Therefore, according to the learned Council, the MSW facility
proposed by the 6th respondent requires prior EC under the EIA Notification 2006.
According to the learned Counsel, the Common Municipal Solid Waste Management
Facility stated in 7(i) of Schedule to EIA Notification refers to the need of city or a
region and it need not be confused with either centralised or integrated scheme which

14

may relate to more than one town or city. He has also relied upon an order passed by
the NGT in Invertis University v. Union of India and Ors., dated 18th July 2013 by
the Principal Bench and therefore according to the learned Counsel, the 6th respondent
Municipality should have obtained prior EC under the EIA Notification 2006. As the
said EC has not been obtained, the project has no legs to stand.
16. Mr.Vishnu, learned Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent has referred to the MSW
Rules particularly with reference to schedule 4, which speaks about the standards for
Composting, Treated leachates and Incineration. The technology in that regard is to
be duly approved by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). In this case, since
such approval is not available, the scheme is not valid in accordance with law. Both
Mr.T.Mohan as well as Mr. Vishnu have also contended that there is total non
application of mind in the orders passed by the official respondents and it is clear that
the District Environmental Engineer is not designated authority.
17. Per contra, it is the contention of Mr. Abdul Saleem, the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the 6th respondent and Mrs. Yasmeen Ali appearing for 8th
respondent and Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi appearing for the10th respondent that the
word common

used in the EIA Notification, 2006 has to be construed in

accordance with the provisions of the MSW Rules, 2000 and Rule 4 of the MSW
Rules, 2000 nowhere uses the word common but it only states about the grant of
authorisation for setting up of waste processing and disposal facility including
landfills which according to them can be applied separately and only in case where
for all the facilities in combination if application is made it should be treated as a
Common Waste Management Scheme. Otherwise, their submission is that the word
common means more than one Municipalities and if a single Municipality proposes a
scheme, such Municipality has to approach under the MSW Rules, 2000 to the State
Board and no prior EC is required. According to the learned Counsel, as the valid
Authorisation as well as the Consent under Water and Air Acts are available as on
date, it cannot be said that the proposed scheme by the 6th respondent cannot be
carried on. It is their submission that the orders of the National Green Tribunal relied
upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the instant case. It is their case that neither the applicant nor the 7th

15

respondent have raised an issue that proposed technology to be followed by the 6th
respondent for dealing with municipal solid waste is not in accordance with law. They
have also reiterated that the application has been filed only with a political motive of
thwarting a public project which cannot be allowed.
18. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant as well as respondents
elaborately, referred to the pleadings, documents filed by the parties apart from the
Judgements of Honble Supreme Court as well as National Green Tribunal and have
carefully considered the issues involved in this case and accordingly we frame the
following issues to be answered in this case.
1. Whether the scheme of setting up of the Municipal Solid Waste Processing
Facility proposed by the 6threspondent in S.R.No. 278/1B requires a valid
prior EC under EIA Notification, 2006 in addition to the Authorisation under
the MSW Rules, 2000 and the Consent to Establish under the Water Act, 1974
and Air Act 1981?
2. Whether the 6th respondent in framing the proposal for the Municipal Solid
Waste Processing Facility has violated the provisions of the MSW Rules,
2000, Water Act, 1974 and Air Act 1981?
3. Whether the project of the 6th respondent should be allowed to be carried on
or not?
As all the issues are interconnected we have decided to answer all the issues together.
19. From the documents filed and pleadings made it is clear that originally the 6th
respondent Municipality has applied on 08-12-2014 for Authorisation for the
proposed Municipal Solid Waste Facility at S.F.No.278/1 at Kayalpattinam village.
The extent of the entire S.F.No. 278/1 is admittedly 25 acres and it contained a water
logged portion also. As the entire extent applied for originally comes within the
Revised Coastal Zone Regulation, the 8th respondent has returned the said application
on 12-01-2015 with the following direction:
While processing the application filed by you for the Authorisation of
Composting Yard proposed at R.S.No.278/1 of Kayalpattinam, South
village, it was found that the site falls under water logged area as per the

