M/s Punahchakran Private Limited v. Indotech Waste Solution & Ors.

Citation: [2026] 9 S.C.R. 457; 2026 INSC 956

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: MANOJ MISRA , J.B. PARDIWALA

Judgment date: 2026-09-07

Case summary

M/s Punahchakran Private Limited v. Indotech Waste Solution & Ors.. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 2026-09-07; citation: [2026] 9 S.C.R. 457; 2026 INSC 956. Text extracted from the source PDF; no AI summary.

Judgment text

[2026] 9 S. C. R. 457 : 2026 INSC 956 M/s Punahchakran Private Limited v. Indotech Waste Solution & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7367 of 2024) 07 September 2026 [J. B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.

] Issue for Consideration Whether the NGT vide the impugned judgment was right in setting aside the second Environmental Clearance (EC) and second Consent to Establish (CTE) granted to the appellant by the Uttar Pradesh State Impact Assessment Authority (UP SEIAA) and Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) respectively; whether the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016) is mandatory or directory in nature; whether the grant of relaxation in land requirement in favour of the appellant for the establishment of a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was permissible; on a combined reading of the EIA, 2006 and the RG, 2016 respectively, what is the status of land acquisition required for establishing a CBWTF at the time of making a Form 1 application, at the stage of Appraisal of the EC and at the time of making an application for the issuance of CTE respectively; whether the UP SEAC and the UP SEIAA respectively could have proceeded with the grant of the second EC on the basis of the first Terms of Reference.

Headnotes † Environment – NGT set aside the Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent to Establish (CTE) granted in favour of the appellant in connection with the establishment of a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) – Whether the grant of relaxation in land requirement in favour of the appellant for the establishment of a CBWTF by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was permissible – On a combined reading of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 and the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal * Author 458 [2026] 9 S. C. R.

Supreme Court Reports Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016) respectively, what is the status of land acquisition required for establishing a CBWTF at the time of making a Form 1 application, at the stage of Appraisal of the EC and at the time of making an application for the issuance of CTE respectively – Whether the UP SEAC and the UP SEIAA respectively could have proceeded with the grant of the second EC on the basis of the first Terms of Reference (ToR) – Whether the NGT vide the impugned judgment was right in setting aside the second EC and second CTE respectively granted to the appellant by the UP SEIAA and UPPCB respectively: Held: NGT committed an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment quashing the second EC and second CTE – Clause 6 of the EIA, 2006 states that an application in Form 1 can be made after the identification of prospective site(s) – Therefore, land allotment cannot be said to be a pre-condition for the making of an application under Form 1 – The second EC and second CTE were both granted in favour of the appellant on 20.

12. 2023 after land was allotted to it by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) on 19. 09. 2022 and after relaxation was granted by the CPCB on 17. 11. 2023 – Therefore, as far as the fulfilment of land acquisition conditions are concerned, the second EC and second CTE was not vitiated – Impugned judgment set- aside – Constitution of India – Art. 77 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Bio- Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016.

[Paras 110-112] Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (BMWM Rules) – Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016) – Whether the RG, 2016 is mandatory or directory in nature – Whether the grant of relaxation in land requirement in favour the appellant for the establishment of a CBWTF by the CPCB was permissible: Held: The RG, 2016 is mandatory in nature – It must be scrupulously followed by the relevant authorities and the project proponents alike during the process of obtaining/grant of permissions for the establishment of a CBWTF – Its non-publication in the Official Gazette could not be said to have affected its mandatory nature – [2026] 9 S. C. R. 459 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. The decision of this Court in B. K.

Srinivasan had clarified that when a strict mode of publication has not been prescribed, either by the parent statute or the subordinate legislation, a reasonable mode of publication may be sufficient – Neither the EP Act nor the BMWM Rules prescribe a strict mode of publication for the RG, 2016 – Therefore, publication in the Official Gazette, although the general rule, cannot be said to be a sine qua non – The publication of such technical guidelines on the official website of the CPCB was reasonably sufficient – Moreover, the RG, 2016 lays down crucial standards which form the foundation for the grant of EC and CTE/CTO respectively to a CBWTF and are so deeply embedded in the existing authorisation mechanism – All project proponents are sufficiently made aware of its existence whilst commencing the process for obtaining different clearances – Therefore, it cannot be argued that they do not constitute enforceable standards for the grant as well as revocation of permissions – Any reliance on the ratio in Gulf Goans would, therefore, be misplaced – As per Clause 7 of the RG, 2016, the land requirement of one acre prescribed for setting up a CBWTF may be relaxed upon the fulfilment of one of the two pre-conditions i.

e. , the land must be situated either within municipal limits with a population of more than 25 lakh or within a rural area – Additionally, consultation with the CPCB and the imposition of additional control measures is mandatory – Appellant’s CBWTF is located within Village Noorpur and is therefore, in a rural area – Relaxation was granted only after due consultation with the CPCB and the imposition of additional control measures which took into account the operational effectiveness of the CBWTF in a smaller area – Therefore, the grant of relaxation cannot be faulted – Constitution of India – Art. 77 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

[Para 110] Environment – Whether the UP SEAC and the UP SEIAA respectively could have proceeded with the grant of the second EC on the basis of the first ToR: Held: The setting aside of the first EC by the decision of the Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar did not have the consequence of rendering the first ToR invalid – There was no deliberate concealment or non-disclosure of material information which affected the Form 1 application or the issuance of the first ToR – Therefore, the first ToR was intact – Considering that the first 460 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports ToR was also valid for a period of four years, the grant of the second EC on the basis of the first ToR could not be said to be wrong. [Para 110] Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – s. 25 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – s.

21 – Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016) – Clause 2 – EIA, 2006 – Clause 6 – Status of land acquisition required from a project proponent seeking to establish a CBWTF at the time of making the Form 1 application, at the stage of appraisal of the EC and at the time of applying for a CTE respectively: Held: The stages involved in the process of obtaining a prior EC are four: Screening, Scoping, Public Consultation and Appraisal respectively – According to the O. M. , the need for such a credible document only arises at the fourth stage – So, although the application in Form 1 can be made by a project proponent before such a credible document is obtained, yet this document must be available for scrutiny when the SEAC and SEIAA respectively, ‘finally appraise’ the EC application – Land allotment for the particular purpose/project is not necessary before the application under Form 1 can be made, i. e.

, before the first stage of screening – Identification is enough – Such a view is further substantiated by two things: (i) when the EC is inherently site-specific there arises no reason for placing such a high burden at the Form 1 stage itself, and (ii) a reading of the prescribed Form 1 enclosed as Annexure-I to the EIA, 2006, under the head ‘Basic Information’, requires the applicant to provide details of the “Location/site alternatives under consideration”, meaning thereby that the applicant is only to provide details of the site(s) in which he intends to setup the project/activity concerned – In the present case, the applications dated 06. 07.

2021 made to the UPSIDA seeking allotment of plots E-25 and E-26 respectively, for establishing a CBWTF, was sufficient to prove that the plots were identified or were being considered by the appellant – The second take-away is that, when the stage of appraisal arrives, a credible document becomes crucial – Undoubtedly, this credible document in the context of the present matter would either be a successful allotment in favour of the appellant or, if the allotment is not in [2026] 9 S. C. R. 461 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. vogue, then a provisional allotment/ acknowledgment issued by the UPSIDA – Clause 6 of the EIA, 2006 and the O. M. dated 07. 10. 2014 respectively clarify that legal possession by way of a sale deed, lease deed etc. , may not necessarily be obtained, both before making the Form 1 application and at the stage of appraisal, respectively – Further, a perusal of the order dated 20. 09. 2021 issued by the MoEF&CC as well as s.

25 of the Water Act and s.

21 of the Air Act respectively, indicate that (a) the applicability of the EIA, 2006 and the necessity of obtaining prior EC must simply be ascertained/identified by the SPCB/PCC at the time of grant of CTE and, (b) prior EC must be obtained before a Consent to Operate (CTO) can be granted by the SPCB/ PCC – Therefore, when the chronology is rightly understood, a CTE can be issued before the issuance of a prior EC upon a mere assessment of the applicability of the EIA, 2006 – In that case, when the identification of prospective site(s) is the land acquisition requirement for making a Form 1 application under the EIA, 2006, then successful land allotment for the CBWTF cannot be made a condition precedent, both for the making of an application for CTE and the grant of CTE respectively – Having said so, relaxation in land requirement, if any, in accordance with Clause 7 of the RG, 2016 must be granted by the SPCB/ PCC in consultation with the CPCB before they can issue a CTE for land admeasuring less than one acre – Clause 2 of the RG, 2016 does not make land procurement or land allocation a strict pre-requisite for initiating the process of obtaining both the EC and CTE respectively.

[Paras 69-73, 110] Words and Phrases – “land procured” in Clause 2 (d) and “upon allocation of site” in Clause 2(e) respectively of the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016): Held: A hyper technical view of the words “land procured” in Clause 2(d) and “upon allocation of site” in Clause 2(e) of the RG, 2016 respectively cannot be taken, in a manner which is contrary to the meaning evinced by the EIA, 2006 – Clause 6 of the EIA, 2006 and the O. M. dated 07. 10. 2014 communicate what is required from any project proponent while making the Form 1 application and at the appraisal stage, without any ambiguity – No reason, either in law or by way of technical necessity, why a stricter condition must be placed for a proponent seeking to 462 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports establish CBWTF in comparison to proponents undertaking other activities/projects.

[Para 81] Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016) – Genesis, scope and nature of, discussed – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016. [Paras 37-42] Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016 (RG, 2016) – Publication in the Official Gazette not a sine qua non: Held: Neither the EP Act nor the BMWM Rules prescribe a strict mode of publication for the RG, 2016 – Undeniably, the case would fall under the third-type of scenario as per the decision in B. K. Srinivasan – Therefore, publication in the Official Gazette, although the general rule, cannot be said to be a sine qua non – Publication of such technical guidelines i. e.

the RG, 2016, on the official website of the CPCB was reasonably sufficient – Moreover, the RG, 2016 lays down crucial standards which form the foundation for the grant of EC and CTE/CTO respectively to a CBWTF – They are so deeply embedded in the authorisation mechanism and all project proponents are sufficiently made aware of its existence whilst commencing the process for obtaining different clearances – Therefore, it cannot be argued that they do not constitute enforceable standards for the grant as well as revocation of permissions. [Para 54] Case Law Cited Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India and others, [1994] Supp. 1 SCR 602 : (1994) 5 SCC 198; I. T. C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Another v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A. P. and Others, [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 643 : (1996) 6 SCC 634; Union of India and Others v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj [2000] 1 SCR 1081 : (2000) 9 SCC 461; Nabha Power Limited and Another v.

Punjab State Power Corporation and Another, 2024 INSC 833 : [2024] 11 SCR 445 : (2025) 5 SCC 353; Sammbhu Nath Jha v. Kedar Prasad Sinha and Others [1972] 3 SCR 183 : (1972) 1 SCC 573; State of Kerala and Others v. P. J. Joseph (1957) 3 SCC 638; Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine 101 – distinguished. [2026] 9 S. C. R. 463 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India [2019] 5 SCR 916 : (2019) 15 SCC 401; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar [2003] 2 SCR 387 : (2003) 4 SCC 579; State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Sanjeev @ Bitto, 2005 INSC 180 : [2005] 3 SCR 151 : (2005) 5 SCC 181; Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others [2014] 10 SCR 536 : (2014) 10 SCC 673; Air India Cabin Crew Assn. v. Yeshaswinee Merchant and Others [2003] Supp. 1 SCR 455 : (2003) 6 SCC 277; Major E. G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 30; B. K.

Srinivasan and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, [1987] 1 SCR 1054 : (1987) 1 SCC 658; Harla v. State of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC OnLine SC 54; Rajendra Agricultural University v. Ashok Kumar Prasad and Others, [2009] 15 SCR 1168 : (2010) 1 SCC 730; Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission v. State of W. B. and Others, [2004] 6 Supp. SCR 423 : (2005) 9 SCC 53; Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar Hegde and Others, [2020] 5 SCR 755 : (2020) 15 SCC 63 – referred to. Aniruda Panwar and Anr. v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Ors. (Original Application No. 622 of 2022 passed by National Green Tribunal ) – discussed. List of Acts Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016; Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords Environmental Clearance (EC); Consent to Establish (CTE); Uttar Pradesh State Impact Assessment Authority (UP SEIAA); Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB); Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016; RG, 2016; Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF); Terms of Reference (ToR); Relaxation in land requirement; Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB); UP SEAC; Status of land acquisition; Stage of Appraisal of the EC; Screening; Scoping; Public Consultation; Appraisal; Publication in Official Gazette; Strict mode of publication; Technical guidelines; Land allotment; Prospective site; Land procurement; Land allocation; 464 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports Project proponent; Prior EC; Environmental Impact Assessment Notification; Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA); Form 1 application; Second EC; Second CTE. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.

7367 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 05. 07. 2024 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in AN No. 04 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. , Saurabh Rajpal, Vinay Kumar Singh, Siddhanth Singh, Rongon Chowdhary. Advs. for the Respondent(s): Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A. A. G. , Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. , Sumit Babar, Vikramaditya Singh, Sajal Singhai, Hardeep, Ms. Yashika Gupta, Nitish Kant Sharma, Sudeep Kumar, Ms. Rupali. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment J. B. Pardiwala, J. : For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:- INDEX § I. FACTUAL MATRIX ........................................................... 2 II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ................................. 17 A. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant ............. 17 B. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 .... 19 III. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION .................................... 22 IV.

ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 23 A. Mandatory nature of the RG, 2016 and the decision of this Court in Gulf Goans .................................. 23 § Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment. [2026] 9 S. C. R. 465 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. i. The genesis, scope and nature of the RG, 2016 ... 26 ii. The requirement of authentication under Article 77 of the Constitution ........................... 31 iii. Whether the non-publication of the RG, 2016 in the Official Gazette could be said to affect its mandatory nature ............................................. 33 B. Permissibility of the grant of relaxation in land requirement ............................................................ 41 C.

The status of land acquisition required from a project proponent seeking to establish a CBWTF at the time of making the Form 1 application, at the stage of appraisal of the EC and at the time of applying for a CTE respectively ...................... 46 i. Clause 6 of the EIA, 2006 read with the O. M. dated 07. 10. 2014 ............................................. 46 ii. Clause 2 of the RG, 2016 ............................... 50 iii. Applying for a CTE under the Water Act and Air Act respectively ............................................ 53 D. The grant of the second EC on the basis of the first ToR ................................................................... 60 i. Whether the decision in Aniruda Panwar could be said to have set-aside the first ToR ............ 60 ii. Validity period of the ToR ................................. 69 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................. 74 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 05. 07.

2024 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, the “ Tribunal ”) in Appeal No. 04 of 2024 (hereinafter, the “ impugned decision ”), whereby the Tribunal set-aside the Environmental Clearance (“ EC ”) dated 20. 12. 2023 and Consent to Establish (“ CTE ”) dated 20. 12. 2023 respectively granted in favour of the appellant herein in connection with the establishment of a Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (“ CBWTF ”). 466 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports I. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated 14. 09. 2006 (“ EIA, 2006 ”) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India (“ MoEF&CC ”) makes provisions requiring prior EC in respect of certain projects/activities/ industries. Initially, a CBWTF did not fall within its ambit. However, vide notification dated 17. 04.

2015, the expression “bio-medical waste treatment facility” was inserted to the Schedule of the EIA, 2006, thereby adding it to the list of projects/activities requiring a prior EC. 3. M/s Punahchakran Private Limited (hereinafter, the “ appellant ”) submitted two applications dated 06. 07. 2021 to the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (“ UPSIDA ”) for the allotment of plot nos. E-25 and E-26 admeasuring 0. 45 acres and 0. 44 acres respectively, situated at the UPSIDC Industrial Area, Babrala, District Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, for the purpose of establishing a CBWTF. 4. Before the said land could be allotted to the appellant, on 11. 08. 2021, it submitted an application in Form 1 before the Uttar Pradesh State Impact Assessment Authority (“ UP SEIAA ”) for the issue of Terms of Reference (“ ToR ”) to commence the Environmental Impact Assessment (“ EIA ”) study. 5. On 12. 08. 2021, the UPSIDA rejected the allotment applications made by the appellant.

In the immediate aftermath of this rejection, the appellant submitted yet another application before the UPSIDA seeking allotment of the same plots but for a different purpose i. e. , for the establishment of an industrial unit for “ fabrication of industrial equipment ”. 6. On 17. 08. 2021, the UP SEIAA issued a standard ToR (hereinafter, the “ first ToR ”) to the appellant, thereby commencing the process for an EIA study. 7. On 15. 09. 2021, the appellant’s land allotment application for establishing an industrial equipment fabrication unit was allowed by the UPSIDA. 8. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereinafter, the “ UPPCB ”) and submitted an application dated 27. 09. 2021 seeking the grant of a Consent to Establish (“ CTE ”) for the CBWTF under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (“ Water Act ”) and [2026] 9 S. C. R. 467 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs.

the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (“ Air Act ”) respectively. Plots E-25 and E-26 respectively of the UPSIDC Industrial Area were indicated to be the land in which the CBWTF was proposed to be set-up. 9. It is pertinent to note that as per the O. M. dated 27. 04. 2018 the requirement of a public hearing under Paragraph 7(i)(III)Stage(3) (i)(b) of the EIA, 2006 was exempted since the site was located in an industrial area. Therefore, on 18. 02. 2022, after obtaining the EIA study report, the appellant submitted its proposal to the UP SEIAA for grant of prior EC. 10. On 26. 04. 2022, the UPPCB had granted a conditional CTE (hereinafter, the “ first CTE ”) to the appellant. 11. On 03. 06. 2022, in compliance with Clause 2 of the Revised Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2016, (hereinafter, the “ RG, 2016 ”), a GAP Analysis Report was submitted to the UP SEAC by the Member, Secretary, UPPCB.

This report indicated the details of the bio-medical waste generated in the eight nearby districts along with the proposed/ operating CBWTFs in the concerned areas as under: S. No. District Bedded, HCF Non- Bedded HCF No Beds Covered Facility 1 Muradabad 481 707 6699 ● Sushila Bio- Medical (Operated) ● Bhagwatsaran (Proposed) 2 Sambhal 111 252 1034 ● M/s Punahchakran Pvt. Ltd. (Proposed) 3 Badayu 147 30 1988 - 4 Aligarh 474 387 9512 - 5 Hathras 148 207 1822 - 6 Etah 122 128 1319 - 7 Kasganj 81 102 1043 - 8 Bulandsheha 293 243 4482 - Total Beds 1857 2056 27899 Amount of Bio-Medical Waste in Kg 102. 8 Kg 6974. 75 Kg Total – 7080. 55 Kg 468 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports 12. Upon a consideration of the GAP Report and taking into account all the other details, the UP SEAC in its 663 rd meeting dated 16. 06. 2022 recommended the grant of EC to the appellant. Thereafter, on 05. 07. 2022, the UP SEIAA in its 625th meeting expressed agreement with the recommendation of the UP SEAC.

As a consequence, the EC (hereinafter, the “ first EC ”) was issued to the appellant on 13. 07. 2022. 13. However, on 19. 08. 2022, the first CTE and first EC granted in favour of the appellant by the UPPCB and UP SEIAA respectively were challenged before the Tribunal in Original Application No. 622 of 2022 titled Aniruda Panwar and Anr. v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Ors . 14. After obtaining the first CTE and the first EC and after the institution of the aforesaid O. A. , the appellant approached the UPSIDA through its online application dated 15. 09. 2022 requesting consent for a change in the nature of use and category of industry being proposed to be set-up in the allotted plots i. e. , from “ fabrication of industrial equipment” to “ CBWTF ”. This change was allowed by the UPSIDA vide letter dated 19. 09. 2022. 15. Indotech Waste Solution (hereinafter, the “ respondent no.

1 ”) situated in the District Kasganj is also engaged in the business of treatment and disposal of bio-medical waste generated by health care facilities. It had similarly made a Form 1 application sometime in the year 2021 to establish a CBWTF. The UP SEAC and UP SEIAA respectively are said to have also arrived at a decision to issue an EC to the respondent no. 1 in their meetings dated 19. 10. 2022 and 14. 11. 2022 respectively i. e. , after the first EC was already issued to the appellant. However, it is admitted that a consequent order of EC was not issued in favour of the respondent no. 1. 16. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 31. 07. 2023 in Aniruda Panwar (supra) converted the O. A. No. 622 of 2022 in Appeal, allowed the same and declared the first CTE and first EC respectively to be illegal, null, void and of no effect for the following reasons: i.

First , Clause 2 of the RG, 2016 unequivocally establishes that procurement of land for the purpose of establishing a CBWTF is a condition precedent for filing an application seeking the grant of EC and CTE respectively. [2026] 9 S. C. R. 469 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. ii. Secondly , subsequent approval of change in land use granted by the UPSIDA could neither legalise nor validate the first CTE and first EC respectively. iii. Lastly , Clause 7 of the RG, 2016 requires that the CBWTF be set-up in a plot size of not less than one acre. As an exception, relaxation of this land requirement may be granted after the fulfilment of certain criteria and along with the imposition of additional control measures. Considering that the appellant’s plot size was 0.

89 acres and that the UPPCB and UP SEIAA had not specifically granted any such relaxation or, stipulated additional control measures or, consulted with the CPCB to do so, the first EC and first CTE respectively could not have been validly issued. 17. Having held so, the Tribunal nevertheless granted liberty to the appellant to re-apply for the grant of EC and CTE respectively, either after procuring additional land or after seeking relaxation of the land requirement in accordance with law. The operative portion of the Tribunal’s decision in Aniruda Panwar (supra) is reproduced thus: “ 78. In view of the above, the application converted to appeal is allowed and CTE and EC being violative of CBWTF Guidelines 2016 are held to be illegal, null and void and to be of no effect. 79.

However, the Applicant shall be at liberty to apply again for grant of EC and CTE for establishment of CBWTF after procuring additional land in Babrala Industrial Area or seek relaxation of land requirement in accordance with law and in case any such application is filed by Respondent no. 7 again UPPCB and UPSEIAA shall be bound to dispose of the same strictly not only in accordance with the statutory provisions/environmental norms but also CPCB Guidelines. ” (Emphasis supplied) 18. It is the case of the appellant that they made earnest efforts to pursue both the alternatives suggested by the Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar (supra), i. e. , procure additional land and apply for relaxation in land requirement respectively. It seems to have approached the 470 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports UPSIDA for procuring the adjacent plot no. E-27 and was waiting to participate in the bidding process. Since the EC process is site- specific, on 07. 08.

2023, it also submitted a fresh Form 1 application for the issuance of a new ToR accounting for plot E-27 along with plots E-25, and E-26 respectively. On, 10. 08. 2023, a new ToR (hereinafter, the “ second ToR ”) inclusive of plot E-27 was also issued by the UP SEIAA. Parallelly, the appellant approached the UPPCB through its representation dated 08. 08. 2023 seeking relaxation in the land area requirement in consultation with the CPCB. 19. While the fate of the bidding process for plot no. E-27 is unknown, it appears that land area relaxation was granted by the CPCB as per the proposal made by the UPPCB, with accompanying control measures on 17. 11. 2023 and the same reads thus: “It is to inform that the criteria outlined under CPCB revised guidelines for development of new CBWTF is required to be followed to ensure effective compliance of BMWM Rules, 2016. However as requested by UPPCB the area criteria may be relaxed for the proposed plot from 1. 0 Acre (4046 m2) to 0.

89 Acre (3601 m2) by adopting the following additional measures. a. UPPCB shall assess the increased stack height with stringent emission norms and take other measures to ensure that the operation of CBWTF shall have minimal impact on human health & environment around the proposed site; b. Effluent generated shall be treated up to the standards as prescribed under the BMWM Rules, 2016 and shall be utilized completely for vehicle floor washing, cooling tower make up, gardening etc. CBWTF shall maintain zero liquid discharge from the CBWTF c. Adequate measures shall be taken for odour control by the CBWTF d. OCEMS should be installed and connected with CPCB and UPPCB server for transmission of real time data for prescribed parameters of incinerator. [2026] 9 S. C. R. 471 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. e. Initially the Operating capacity of incinerator of CBWTF may be restricted to 2. 5 ton/day.

UPPCB shall monitor the CBWTF for six months and based on its performance operational capacity may be increased accordingly with prior information to CPCB. This is issued with the approval of Competent Authority, CPCB”. (Emphasis supplied) 20. After the UP SEIAA had revoked the appellant’s first EC in accordance with the Tribunal’s judgment in Aniruda Panwar (supra) , on 17. 10. 2023, the appellant had submitted a fresh proposal to the UP SEIAA for the grant of prior EC. 21. Vide its e-mail communication dated 17. 11. 2023, the respondent no. 1 addressed a complaint against the appellant to the UP SEAC highlighting the following aspects: (i) that plot no. E-27 had not yet been allotted to the appellant, (ii) that since plot nos. E-25 and E-26 respectively were originally allotted to the appellant for the establishment of a ‘green category’ industry i. e.

, the fabrication of industrial equipment, the process of allotment should not have been revisited by the UPSIDA to entitle the appellant to establish a ‘red category’ industry in the same plot, and (iii) that the GAP Analysis for the entire State as mandated by the RG, 2016 had not been conducted and therefore, the appellant’s case must not be considered for the issuance of CTE. 22. Since relaxation was granted by the CPCB and it was no longer necessary to procure plot E-27, vide letter dated 21. 11. 2023, the appellant applied to withdraw the second ToR issued in its favour. 23. Despite the aforesaid allegations levelled by the respondent no. 1, on 20. 11. 2023, the UP SEAC in its 810th meeting recommended the grant of EC to the appellant. It must be noted that it was the first ToR and its consequent EIA study, not the second ToR, which was taken into consideration during its decision-making process. The UP SEIAA also concurred with the said decision and therefore, the EC dated 20.

12. 2023 (“hereinafter, the “ second EC ”) was granted. 24. Further, on the same date i. e. , on 20. 12. 2023, the UPPCB also granted the CTE (hereinafter, the “ second CTE ”) to the appellant. 472 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports 25. Aggrieved, on 16. 01. 2024, the appellant preferred an Appeal bearing Appeal No. 4 of 2024 under Sections 16(g) and (h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“ NGT Act ”) before the Tribunal challenging the second EC and the second CTE respectively. 26. In the meantime, on 19. 02. 2024, a Consent to Operate (“ CTO ”) was also granted to the appellant by the UPPCB. 27. Vide the impugned decision dated 05. 07. 2024, the Tribunal decided to set-aside the second EC and second CTE respectively for being illegal and held as under: i. First , that the RG, 2016 have been framed in exercise of statutory power and are mandatory, enforceable and binding in nature. ii.

Secondly , Clause 7(b) of the RG, 2016 which allows a deviation from the one acre plot size requirement is anchored on the fulfilment of a crucial precondition i. e. , the CBWTF must be established within municipal limits with population of more than 25 lakhs or be established in a rural area. Babrala does not fulfil either criteria and the authorities failed to look further into this aspect. Therefore, the UP SEAC, UP SEIAA, UPPCB and the CPCB respectively have acted in a very mechanical and unmindful manner insofar as applying Clause 7(b) to the instant project was concerned. iii. Thirdly, that this Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar (supra) did not strictly lay down that the appellant’s application for land relaxation must be allowed. It was clear that the process shall be undertaken in accordance with law and not in an illegal or arbitrary manner. Hence, it cannot be suggested that there was any direction in this regard made by the Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar (supra). iv.

Lastly , that in granting such land relaxation, the UPPCB and CPCB respectively have paid undue weight to irrelevant factors like the investment made by the appellant and the GAP analysis report. Moreover, the UPPCB had either deliberately or unintentionally projected that the first EC and first CTE respectively were only declared null and void and not illegal . No heed was paid to the multivarious factors relevant to operational effectiveness of the plant in a smaller [2026] 9 S. C. R. 473 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. area. Therefore, when considerations which were either untrue or irrelevant had been relied upon by the authorities, it undoubtedly showed that there was no real application of mind and as a result, the entire exercise of grant of land relaxation was vitiated on account of malice in law. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned decision are reproduced thus: “ 140.

A perusal of para 7(a) shows that it requires setting up of CBWTF preferably on a plot size of not less than one acre in all the areas. However, CBWTF can be developed in adjacent plots to cover up requirement of the area but cannot be set up in two or more different plots located in different areas. 141. Para 7(b) contemplates a deviation from the requirement of not less than one acre land and says that if there is a new CBWTF to be established in a municipal limit with population of more than 25 lakhs or rural areas, the land area requirement may be relaxed but not in any case less than 0.

5 acres by SPCB/SPCC with additional control measures such as zero liquid discharge, increase in stack height, stringent emission norms, odour control measures or any other measures felt necessary by the prescribed authority on case to case basis, only in consultation with CPCB 142 One of the conditions for relaxation or deviation in the requirement of not less than one acre of land is that the municipal limit wherein a new CBWTF is proposed, should have a population of more than 25 lakhs or CBWTF is proposed to be established in a rural area. It is not disputed before us that Babrala is a Nagar Panchayat. It is thus, not a rural area. 143. A Nagar Panchayat is an urban local body i. e. , Municipality. […] -xxx- 145. Article 243Q refers to three kinds of municipalities i. e. , (a) Nagar Panchayat (by 474 [2026] 9 S. C. R.

Supreme Court Reports whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area, (b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and (c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. 147 The population of Babrala Nagar Panchayat whether taking as per 2011 census or as per any subsequent estimation is not even one lakh, what to say of more than 25 lakhs. Para 7(b) of RG 2016, therefore, was outrightly inapplicable for exercising the power of relaxation in respect of the proposed CBWTF of respondent 7 It is really surprising and very astonishing that neither SEIAA UP nor CPCB have looked into this aspect of the matter at all and acted in a very mechanical and unmindful manner, 148. Suggestions has been made that since there was a direction by this Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar vs.

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Others (supra) that application for grant of EC may be considered by exercising the power of relaxation in respect of requirement of area but authorities have totally misled themselves by ignoring that Tribunal clearly said that such consideration shall be in accordance with law and not in an arbitrary and illegal manner. 149. We also notice that the then Member Secretary, UPPCB by seeking clarification from CPCB regarding relaxation in land requirement for CBWTF vide letter dated 16. 10. 2023 has only stressed upon the fact that proponent has made investment of 132 lakhs which include cost of land, building, plant and machinery; as per Gap Analysis, there was requirement of CBWTF to be established and that respondent 7 was already granted CTE and EC but due to gap in certain procedure and formalities, earlier CTE and EC became null and void and not illegal. This is clear misreading and appears to be a deliberate [2026] 9 S. C. R.

475 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. attempt on the part of the then Member Secretary, UPPCB to suggest that earlier CTE and EC was only null and void and not illegal though judgment of Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Others (supra) clearly declares that CTE and EC, not in conformity with the RG 2016 in respect of requirement of area is null, void and illegal and nullity for all purposes […] -xxx- 151. We further find that CPCB in its letter dated 17. 11. 2023, instead of applying mind on this aspect directing SEIAA UP to look into the question whether any relaxation is admissible or permissible in accordance with provisions of RG 2016 in the case in hand, has simply observed that the area criteria may be relaxed from one acre to 0. 89 acres by adopting certain measures which relates to additional conditions necessary for prevention of pollution of air.

There is no reference to the question as to whether the area where CBWTF is proposed qualify the requirement of population for the purpose of attracting the provisions of para 7(b) or not . 152 In the ultimate order granting relaxation, again the same considerations, as are mentioned in the letter dated 16. 10. 2023, have been reiterated which in our view, were irrelevant since it is not investment made by respondent 7 which was relevant but the operational effectiveness of the plant in a smaller area ought to have been considered. There is no application of mind on this aspect. There is no consideration whether sufficient space for storage of BMW generated by health care facilities collected by CBWTF for processing and also for storage of inert/residual matter etc. , and for other operational purposes was available. -xxx- 476 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports 154.

We also do not find any hesitation in observing that the officer concerned who has issued EC and CTE to respondent 7 after judgment of Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Others (supra) has acted for reasons other than bonafide and clearly it is malicious in law. There was/is no extraordinary urgency in proceeding to grant the requisite clearance to respondent 7 instead of considering the matter in the light of relevant provisions and by application of mind to the relevant factors. The entire exercise is clearly malicious in law. It is well settled that even if there is no malice in fact but if there is something malicious m law, it is vitiated in law. -xxx- 164.

In brief the malice in law can be said when a power is exercised for an unauthorized purpose or on a fact which is claimed to exist but in fact, is non-est or for the purpose for which it is not meant though apparently it is shown that the same is being exercised for the purpose the power is supposed to be exercised […] -xxx- 166. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation but to hold that EC and CTE granted in the case in hand, cannot be sustained. They are contrary to law, illegal and are liable to be set aside. 167 The Appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned EC dated 20. 12 2023 and CTE dated 20 12. 2023 are hereby set aside. ” (Emphasis supplied) 28. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 29. This Court vide its order dated 15. 07. 2024 directed that a report be furnished by the District Magistrate, Sambhal regarding the location [2026] 9 S. C. R. 477 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs.

of the CBWTF established by the appellant and the population of the Babrala Nagar Panchayat. The relevant portions of the said order of this Court is reproduced thus: “ 4. According to the appellant, its CBWTF is situated in a rural area. However, this is contested by the respondent who contends that the Facility is not situated in a rural area, but is situated within the limits of Babrala Nagar Panchayat with a population much less than twenty-five lacs. 5. We have heard Mr Shyam Divan, senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr Pinaki Misra, senior counsel for the respondent. 6. Certain documents have been produced by the appellants in the course of the hearing, in interlocutory applications, but it has been fairly accepted that these were not part of the record before the NGT.

In order to obviate any controversy on the factual aspect so as to allow this Court to have a clear indication in regard to the location of the Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility which has been conducted by the appellant, we are of the view that a report should be called for from the District Magistrate, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. 7. The CBWTF of the appellant is situated on plot No E-25/26, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Babrala – 243751, District Sambhal. The District Magistrate, Sambhal shall submit a report to this Court on the following aspects: (i). Whether the CBWTF of the appellant is situated within the limits of Babrala Nagar Panchayat; (ii). In the event, that the answer to (i) above is in the affirmative, the population of the Babrala Nagar Panchayat; and (iii). In the event, that the answer to (i) above is in the negative, whether the CBWTF is situated in a rural area. 8 The report to be submitted by the District Magistrate shall be based on the official records as available.

The report shall be submitted within a period of one week. ” (Emphasis supplied) 478 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 30. Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant canvassed the following submissions: i. The CBWTF plant established by the appellant is located in a rural area, more specifically under Village Noorpur. The same is brought forth by the report dated 24. 07. 2024 furnished by the District Magistrate, Sambhal in compliance with the order of this Court dated 15. 07. 2024 as also the letter dated 10. 07. 2024 addressed by the Revenue Inspector, Sambhal respectively. The location of the appellant’s facility does not fall within the limits of the Babrala Nagar Panchayat. In fact, the distance between the plant and the border of the Babrala Nagar Panchayat is about 2. 6 km. ii.

It must be further noted that the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh, vide notification dated 05. 09. 2001, in exercise of the power under Section 2(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (“ UP Industrial Area Act ”) notified the Industrial Area, Babrala (at serial no. 78 of the Gazette Notification) wherein, it has been categorically mentioned that it is situated in Village Noorpur. iii. Therefore, the pre-condition under Clause 7(b) of the RG, 2016 as regards the relaxation of land requirement for a CBWTF stands fulfilled and the grant of such relaxation with additional control measures by the CPCB on 17. 11. 2023 cannot be faulted with. As a result, the impugned decision setting aside the second EC and second CTE respectively on this ground was completely erroneous. iv. The first ToR granted to the appellant was never set-aside by the Tribunal vide its decision in Aniruda Panwar (supra) . Moreover, the Office Memorandums (“ O. M. ”) dated 29. 08.

2017 and 08. 06. 2022 respectively issued by the MoEF&CC explicitly state that the validity of a ToR is for a period of four years. Therefore, there was no requirement for the appellant to obtain a fresh ToR. v. The second ToR which was issued to the appellant on 10. 08. 2023 was subsequently withdrawn vide letter dated [2026] 9 S. C. R. 479 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. 21. 11. 2023. Therefore, it can neither be said that the appellant provided any false or misleading information to the authorities, nor can it be said that the authorities were wrong in considering the first ToR while issuing the second EC and second CTE respectively. vi. The relevant authorities had duly applied their mind during the process of granting the second EC and second CTE respectively, and the same can be independently demonstrated by the chronology of events placed on record.

As such, it cannot be stated that the decision(s) of the UP SEAC, UP SEIAA, UPPCB and the CPCB respectively lacked application of mind or was malicious in law. B. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 31. Mr. Pinaki Misra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 canvassed the following submissions: i. The information furnished by the project proponent in Form 1/1A along with the proposed ToR form the basis and soul of the grant of EC for any project. Providing missing or misleading information in Form 1/1A significantly impedes the functioning of the authorities and the conduct of the EIA study.

It is for this reason that Clause 8(vi) of the EIA, 2006 provides that “ Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. ” In the present case, both the first and the second ToR were granted on deliberate concealment and/or the submission of false/ misleading data. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India reported in (2019) 15 SCC 401 to submit that such lapses must vitiate the whole process and the appellant must recommence from the Form 1 stage. ii.

