LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus SUS ROAD BANER VIKAS MANCH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 12-09-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[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.
Digi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.