16

revisedCRZ map sheet No.27 containing Srivaikuntam Taluk, part of

Thoothukudi Taluk and Tiruchendur Taluk of Thoothukudi District.
Hence, the application filed by you for the issue of authorisation for the
composting yard at the proposed site cannot be processed further and
application is retuned herewith and requested to select alternate site for
considering the issue of authorisation to the composting yard.
20. However, the 6th respondent Municipality has issued work order on 15-12-2014 to the
10th respondent. Challenging the said issuance of work order dated 15-12-2014 and
the resolution of Municipality dated 11-10-2013 and 25-11-2014 and also directing
the respondents to select alternate site for setting up of bio-methanation plant as per
the proceedings of the Board dated 12-01-2015 the petitioners herein who were the
2nd and 3rd petitioners in W.P.No 7730 of 2015 have moved the above writ petition
before the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras in its Madurai Bench which
came to be dismissed by a Division Bench on 13-05-2015 as not maintainable,
however, stating that the dismissal will not prevent the petitioners from approaching
the National Green Tribunal. The relevant portions of the Honble High Court order is
as follows:
In our view, no such permission is required from this Court, since the
issue raised by the petitioners falls wholly within the jurisdiction of the
National Green Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition stands rejected as
not maintainable. However, this will not prevent the petitioners from
approaching the National Green Tribunal for necessary relief. It is made
clear that though the respondent Municipality has filed a counter affidavit,
this Court has not adjudicated the correctness of the stand taken therein
nor other submissions made by the other learned Counsels and the issues
are left open. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.

21. It is thereafter the applicants have filed the present application

praying for the following relief:

17

on 14-05-2015

A. To issue a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from

establishing/setting up any Composting Yard or Biomethanation Plant
or any Solid Waste Landfill or procuring facility at S.R.No 278/1,
Kayalpattinam village or in any site within the CRZ area and
mandatory clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, Authorisation
under the MSW Rules, 2000, Consent to Establish under the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
B. Direct the 1st and 11th respondents to initiate appropriate action against
the 6th and 7th respondents for violation of the EIA Notification, 2006.
C. Direct the 1st, 8th and 11th respondents to initiate appropriate action
against the 6th and 7th respondents for violation of the MSW Rules,
2000, the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981.
D. To restore the site to its status quo and by demolishing all structural
constructions.
E. And pass such further or other orders, including costs of the present
application as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case thus render justice.
22. The fact remains that in the meantime, based on the return of their application dated
08-12-2014 by the Board in its letter dated 12-01-2015, the Municipality has again
applied on 24-03-2015 requesting for issuance of No Objection Certificate to the
Municipal Solid Waste Facility at S.R.No. 278/1B in extent of 4.2 acres in
Kayalpattinam South village and applied for Biomethanation Power Plant in 0.3 acre
in the said S.R.No. 278/1B. It is stated that after the application was returned by the
Board on 12-01-2015 with a direction to make a fresh application on the alternate
site, S.R.No. 278/1 which was having a total extent of 25 acres was subdivided with
S.R.No. 278/1B which is situated on the south west corner of S.R. No. 278/1. It is in
respect of the S.R.No 278/1B that the 6th respondent has made a fresh application to
the 8th respondent Board for Authorisation under the MSW Rules, 2000 in respect of
the Municipal Solid Waste Facility in 4.2 acres and Consent to Establish for the
Biomethanation Power Plant in 0.3 acre. The Board in the order dated 25-05-2015 has

18

issued Authorisation valid till 31-01-2016 subject to the final outcome of the present
case and Consent to Establish on 24-06- 2015 both under Water Act, 1974 and Air
Act, 1981.
23. However, the applicants have chosen to challenge the proposed establishment of the
Composting Yard or Biomethanation Plant or Solid Waste Land Fill by the 6th
respondent in S.R.No.278/1 on the ground that it is in violation of CRZ Notification
and that it requires mandatory EC under the EIA Notification, 2006 and Authorisation
under MSW Rules, 2000 and Consent to Establish under the Water and Air Acts. The
applicants have not chosen to question the proposed Municipal Solid Waste
Processing Facility by the 6th respondent in S.R.No.278/1B in its revised application
dated 24-03-2015 in respect of which Authorisation under the MSW Rules, 2000 and
Consent to Establish under the Water and Air Acts were granted by the Board.
Technically the application as filed is not maintainable. However, since in the
meantime the entire facts have been brought to the notice of this Tribunal by both the
parties, we have decided to proceed with the case assuming that the case relates to
278/1B without dismissing the application on the above said technical ground.
24. It is true that the applicants have not chosen to challenge the Authorisation given to
the 6th respondent Municipality under the MSW Rules, 2000 and Consent to Establish
granted to the 6th respondent by the Board under both the Water and Air Acts.
However, the applicants have chosen to state that the proposed site falls within the
CRZ area and therefore the proposed activity is prohibited and that in any event since
the 6th respondent has made application for the Common Municipal Solid Waste
Facility, it requires prior EC which ought to have been obtained by the 6th respondent
from SEIAA before approaching the Board for Authorisation as well as Consent to
Establish. Therefore, in this case the points to be decided are as to whether the
Authorisation and Consent to Establish granted to the 6th respondent in respect of
S.R.No.278/1B is valid on the ground that it is prohibited under the CRZ Notification,
2011 and it requires prior EC under EIA Notification, 2006.
25. In so far as it relates the question as to whether the proposed Municipal Solid Waste
Facility and Biomethanation Power Plant at S.R.No.278/1B in extent of 4.2 acres and
0.3 acre, respectively come within the prohibitive distance prescribed by the Coastal

