M.A. No. 67 of 2014 in Original Application No. 5 of 2014. Case: Latif Beg & Ors. Vs MoEF & Ors., [Alongwith Original Application No. 6 of 2014]. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberM.A. No. 67 of 2014 in Original Application No. 5 of 2014
JudgesSwatanter Kumar, J. (Chairperson), M.S. Nambiar, J. (Member (J)), Dr. D.K. Agrawal, Prof. A.R. Yousuf, Dr. R.C. Trivedi, Members (E)
IssueEnvironmental Law
Judgement DateMay 30, 2014
CourtWest Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


(Principal Bench, New Delhi)

MSW Bareilly Case

  1. On 03.01.2005, Respondent No. 2, UPPCB granted a no-objection certificate in favor of Respondent No. 4, Municipal Corporation, Bareilly for setting up an integrated mechanical composting plant of 500 t/d capacity at village Razau Paraspur, in an area of 21.20 acres. On 28.03.2013, respondent no. 2 granted authorization to the respondent no. 4 for its MSW Plant at the same site. The said authorization expired on 31.12.2013. On its meeting held on 19.12.2012, State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) agreed with the recommendation of the State Environmental Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and declared that respondent no. 4 was not required to take Environmental Clearance for Municipal Solid Waste Project under EIA Notification of 2006. The validity and correctness of this letter was challenged before this Tribunal in Application No. 86/2013, a petition filed by Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, a society, in Application No. 99/2013 by the Invertis University (the same Applicant in Application 110 of 2014) and in Application 100 of 2014 by a group of residents of village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly. All these Applications were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment dated July 18, 2013. It was found that respondent no. 4 was required to take Environmental Clearance from SEIAA, being a category B project, before setting up and operating the MSW plant. It was also found that the plant is neither meeting the site specifications nor does it have incinerator to ensure proper treatment and volume reduction and disposal of municipal waste. Therefore, various directions were issued.

  2. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 7215 of 2013. Vide order dated 13.09.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted special leave and passed the following Order:

    By way of interim order, the directions as contained in Para 49 of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed

  3. Application No. 5 of 2014 is filed by the residents of the affected villages seeking an order directing the Respondents not to operate the MSW plant before obtaining EC clearance as per EIA Notification 2006 and fresh authorization as per Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 (in short MSW Rules 2000).

  4. Application No. 6 of 3014 was filed by farmers of the village Razau Paraspur and Nariyawal claiming to be directly and substantially affected by the operation of the said plant seeking an order restraining Respondent No. 4 and M/S. AKC Developers Ltd. (Respondent No. 5 in that Application) from operating the plant without obtaining Environmental Clearance and from raising fresh or further construction on the site of the plant. The Invertis University filed the Application No. 110 of 2014 seeking almost identical reliefs against the Respondent No. 4 who is impleaded therein as Respondent No. 3.

  5. As the Hon'ble Supreme...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT