Court said ex post facto environmental clearance is not prohibited by law
The court said: ex post facto environmental clearance is not prohibited by law
The Supreme Court has ruled that a facility that contributes to the country’s economy and provides a livelihood cannot be closed on the basis of a “technical irregularity” or failure to obtain a prior environmental permit, regardless of whether the unit actually causes pollution. .
The verdict of a bank headed by Judge Indira Banerjee on Friday came under appeal filed by a plastics manufacturing facility in Haryana.
The National Green Tribunal had ordered the unit to be closed because there was no prior environmental permit. However, the highest court noted that the unit employs more than 8,000 people. It had requested permission to settle and operate from the legal authorities. In addition, the unit had already applied for an “ex post facto” environmental permit.
The court found that other affiliates of the same unit were “completely non-polluting units with no trade discharge”. The court described the lack of a ‘prior’ environmental permit as a ‘procedural error’.
“The court should not be aware of the economy or the need to protect the livelihoods of hundreds of workers and others who work in the project and others who depend on the project, if such projects meet environmental standards,” Judge Banerjee said. , who wrote the verdict, noted.
The court said: ex post facto environmental permit is not prohibited by law.
“Ex post facto environmental permits should not normally be granted, and certainly not for demand. At the same time, ex post facto approvals and/or approvals and/or removal of technical irregularities cannot be refused with pedantic rigidity, oblivious to the consequences of ceasing to operate a rotating steel mill,” the verdict said.
The court added that the “deviant industry” can be punished on the basis of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, and that the costs of restoring the environment can be recovered from it.