19

Zone Regulation 2011, the Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University which is one
of the recognized agencies authorised by the MoEF and CC as per the CRZ
Notification, 2011 has made a GPS Survey

in May 2015 for HTL/LTL/CRZ

Zonation for the proposed Municipal Solid Waste Facility and Compost Yard in
S.R.No. 278/1B, Kayalpattinam South village.
26. According to the CRZ Notification, it applies to the land from the HTL up to 500m in
the landward side along the sea front and to the land area between HTL to 100m or
width of the creek whichever is less on the landward side along the tidal influenced
water bodies that are connected to the sea and the distance up to which development
along such tidal influenced water bodies is to be regulated shall be governed by the
distance up to which the tidal effects are experienced and area between the low tide
and high tide level. The CRZ Notification dated 06-01-2011 divides 4 types of
categories in coastal regulation zone, category 1 called CRZ-1 which is an
Ecologically Sensitive Area such as national parks, marine parks, sanctuaries, reserve
forests, wild life habitats, mangroves, corals and coral reefs, areas close to breeding
and spawning grounds of fish and other marine life, areas of outstanding natural
beauty/historically/heritage areas, areas rich in genetic diversity, etc., Category-2
(CRZ -II) where the area has already been developed up to close to shore line where
development is within the municipal limits or other legally designated urban area
which is already substantially built up areas and which has been provided with
drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities, like water supply and
sewerage mains, Category -3 (CRZ-III) the areas which are relatively undisturbed and
which do not belong either to Category 1 or 2 developed or undeveloped which are
not substantially built up and Category 4 (CRZ-IV) the water area from the low tide
line to 12 nautical miles on the sea ward side and the water area of the tidal
influenced water body from the mouth of the water body at sea up to influenced site
which is measured. Under the modern mapping equipments like GPS, the accurate
geographical locations, remote sensing images indicating the physical and associate
zonal information and sketches etc., are able to be obtained. Based on the request of
the Commissioner, Kayalpattinam Municipality, namely the 6th respondent, the
Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University has made a GPS Survey and submitted

20

its report. In the said report it is clearly stated that the project site is located in South
Kayalpattinam village and on the western side of Bay of Bengal coastal line and small
indented water body is connected to the sea and the mangrove vegetation are not seen
in the vicinity. The Institute has undertaken to conduct survey and filed survey report
on 22-04-2015 and the high tidal level for the last 19 years nearer to the site. The
conclusions arrived at by the Institute of Anna University are as follows:
1. The property carrying Survey No. 278/1B in Kayalpattinam South
village is out of 500 m set back line of HTL from the nearest east ward
coastline of Bay of Bengal.
2. The property carrying survey No.278/1B in Kayalpattinam South
village is out of the 100 m set back line of HTL from nearest eastward
creek (tidally influenced backwater)
3. The site does not fall within CRZ III zone as per CRZ guideline
2011 Notification
4. There are no mangroves in the vicinity. The property is not in
mudflat, there are no sand dunes within the site.
27. Therefore, the accredited agency, the Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University
has also confirmed to the stand taken by the 6th and 8th respondents in so far as it
relates to the project site which is beyond 500 m setback line of HTL and out of 100
m setback line of nearest east ward creek and there are no mangrove, mud flat and
sand dunes within the site. According to the Board, the nearest creek is at a distance
of 120 m from the boundary of site and the HTL of sea is at a distance of 535 m.
Therefore, it is clear from the categoric finding of the accredited agency of MoEF and
CC, namely, Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University that the project site is not
affected by the CRZ Notification, 2011.
28. This leaves us to the next question which is on the requirement of prior EC under the
EIA Notification, 2006. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 3(2) (v) of
the Environment (Protection Act) Act, 1986 read with rule 5(3) (d) of EP Rules, 1986
and in supersession of the prior Notification 27-1-1994, the Central Government has

21

issued EC regulation 2006 (EIA Notification, 2006) operative from 14th September
2006. Regulation 2 of EIA Notification, 2006 contemplates prior EC from the
concerned Regulatory Authority either Central Government in respect of Category
A project or SEIAA in respect of Category B projects which relates to
(i). All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;
(ii). Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the
Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified
for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold
limits given in the schedule, after expansion or modernization;
(iii). Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in
Schedule beyond the specified range.
The projects or activities require prior EC are explained in the schedule attached to EIA
Notification, 2006. For our consideration to decide the issue involved in this case item
No. 7(i) of the schedule which relates to Common Municipal Solid Waste Management
Facility (CMSWF) is relevant. The said item shows in the schedule that the same is
covered under the B Category in all projects. The note relating to general condition
incorporated with effect from 01-12-2009 in the schedule states as follows:
General Condition (GC):
Any project or activity specified in Category B will be treated as Category
A, if located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of: (i)
Protected Areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (ii)
Critically Polluted areas as notified by the Central Pollution Control Board
from time to time, (iii) Notified Eco-sensitive areas, (iv) inter-State
boundaries and international boundaries.
29. By virtue of the note appended to the schedule to EIA Notification, 2006 and contents
therein there is no difficulty for us to conclude that in respect of the project of the 6th
respondent to establish Municipal Solid Waste Processing Facility no one of the said
note is applicable. However, if on the construction of the EIA Notification, 2006, this
Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the said facility requires prior EC, such clearance
from SEIAA this being a B category project is a mandatory requirement without
which the said project cannot be permitted to go ahead under the MSW Rules, 2000
and the Consent to Establish under the Water and Air Acts. Therefore, the precise
22

question to be answered is the meaning of Common Municipal Solid Waste

Management Facility and word common which is being agitated by both the sides
to suit their convenience based on the facts of the case. While Common according
to Mr.T.Mohan means and includes all the integral parts of the Municipal Solid Waste
Management like processing, segregation etc., as each part cannot have an
independent existence and therefore all the integral activities connected with the
Municipal Solid Waste Management put together MSWMF means common and it
requires prior EC from the SEIAA. On the other hand, it is the case of Mr.Abdul
Saleem, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi, that the
Municipal Solid Waste Management itself has various independent components and
only if all the components put together are framed as single scheme, it can be
Common Municipal Solid Waste Management.
30. The term either Common Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility or the
Municipal Solid Waste Management are not defined either under EIA Notification,
2006 or under the Parent Act namely EP Act, 1986. Therefore, we have to necessarily
go to the MSW Rules 2000, the statutory rules framed by the Government of India by
exercising its powers under Sections.3, 5 and 25 of the EP Act, 1986. Under the said
statutory rules, Rule 3(xiv) define Municipal authority as:

"municipal authority" means Municipal Corporation, Municipality, Nagar

Palika, Nagar Nigam, Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council including
notified area committee (NAC) or any other local body constituted under the
relevant statutes and, where the management and handling of municipal
solid waste is entrusted to such agency;
The said statutory rules also define 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
31. There are few other definitions under Rule 3 which are relevant and are as follows:
Rule 3(xvi)

23

"operator of a facility" means a person who owns or operates a

facility for collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing
and disposal of municipal solid wastes and also includes any other
agency appointed as such by the municipal authority for the
management and handling of municipal solid wastes in the respective
areas;
A reading of the above said sub rule suggests that there can be operator of a facility
separately in respect of collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and
disposal of Municipal solid waste. It means that if there are separate operators of each of
the facility, each of the operator shall obtain consent from the Board by way of
authorisation as defined under rule 3(2) which is as follows;