The issue whether allocation or procurement of land is a condition precedent for filing an application for grant of EC and CTE respectively to a CBWTF was considered by the Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar (supra) and was answered in the affirmative 480 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports in light of Clause 2 of the RG, 2016. In consonance with such a finding, the decision in Aniruda Panwar (supra) held the first ToR granted in favour of the appellant to be illegal and void. Naturally, the second EC and second CTE respectively which were granted on the basis of the defunct first ToR cannot have any validity under law. Therefore, the impugned decision rightly set-aside the second set of permissions. iii. Even the second ToR granted in favour of the appellant would be hit by the decision of the Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar (supra) since it mentions plot E-27 without the appellant having actually procured the said plot from the UPSIDA. iv.

Moreover, the very issuance of the second ToR clearly evinces that the first ToR could no longer be put to use. v. The relaxation in land requirement granted by the CPCB cannot be sustained for three reasons: First , the letter dated 16. 10. 2023 addressed by the Member Secretary, UPPCB to the CPCB had observed that the first EC and first CTE granted to the appellant were declared null and void ‘but not illegal’ by the Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar (supra). This false premise contributed to the decision granting relaxation and hence, such a decision is vitiated by malice in law. Secondly, relaxation cannot be given as a matter of right and must be reserved only for exceptional circumstances. Such an exception must seldom be used especially when the project in question is located in an industrial area and the same was emphasized by the Tribunal in Aniruda Panwar (supra) .

Lastly , the UPPCB and CPCB respectively were preoccupied with irrelevant considerations like the investment made by the appellant and ignored the crucial question as regards the operational effectiveness of the CBWTF in a smaller area. Therefore, their decision suffers from due application of mind. vi. The decisions of this Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 579 and State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev reported in (2005) 5 SCC 181 respectively lay down the criteria for judicial review of discretionary administrative action and the present case was a fit one for interference by the Tribunal. [2026] 9 S. C. R. 481 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. III. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 32. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the question which falls for our consideration is whether the NGT vide the impugned judgment and order dated 05. 07.

2024 was right in setting aside the second EC and second CTE respectively granted to the appellant by the UP SEIAA and UPPCB respectively. 33. In order to arrive at a finding on the aforesaid, the following legal issues need to be dealt with: i. Whether the RG, 2016 is mandatory or directory in nature? ii. Whether the grant of relaxation in land requirement in favour the appellant for the establishment of a CBWTF by the CPCB was permissible? iii. On a combined reading of the EIA, 2006 and the RG, 2016 respectively, what is the status of land acquisition required for establishing a CBWTF at the time of making a Form 1 application, at the stage of Appraisal of the EC and at the time of making an application for the issuance of CTE respectively? iv. Whether the UP SEAC and the UP SEIAA respectively could have proceeded with the grant of the second EC on the basis of the first ToR? IV. ANALYSIS A. Mandatory nature of the RG, 2016 and the decision of this Court in Gulf Goans 34.

Before we proceed to the other issues raised in this appeal, it is imperative that we deal with the question pertaining to the mandatory nature of the RG, 2016. This is especially because there seems to be a repeated trend of submissions being made before the Tribunal that in light of the decision of this Court in Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 673, the guidelines may not have the ‘force of law’. The impugned decision has held that the RG, 2016 is binding, however, in doing so it has not made any specific reference to the ratio in Gulf Goans (supra) or the line of argument referenced hereinabove. 482 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports 35. Gulf Goans (supra) was concerned with a set of guidelines pertaining to permissible construction activity in the coastal areas of Goa, more specifically the distance that has to be maintained from the high tide line.

It is to be noted that these guidelines were issued before the enactment of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (“ EP Act ”) which penalized environmental violations through statutory power. In this background, it was held that such executive guidelines cannot be enforced to the prejudice of an individual unless shown to have acquired the force of law. To acquire such character, the guidelines were required to satisfy certain minimum elements i. e. , they must inter alia have (i) a certain form possessed by other laws in force; (ii) encapsulate a clear mandate or explicit command which may be prescriptive, permissive or penal; (iii) disclose the achievement of a specific and identifiable purpose; (iv) have some authentication and (v) be notified or published either in the mode prescribed by the statute or in the Official Gazette. It was added that the first element itself i. e. , the form, or the absence thereof will not be determinative. However, the second and third elements i. e.

, a clear mandate and purpose, were indispensable. 36. In effect, Gulf Goans (supra) held that the impugned guidelines/ notifications therein had not acquired the force of law for several reasons including the lack of an expressed or clearly defined dicta which supported that they were not mere suggestions or expressions of opinion, the government failing to discharge the burden that the guidelines were authenticated in accordance with Article 77 of the Constitution, and the failure to notify or publish them in the Official Gazette. The relevant observations are reproduced below: “ 17. […]However, we are unable to find in the said guidelines any expressed or clearly defined dicta . In fact, having read and considered the guidelines, we are left with a reasonable doubt as to whether what has been spelt out therein are not mere suggestions or opinions expressed in the process of a continuing exploration to identify the correct parameters that would effectuate the purpose i. e.

safeguarding and protecting the environment (sea beaches) from human exploitation and degradation. 19. Article 77 of the Constitution provides the form in which the Executive must make and authenticate its [2026] 9 S. C. R. 483 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. orders and decisions. Clause (1) of Article 77 provides that all executive action of the Government must be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. The celebrated author H. M. Seervai in Constitutional Law of India, 4th Edn. , Vol. 2, 1999 describes the consequences of government orders or instructions not being in accordance with clauses (1) or (2 ) of Article 77 by opining that the same would deprive the orders of the immunity conferred by the aforesaid clauses and they may be open to challenge on the ground that they have not been made by or under the authority of the President in which case the burden would be on the Government to show that they were, in fact, so made.

In the present case, the said burden has not been discharged in any manner whatsoever. […] 20. Clause (2) of Article 77 also provides for the authentication of orders and instruments in a manner as may be prescribed by the Rules. In this regard, vide S. O. No. 2297 dated 3-11-1958 published in the Gazette of India, the President has issued the Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules, 1958. The said Rules have been superseded subsequently in 2002. Admittedly, the provisions of the said 1958 Rules had not been followed in the present case insofar as the promulgation of the guidelines is concerned. 21. In the absence of due authentication and promulgation of the guidelines, the contents thereof cannot be treated as an order of the Government and would really represent an expression of opinion . […] 22. It is also essential that what is claimed to be a law must be notified or made public in order to bind the citizen. […] 24.

It will not be necessary to notice the long line of decisions reiterating the aforesaid view. So far as the mode of publication is concerned, it has been consistently held by this Court that such mode must be as prescribed by the statute. In the event the statute does not contain any prescription and even under the subordinate 484 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports legislation there is silence in the matter, the legislation will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette (B. K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka) [( 1987) 1 SCC 658] . Admittedly, the “guidelines” were not gazetted. 25. If the guidelines relied upon by the Union of India in the present case fail to satisfy the essential and vital parameters/requirements of law as the trend of the above discussion would go to show, the same cannot be enforced to the prejudice of the appellants as has been done in the present case. […] ” (Emphasis supplied) i.

The genesis, scope and nature of the RG, 2016 37. At this juncture, it would be appropriate for us to pause and look into how the RG, 2016 came into existence. Section 8 of the EP Act mandates that no person shall handle or cause to be handled any hazardous substance except in accordance with such procedure and after complying with such safeguards as may be prescribed. Sections 6 and 25 of the EP Act respectively, grant powers to the Central Government to make rules in respect of the aforesaid and requires the publication of these rules in the Official Gazette. In exercise of the powers conferred under the aforementioned provisions of the EP Act, the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (“ BMWM Rules ”) came into existence through publication in the Official Gazette. 38. The BMWM Rules, in turn, under several provisions, refer to certain guidelines which are to be issued by the CPCB that would further regulate the standards and procedures to be followed by operators of CBWTFs i. e.

