[2022] 16 S.C.R. 855

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
855
   [2022] 16 S.C.R. 855
855
M/S PAHWA PLASTICS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
v.
DASTAK NGO AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4795 of 2021)
MARCH 25, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 : s. 22 – Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 –
Environment clearance – Grant of – Ex post facto environment
clearance – Appellants engaged in manufacture and sale of basic
organic chemicals – Appellant granted Consent to Establish (CTE)
and Consent to Operate (CTO) for its unit by State Pollution Control
Board-HSPCB – Subsequently, the Government issued a Notification
which provides for grant of ex post facto Environmental clearance-
EC for project proponents who had commenced, continued or
completed a project without obtaining EC – Thereafter, issuance of
an order by the State Government where the units which did not
have EC, be allowed to continue their operations for a period of
six months, with the conditions that they would apply for EC –
Respondent No.1 then filed a petition seeking quashing of the said
order and units operating without EC be closed – NGT held that the
manufacturing units of the appellants, which did not have prior EC
could not be allowed to operate – On appeal, held: Unit contributing
to the economy of the country and providing livelihood to hundreds
of people, which has been set up pursuant to requisite approvals
from the concerned statutory authorities, and has applied for ex
post facto EC, should not be closed down for the technical irregularity
of want of prior environmental clearance, pending the issuance of
EC, even though it may not cause pollution and/or may be found to
comply with the required norms – More so, the HSPCB was itself
under the misconception that no environment clearance was required
for the units in question – Ex post facto EC should not ordinarily be
granted, and certainly not for the asking – At the same time ex post
facto clearances and/or approvals cannot be declined with pedantic
rigidity, regardless of the consequences of stopping the operations

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
– Impugned order is set aside – Appellants would be allowed to
operate the units.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is well settled that words and phrases and/or
sentences in a judgment cannot be read in the manner of a statute,
and that too out of context. The observation of the Division Bench
that a one time relaxation was permissible, is not to be construed
as a finding that relaxation cannot be made more than once. If
power to amend or modify or relax a notification and/or order
exists, the notification and/or order may be amended and/or
modified as many times, as may be necessary. A statement made
by counsel in Court would not prevent the authority concerned
from making amendments and/or modifications provided such
amendments and/or modifications were as per the procedure
prescribed by law. [Para 47][877-B-D]
1.2 The Division Bench of the High Court erred in staying
the said office memorandum, by relying on observations made by
this Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd.’s case, in the context
of a circular which was contrary to the statutory Environment
Impact Notification of 1994. The attention of the High Court was
perhaps not drawn to the fact that the notification of 7th July
2021 was in pursuance of the statutory notification of 2017 which
was valid. [Para 48][877-D-E]
1.3 The manufacturing units of the appellants appoint about
8,000 employees and have a huge annual turnover. An
establishment contributing to the economy of the country and
providing livelihood ought not to be closed down only on the
ground of the technical irregularity of not obtaining prior
Environmental Clearance irrespective of whether or not the unit
actually causes pollution. [Para 54][878-H; 879-A]
1.4 The 1986 Act does not prohibit ex post facto
Environment

…