"authorization" means the consent given by the Board or Committee

to the "operator of a facility"
Processing defined under rule 3(xviii) is as follows:
"processing" means the process by which solid wastes are
transformed into new or recycled products
Segregation under Rule 3(xxi) is as follows:
"segregation" means to separate the municipal solid wastes into the
groups of organic, inorganic, recyclables and hazardous wastes
Storage, as defined under rule 3(xxiii) is as follows:
"storage" means the temporary containment of municipal solid
wastes in a manner so as to prevent littering, attraction to vectors,
stray animals and excessive foul odour
Transportation under rule 3(xxiv) is defined as follows;
"transportation" means conveyance of municipal solid wastes from
place to place hygienically through specially designed transport
system so as to prevent foul odour, littering, unsightly conditions and
accessibility to vectors
Disposal, as defined under rule 3 (viii) is as follows:

24

"disposal" means final disposal of municipal solid wastes in terms of

the specified measures to prevent contamination of ground-water,
surface water and ambient air quality.
32. The processing includes recycle of the product and recycling itself is defined
separately under rule 3 (xix) is as follows;
"recycling" means the process of transforming segregated solid wastes
into raw materials for producing new products, which may or may not be
similar to the original products.

That apart, Rule 3(ix) defines land filling which is as follows;

"landfilling" means disposal of residual solid wastes on land in a
facility designed with protective measures against pollution of ground
water, surface water and air fugitive dust, wind-blown litter, bad
odour, fire hazard, bird menace, pests or rodents, greenhouse gas
emissions, slope instability and erosion.
The word Composting is defined under Rule 3(vi) as follows;
"composting" means a controlled process involving microbial
decomposition of organic matter.
33. Rule 4 imposes a responsibility on the respondent, Municipal Authority as defined
under 3(xiv) extracted above, individually and independently to implement the
provision of the rules and for creating infrastructure development for collection,
storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste
within the territorial area of the Municipality. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the
municipal authority to implement the provisions of the rules. Rule 4 reads as follows;

4. Responsibility of municipal authority:1. Every municipal authority shall, within the territorial area of the
municipality, be responsible for the implementation of the provisions of
these rules, and for any infrastructure development for collection, storage,
segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid
wastes.
2. The municipal authority or an operator of a facility shall make an
application in Form-I, for grant of authorization for setting up waste
25

processing and disposal facility including landfills from the State Board or
the Committee in order to comply with the implementation programme
laid down in Schedule I.
3. The municipal authority shall comply with these rules as per the
implementation schedule laid down in Schedule I.
(4) The municipal authority shall furnish its annual report in Form-II,a. to the Secretary-in charge of the Department of Urban Development of
the concerned State or as the case may be of the Union territory, in
case of a metropolitan city; or
b. to the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner concerned in
case of all other towns and cities,
with a copy to the State Board or the Committee on or before the 30th day of June
every year.
34. Once the municipal authority applies to the Board, it is the responsibility of the Board
to issue authorisation and effective monitoring under rule 6 which is as follows:
6. Responsibility of the Central Pollution Control Board and the
State Board or the Committees.
1. The State Board or the Committee shall monitor the compliance of
the standards regarding ground water, ambient air, leachate quality
and the compost quality including incineration standards as
specified under Schedules II, III and IV.
2. The State Board or the Committee, after the receipt of application
from the municipal authority or the operator of a facility in Form
I, for grant of authorization for setting up waste processing and
disposal facility including landfills, shall examine the proposal
taking into consideration the views of other agencies like the State
Urban Development Department, the Town and Country Planning
Department, Air Port or Air Base Authority, the Ground Water
Board or any such other agency prior to issuing the authorization.
3. The State Board or the Committee shall issue the authorization
in Form-III to the municipal authority or an operator of a facility
within forty-five days stipulating compliance criteria and standards
as specified in Schedules II, III and IV including such other
conditions, as may be necessary.
4. The authorization shall be valid for a given period and after the
validity is over, a fresh authorization shall be required.

26

5. The Central Pollution Control Board shall co-ordinate with the State
Boards

and

the

Committees

with

particular

reference

to

implementation and review of standards and guidelines and

compilation of monitoring data.
35. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 4(1) of MSW Rules while it is the responsibility of each
municipal authority, the said municipal authority itself can nominate operators for
each facility like collection, segregation etc., while the responsibility for providing
infrastructure for the said operation lies only with the municipal authority. Rule 4(2)
authorises either the municipal authority or an operator to apply for authorisation in
Form 1 for setting up of waste processing and disposal facility including landfills
from the State Board. Again schedule 2 of MSW Rules which discusses about the
management of municipal solid waste prescribes certain parameters of MSW,
segregation of municipal solid wastes, storage of municipal solid wastes,
transportation, processing of municipal solid wastes and disposal of the same.
Schedule 2 is as follows;

Schedule -II
[see rules 6(1) and (3), 7(1)]
Management of Municipal Solid Wastes
S.No. Parameters
1.