, the RG, 2016. As per Rule 3(c), the authorisation granted by the prescribed authority must itself be in accordance with the RG, 2016. Rule 5 relating to the duties of a CBWTF operator also relies on the RG, 2016 for prescribing detailed responsibilities. Rule 17, which is of some relevance to the broad issue canvassed under the present appeal, also states that site selection for setting up a CBWTF shall be made in accordance with the RG, 2016. For better context, the relevant provisions of the BMWM Rules are reproduced hereinbelow: [2026] 9 S. C. R. 485 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. “ 3.

Definitions - […] (c) “authorisation” means permission granted by the prescribed authority for the generation, collection, reception, storage, transportation, treatment, processing, disposal or any other form of handling of bio-medical waste in accordance with these rules and guidelines issued by the Central Government or Central Pollution Control Board as the case may be; (d) “authorised person” means an occupier or operator authorised by the prescribed authority to generate, collect, receive, store, transport, treat, process, dispose or handle bio-medical waste in accordance with these rules and the guidelines issued by the Central Government or the Central Pollution Control Board, as the case may be; 5. Duties of the operator of a common bio-medical waste treatment and disposal facility .

-It shall be the duty of every operator to - (a) take all necessary steps to ensure that the bio- medical waste collected from the occupier is transported, handled, stored, treated and disposed of, without any adverse effect to the human health and the environment, in accordance with these rules and guidelines issued by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the central pollution control board from time to time; 14. Maintenance of records. - (1) Every authorised person shall maintain records related to the generation, collection, reception, storage, transportation, treatment, disposal or any other form of handling of bio-medical waste, for a period of five years, in accordance with these rules and guidelines issued by the Central Government or the Central Pollution Control Board or the prescribed authority as the case may be. 17. Site for common bio-medical waste treatment and disposal facility.

-(1) Without prejudice to rule 5 of these rules, the department in the business allocation of land assignment shall be responsible for providing 486 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports suitable site for setting up of common biomedical waste treatment and disposal facility in the State Government or Union territory Administration. (2) The selection of site for setting up of such facility shall be made in consultation with the prescribed authority, other stakeholders and in accordance with guidelines published by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change or Central Pollution Control Board . ” (Emphasis supplied) 39. In addition to the above, Schedule III to the BMWM Rules which lists out every prescribed authority and the corresponding duties entrusted to them, require the CPCB to “ prepare Guidelines on bio-medical waste management ” and “ lay down criteria for establishing common bio-medical waste treatment facilities in the country ”, amongst other things.

Additionally, the Schedule also requires Municipalities or Corporations, Urban Local Bodies and Gram Panchayats to provide or allocate suitable land for development of common bio-medical waste treatment facilities in their respective jurisdictions “ as per the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board ”. 40. What can be gathered from all these different provisions under the BMWM Rules is that the rules themselves require the RG, 2016 to be made and scrupulously followed for its effective implementation. This aspect could not have been conveyed with better clarity. In such circumstances, there must arise no doubt as regards the mandatory nature of the RG, 2016.

To alleviate any residual uncertainty, the RG, 2016 itself in its introductory paragraph reads thus: “ Also, the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 mandates that the operator of a CBWTF authorised by the prescribed authority is required to take all necessary steps to ensure that the bio-medical waste collected from the occupier is transported, handled, stored, treated and disposed of, without any adverse effect to the human health and the environment, in accordance with the BMWM Rules and the guidelines issued by the Central Government or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) from time to time. Therefore, these guidelines have been prepared with an aim to have uniformity in [2026] 9 S. C. R. 487 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. ensuring site selection, allowing and establishment of a state-of-the-art CBWTF, operation as well as verification of compliance to the BMWM Rules, 2016 throughout the country.

However, any other aspects which are not been covered under these guidelines and needs attention, in such a case, the prescribed authority may take suitable action in the interest of protection of the environment in consultation with MoEF & CC/CPCB. Also, it is pertinent to mention here that these guidelines are mandatory henceforth under the Bio-medical Waste Management Rules, 2016. ” (Emphasis supplied) 41. Moreover, observing alleged non-compliance to the BMWM Rules and the RG, 2016 in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the UP SEIAA and UP SEAC respectively in the process of grant of EC to CBWTFs, the MoEF&CC thought fit to issue an OM dated 01. 04. 2022, the relevant parts of which reads thus: “ 2. The communications highlights that the SEIAA abd SEAC of Uttar Pradesh is not taking into consideration the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Revised CPCB Guideline provisions while according Environmental Clearance for CBWTFs. 3.

In view of the above, it is requested to kindly examine the matter as per provisions stipulated under Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016 and respective CPCB Guidelines. It is to emphasize here that the provisions contained in guidelines may be strictly followed while giving clearance to new facilities through Gap-Analysis. Further, CPCB may ensure the compliance through regular monitoring. An Action taken Report may also kindly be provided to the Ministry. ” (Emphasis supplied) 42. Therefore, the intention behind bringing in the RG, 2016 and making it a binding mandate on all the stakeholders is as clear as a noon day. However, it seems as though the ratio in Gulf Goans (supra) is still blindly being resorted to, as one final attempt, by project proponents and surprisingly, State SEIAAs/SEACs alike, to avoid 488 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports compliance with RG, 2016.

To thwart such devious attempts, we must take a closer look at necessary elements laid down in Gulf Goans (supra) and contextualise them with the RG, 2016. No doubt, the first three i. e. , a form, a clear mandate and an identifiable purpose, don’t require much debate insofar as the RG, 2016 is concerned. ii. The requirement of authentication under Article 77 of the Constitution 43. As regards the question of authentication under Article 77 of the Constitution, this Court in Air India Cabin Crew Assn. v. Yeshaswinee Merchant and Others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 277 held that the object and effect of Article 77 is to insulate the executive action of the government which is formally taken in the name of the President from challenge on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the President.

However, this cannot be read to mean that all other executive action which is not formally expressed to have been taken in the name of the President, ipso facto becomes invalid. In other words, any alleged non-compliance with Article 77 only precludes the drawing of an irrebuttable presumption that it is an order or instrument made in the name of the President and by no stretch of imagination, invalidates the order itself. It can always be established by evidence aliunde that the order was made by the competent authority of the Central Government in the name of the President [ See also, Major E. G. Barsay v. State of Bombay reported in 1961 SCC OnLine SC 30 ]. The relevant observations made in Air India Cabin Crew Assn (supra) are thus: “ 72. In our opinion, reference to Article 77 is wholly inappropriate. The exercise of statutory power under Section 34 by the Central Government, even though not expressed to have been taken in the name of President, does not render it invalid.

Clause (2) of Article 77 insulates an executive action of the Government formally taken in the name of President from challenge on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by President. Even if an executive action of the Central Government is not formally expressed to have been taken in the name of President, Article 77 does not provide that it would, therefore, be rendered void or invalid. […]” (Emphasis supplied) [2026] 9 S. C. R. 489 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. 44. Keeping in mind the clarification made by Air India Cabin Crew Assn (supra) , it would be even more absurd to assert that executive guidelines issued in exercise of statutory power would be automatically invalid if not authenticated. We say so because, it cannot be disputed that the RG, 2016 has been, in fact, made by the appropriate authority i. e. , the CPCB, in pursuance of a clear mandate outlined by the EP Act and the BMWM Rules respectively.