Collection

Compliance criteria
of 1. Littering of municipal solid waste shall be prohibited in

municipal solid cities, towns and in urban areas notified by the State
wastes

Governments. To prohibit littering and facilitate compliance,

the following steps shall be taken by the municipal authority,
namely :i.

Organising house-to-house collection of municipal solid

wastes through any of the methods, like community bin
collection (central bin), house-to-house collection,
collection

on

regular

pre-informed

timings

and

scheduling by using bell ringing of musical vehicle

(without exceeding permissible noise levels);
ii.

Devising collection of waste from slums and squatter

areas or localities including hotels, restaurants, office
complexes and commercial areas;

27

iii.

Wastes from slaughter houses, meat and fish markets,

fruits and vegetable markets, which are biodegradable
in nature, shall be managed to make use of such wastes;

iv.

Bio-medical wastes and industrial wastes shall not be

mixed with municipal solid wastes and such wastes
shall follow the rules separately specified for the
purpose;

v.

Collected waste from residential and other areas shall

be transferred to community bin by hand-driven
containerised carts or other small vehicles;

vi.

Horticlutural and construction or demolition wastes or

debris shall be separately collected and disposed off
following proper norms. Similarly, wastes generated at
dairies shall be regulated in accordance with the State
laws;

vii.

Waste (garbage, dry leaves) shall not be burnt;

viii.

Stray animals shall not be allowed to move around

waste storage facilities or at any other place in the city
or town and shall be managed in accordance with the
State laws.

2. The municipal authority shall notify waste collection

schedule and the likely method to be adopted for public
benefit in a city or town.
3. It shall be the responsibility of generator of wastes to avoid
littering and ensure delivery of wastes in accordance with the
collection and segregation system to be notified by the
municipal authority as per para 1(2) of this Schedule.
2.

Segregation of In order to encourage the citizens, municipal authority shall

municipal solid organise awareness programmes for segregation of wastes and
wastes

shall promote recycling or reuse of segregated materials.

The municipal authority shall undertake phased programme
to ensure community participation in waste segregation. For
this purpose, regular meetings at quarterly intervals shall be
arranged by the municipal authorities with representatives of
local resident welfare associations and non-governmental
organizations.

3.

Storage

of Municipal authorities shall establish and maintain storage

municipal solid facilities in such a manner as they do not create unhygienic

28

wastes

and insanitary conditions around it. Following criteria shall be

taken into account while establishing and maintaining storage
facilities, namely :i.

Storage facilities shall be created and established by

taking into account quantities of waste generation in a
given area and the population densities. A storage
facility shall be so placed that it is accessible to users;

ii.

Storage facilities to be set up by municipal authorities

or any other agency shall be so designed that wastes
stored are not exposed to open atmosphere and shall be
aesthetically acceptable and user-friendly;

iii.

Storage facilities or bins shall have easy to operate

design for handling, transfer and transportation of
waste. Bins for storage of bio-degradable wastes shall
be painted green, those for storage of recyclable wastes
shall be printed white and those for storage of other
wastes shall be printed black;

iv.

Manual handling of waste shall be prohibited. If

unavoidable due to constraints, manual handling shall
be carried out under proper precaution with due care
for safety of workers.

4.

Transportation Vehicles used for transportation of wastes shall be covered.

of

municipal Waste should not be visible to public, nor exposed to open

solid wastes

environment preventing their scattering. The following

criteria shall be met, namely:i.

The storage facilities set up by municipal authorities

shall be daily attended for clearing of wastes. The bins
or containers wherever placed shall be cleaned before
they start overflowing;

ii.

Transportation vehicles shall be so designed that

multiple handling of wastes, prior to final disposal, is
avoided.

5.

Processing

of Municipal authorities shall adopt suitable technology or

municipal solid combination of such technologies to make use of wastes so as

wastes

to minimize burden on landfill. Following criteria shall be

adopted, namely:-

29

(i) The biodegradable wastes shall be processed by

composting, vermin composting, anaerobic digestion or
any other appropriate biological processing for
stabilization of wastes. It shall be ensured that compost
or any other end product shall comply with standards
as specified in Schedule-IV;
ii.

Mixed waste containing recoverable resources shall

follow the route of recycling. Incineration with or
without energy recovery including pelletisation can also
be used for processing wastes in specific cases.
Municipal authority or the operator of a facility
wishing to use other state-of-the-art technologies shall
approach the Central Pollution Control Board to get
the standards laid down before applying for grant of
authorisation.

6.

Disposal

of Land filling shall be restricted to non-biodegradable, inert

municipal solid waste and other waste that are not suitable either for recycling
wastes

or for biological processing. Land filling shall also be carried

out for residues of waste processing facilities as well as preprocessing rejects from waste processing facilities. Land filling
of mixed waste shall be avoided unless the same is found
unsuitable

for

waste

processing.

Under

unavoidable

circumstances or till installation of alternate facilities, landfilling shall be done following proper norms. Landfill sites
shall meet the specifications as given in Schedule III.
36. Therefore, Schedule II is not only exhaustive but also gives clear directions in respect
of municipal solid wastes to be followed by the Municipal Authority or Operator of a
facility who have been issued with Authorisation by the Board. Schedule 3 and 4 of
the Rules issue elaborate guideline regarding specification of land fill sites, standard
for Composting, treated leachates and incineration. Therefore, a combined reading of
the entire statutory rules make it abundantly clear that there can be separate person
nominated by the municipal authority for each of the Municipal Solid Waste Facility
like collection, segregation etc. The Municipal Authority itself can be operator of all
facilities combined together. In such circumstances, only we are of the considered
view that the word MSWMF contemplated under item 7(i) of EIA Notification will
be called as Common MSWMF. In our considered view this can only be the
30

harmonious and natural construction of the term Common MSWMF. Construing

otherwise stating that all the components of operation of MSW as one integral unit
will only result in misconstruction of MSW Rules, 2000. It is true that common MSW
facility may also include cases of more than one Municipalities joining in a
centralised fashion which may also be referred under item 7(i). By such construction
no destructive meaning can be imported as apprehended by the learned Counsel for
the applicants. In fact, we had occasion to decide on unauthorised dumping of the
solid waste generated by a Municipality in its territory into the territory of another
Panchyat by purchasing certain lands, in Application No. 247 of 2014 in our order
dated 30th September 2015 wherein we have held that the constitutional provision
regarding the establishment of Municipality and Panchayat imposes a Constitutional
mandate that every Panchayat and Municipality has its individual entity in respect of
their territorial area. The above said entry 7(i) which is certainly a social welfare
legislation has to be construed with a purposive interpretation taking into
consideration the provisions of the statutory rules framed by the Government of India
in the form of MSW Rules, 2000. In fact, the purposive way of interpretation was
explained by the NGT in Appeal No. 5 of 2014 M/s. Ardent Steel Ltd v. MoEF and
Ors. in the order dated 27th May 2014. The observations made in Paragraph 13 of said
Judgement gives a precise explanation of the legal position as follows:
13. First and foremost, we must examine as to how an Entry in a social
welfare legislation like the Act of 1986 should be interpreted and what
principles of interpretation are to be applied while dealing with such an
Entry. We may at this stage refer to a recent judgment of the Tribunal of
"Haat Supreme Wastech Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana, 2013 All (I) NGT
Reporter (2) (DELHI) 140", where the Bench of the Tribunal was concerned
with interpreting another Entry of the same Schedule i.e. Entry 7(d) of the
Schedule to the Regulations of 2006-"Common hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facility." It will be useful to notice the following
discussion from the said judgment:
"The Act of 1986 and the rules afore-referred, in particular Rules of 1998, are
socio-welfare legislations as they have triple objects: firstly, they are welfare
legislations in as much as they mandate the State to provide clean and decent
environment. Secondly, they provide for remedies which could be invoked by
different stakeholders and even by any aggrieved person and thirdly, the
31