Furthermore, what is of particular note is that Gulf Goans (supra) was concerned with guidelines which did not have statutory backing. As a matter of fact, Gulf Goans (supra) itself, while differentiating Air India Cabin Crew Assn (supra) recognised that when executive guidelines or directions are issued pursuant to a statute, it may not be necessary that the burden of proof of authentication under Article 77 be discharged and observed thus: “ 19. […] The decision in Air India Cabin Crew Assn. v. Yeshaswinee Merchant [(2003) 6 SCC 277, p. 311, para 72 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 840] , taking a somewhat different view can, perhaps, be explained by the fact that in the said case the impugned directions contained in the government letter (not expressed in the name of the President) was in exercise of the statutory power under Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953. In the present case, the impugned guidelines have not been issued under any existing statute. ” 45.

As a result, the only element that now requires some explanation is that of publication, that too, whether it must be made in the Official Gazette. iii. Whether the non-publication of the RG, 2016 in the Official Gazette could be said to affect its mandatory nature 46. While it would have been possible for us to differentiate Gulf Goans (supra) from the present case by stating that the RG, 2016 came to be issued in furtherance of several statutory provisions and thereby dispense with the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, we are afraid that doing so may lead to an oversimplified and fallacious misinterpretation that all statutory guidelines need not be published in the Official Gazette. The answer is, rather, slightly more layered. 490 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports 47. This Court in B. K. Srinivasan and Others v.

State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1987) 1 SCC 658 largely dealt with a similar issue wherein the consequences of a failure to publish the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations therein in the Official Gazette was being ascertained to see if the violations committed by the appellants deserved commensurate action. Holding that the non-publication in the Official Gazette was not detrimental, this Court observed that: i. First, a law along with all the changes and/or additions made to it by various processes, whether permanent or subordinate, must be notified ‘directly and reliably’ to those from whom it seeks compliance. To put it simply, that law must be so made that it can be known. ii. Secondly, the question whether non-publication of something in the Official Gazette is fatal must be viewed from three perspectives or angles: (a) the first angle wherein a specific mode is prescribed for its publication by the parent statute.

In such cases, the said mode must be followed; (b) the second type wherein there is a silence in the parent statute but the subordinate legislation prescribes a mode for its publication. In such cases, the prescribed mode may be sufficient, if reasonable . (c) The third-type wherein both the parent and subordinate legislation are silent, or where the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode. In such cases, effect can be given only if it is published through the customarily recognised official channel i. e. , the Official Gazette or “ some other reasonable mode ”. The relevant observations are thus: “ 15. There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law, whether parliamentary or subordinate, demands compliance, those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and all changes and additions made to it by various processes.

Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the “conscientious good man” seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes’s “unconscientious bad man” seeking to avoid the law, law must be known, that is to say, it [2026] 9 S. C. R. 491 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. must be so made that it can be known. […] Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication.

There may be subordinate legislation which is concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such cases publication or promulgation by other means may be sufficient [Narayana Reddy v. State of A. P. , (1969) 1 Andh WR 77]” (Emphasis supplied) 48. In B. K. Srinivasan (supra), it was not the parent statute but the rules which prescribed a mode by stating that “ The Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as approved by the State Government under sub-section (4) of Section 13 shall be published in the Official Gazette ”. Therefore, the factual circumstances fell under the second- type aforementioned. Hence, in an attempt to discover whether the mode prescribed by the rules was ‘reasonable’, this Court probed into what was, in essence, required as a consequence of the publication and attempted at a holistic reading of the entire scheme of the Act and rules thereunder.

In doing so, it was held that the plan and the regulations themselves need not have been ‘bodily published’ or reproduced in the Official Gazette. For better clarity, we deem it necessary to reproduce the relevant observations: “ 16. In the present case Section 13(4) has prescribed the mode of publication of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations. It requires the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations to be published in the prescribed manner and the Plan and particulars to be permanently displayed in the offices of the Director and the Planning Authority and a copy to be kept available for 492 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports the inspection of the public at the office of the Planning Authority. The particulars referred to, we presume, are the particulars mentioned in Section 12(2) of the Act consisting of various reports, including the Regulations. “The prescribed manner” is what is prescribed by Rule 33, that is, publication in the Official Gazette.

If we now turn to Section 9(1) and 9(2), we find that there too the Outline Development Plan is required to be published in “the prescribed manner”. The prescribed manner for the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 9 is that prescribed by Rule 32. Rule 32 we have seen prescribes making a copy of the Plan available for inspection, publishing a notice in Form II in the Official Gazette and in one or more newspapers and displaying a notice in Form II at the office of Planning Authority and at other specified places. It is true that Rule 33 speaks of publication of approved Outline Development Plan and Regulations in the Official Gazette, suggestive of a requirement that the Outline Development Plan and Regulations should bodily be incorporated in the Official Gazette.

But if the entire scheme of the Act and the rules is considered as an integral whole it becomes obvious that what Section 13(4) contemplates besides permanently displaying the Plan and the particulars in the offices of Director and Planning Authority and keeping available a copy for the inspection of the public at the office of Planning Authority is a public notice to the general public that the Plan and Regulations are permanently displayed and are available for inspection by the public. Such public notice is required to be given by a publication in the Official Gazette. This is how it was understood by the authorities and everyone else concerned and this is how it was done in the present case. This appears to be a reasonable and a rational interpretation on Section 13(4) and Rule 33 in the setting and the scheme. We are of the view that there was compliance with the requirements of Section 13(4) and Rule 33.

We have earlier mentioned that Section 13(1) requires the provisional Outline Development Plan and particulars to be published by notification in the Official Gazette, with [2026] 9 S. C. R. 493 M/s Punahchakran Private L imited v. Indotech Waste Solution & O rs. a view to invite comments from the public. What was published in the present case under Section 13(1) was also a notice in Form II and not the whole of the Plan and particulars. Such publication evoked considerable public response. As many as 600 representations from individuals and institutions were received. That is why we said that everyone concerned, that is, the Government, the Director, the Planning Authority and the public, individual and institution alike, thought that publication of a notice in the Gazette inviting the attention of the public to the display and the availability for inspection of the Plan and particulars was all that was contemplated by the provisions providing for publication.

We do not think that there is any reason or justification for us to adopt an interpretation which departs from common understanding of the Act and the Rules. ” (Emphasis supplied) 49. There was also an omnibus curative clause in the parent Act in B. K. Srinivasan (supra) which protected a publication defect when sufficient knowledge of the requirements in the plan and regulation existed with the violating individual. While the presence of this clause added another layer of reasoning, it did not materially affect the conclusion already arrived at. What we are trying to convey is that even when the publication of something in the Official Gazette is required by the plain words of the subordinate legislation (rules), there is some scope, albeit narrow, for the interpretation that its non-publication in the Gazette was not detrimental to its legality or binding nature based on an examination of whether the prescribed mode was reasonable or not . 50.

In the present litigation, we are concerned with a situation fitting within the third type i. e. , when there is silence both in the parent statute and the rules as regards what mode of publication must be followed. As a general rule, even in such scenarios, publication must ideally be made in the Official Gazette. After all, it is the customarily recognised official channel of the government. But, of course, the natural corollary to any general rule is the possibility of it having one or more exceptions. B. K. Srinivasan (supra) too referred to such outliers when it clearly stated that “ some other reasonable mode of 494 [2026] 9 S. C. R. Supreme Court Reports publication ” may also be acceptable apart from publication in the Official Gazette. It is tacit that to take benefit of this exception, the court must be satisfied that such an alternate mode or manner of publication was indeed reasonable. 51.

At this juncture, we must point out that Gulf Goans (supra) itself laid down the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette as a pre-requisite by placing reliance upon B. K. Srinivasan (supra). However, in the larger background of the facts in Gulf Goans (supra), this Court did not find it necessary to delve further into whether the mode of publication undertaken was reasonable or not. 52. A handful of decisions of this Court have held that publication in the Official Gazette is required. However, on a closer examination, all of them can be differentiated. In Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India and others reported in (199