consequences of violating the environmental provisions including punitive

actions. Thus, while interpreting the relevant provisions, these concepts have
to be appropriately considered by the Tribunal. The object of these provisions
being wholesome environment, the rule of reasonable constructions in
conjunction with the liberal construction would have to be applied. 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 of an Act 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.
These well-known principles of interpretation have to be applied, but with
caution. Construction favorable to achieve the purpose of enactment but
without doing violence to the language is of paramount consideration. In the
case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More(1991) 3 SCR
26a, the Supreme Court while dealing with a beneficial provision of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 held as under:
"It is thus evident that Section 92-A was in the nature of a beneficial
legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of
a limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising
out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability. In the matter
of interpretation of a beneficial legislation the approach of the courts is to
adopt a construction which advances the beneficient purpose underlying the
enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose."
The doctrine of reasonable construction implies that the correct interpretation
is the one that best harmonizes the words with the object of the statute. Lord
Porter in Bhagwan Baksh Singh (Raja) v. Secretary of State, AIR 1940 Privy
Council 82, stated: "right construction of the Act can only be attained if its
32

whole scope and object together with an analysis of its wording and the
circumstances in which it is enacted are taken into consideration." The
Tribunals will also keep in mind that the application of a given legislation to
new and unforeseen things and situations broadly falling within the statutory
provisions is within the interpretative jurisdiction of the courts. In the case of
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with the provisions of the Bhopal Gas leak disaster and
directing the government to give interim relief to the victims as a measure in
articulate premise from the spirit of the Act, declared this approach to the
interpretation of the Act as constructive intuition which in the opinion of the
court was a permissible mode of viewing the acts of the Parliament.
Keeping in view the legislative intent, object of the Act and the Rules framed
there under and the purpose sought to be achieved, recourse to any of the
above doctrine would be appropriate. Certainly, it is the obligation of the
respective governments to prevent and control pollution on one hand and
provide clean environment to the public at large on the other. The industrial
development cannot be permitted to ignore environmental interests and
damage the ecology or ambient environmental quality irretrievably. The units
of plants which violate the prescribed standards and cause serious
pollution, are to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the prescribed penal
or other consequences which may even include the closure of a unit. The rules
primarily provide a regulatory regime that is required to be adhered to for the
purposes of permissive industrial activity. All these regulatory regimes
whether relating to municipal waste, hazardous waste or bio- medical waste,
owe their allegiance to the substantive provisions and object of the Act of
1986. Reasonable construction is intended to provide a balance between the
industrial development and the environment. Principle of 'constructive
intuition' would also have its application to the provisions of the Act, the
Rules and particularly the Notification of 2006 in relation to dealing with the
entries provided in the Schedule. The liberal construction rule would help in
giving a purposeful meaning and interpretation to the provisions of the Act
and the Rules for attainment of the basic object, i.e. cleaner environment.
From the above discussion, it is clear that to an Entry of the Schedule of a
social welfare legislation, the principle of reasonable and/or liberal
construction should be adopted to ensure that the object and purpose of the
Act is undefeated by such interpretation. Most suitable interpretation would
be one which would further the cause of the Act and ensure prevention and
control of pollution rather than provide escape route to the industry from
taking anti-pollution measures and complying with the provisions of the Act.

33

37. From the above judgement and applying the same to the facts of the present case
taking note of the fact that the 6th respondent has made application for authorisation
under MSW Rules, 2000 to establish Municipal Solid Waste Processing Facility in
the area of 4.2 ha in S.R.No. 278/1B and applied for Consent to Establish separately
for Biomethanation Plant in the remaining area of 0.3 acre, the same cannot be termed
as a CMSWMF within the purview of item 7(i) of MSW Rules. Therefore, we hold
that prior EC under the facts and circumstance of the case is not necessary to be
obtained and the 6th respondent is entitled to proceed with the scheme.
38. While parting with, we have to make mention about a fact that a public project like
this is attempted to be scuttled due to private dispute even among the municipal
members and its president and such activity ignoring the common interest of the
people is to be discouraged. The sustainable development is not for the purpose of
scuttling any of public projects but it must be balanced with the public interest of
course by following the best technology available in respect of the scheme with intent
to preserve environment. In any event the development for social benefit shall not be
curtailed. On an analysis of the facts of this case we have to mention that no issues of
great environmental importance have been raised by the applicants. In any event, as
correctly submitted by Mr.R.Vishnu learned Counsel appearing for the7th respondent
that if the technology to be followed by the 6th respondent in respect of project
requires approval by the Central Pollution Control Board, the same has to be
scrupulously followed by the parties by taking appropriate steps,
Accordingly the application fails and is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Dated 25th January 2016

Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani

Judicial Member

Chennai.
Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran
Expert Member

34