Mukesh Shankarlal Jaisinghani vs Kalyan Dombivili Municipal Corporation (KDMC) & Anr

Grievance in this application is against functioning of waste processing facility of Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC) at Barave which is said to be close to habitation. According to the applicant, waste processing facility violates the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The plot in question is within flood plain and is in proximity of a residential habitat. The applicant has made reference to earlier order of this Tribunal dated 25.09.2020 in Appeal No. 30/2020, Rajesh Lulla vs. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC) & Ors. filed against grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 08.06.2018 for the said facility.

Operative part of the said order is reproduced below:

"xxx ....................................xxx......................................xxx

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Municipal Council who is present on advance notice served by the appellant on the Municipal Council. On behalf of the Municipal Council, the first objection is that the appeal is not maintainable. Second objection is that the matter has been gone into on merits and on account of scarcity of space, the distance of 200 mtrs from the habitation cannot be read as mandatory, subject to the environment norms being maintained. He submitted that the Committee duly considered the matter with the assistance of all concerned parties and at this stage the appellant cannot have a fresh round of consideration, after participation before the Committee and after having failed in persuading the Tribunal to re-consider the matter. Moreover, uncertainty cannot be allowed to continue. The matter has been pending since 1995 when the site was selected as per rules and even before any housing project being there. After the matter was finalised, further steps have been taken to set up the facility though it has not yet been completed.

However, even while not entertaining the appeal, in view of the objections of the Municipal Council, we find that the reference of the matter to the Committee was by way of seeking a report on which the Tribunal could take a final view. The Committee has also given a report on which final order needs to be passed, even though appeal is not maintainable as such. We now proceed to do so, considering the rival submissions and the entirety of the matter.

It is clear from the report that the site was selected in the year 1995 as per the existing norms, when the housing project in question did not exist. The project proponent has gone ahead in the matter, in absence of any objection to the report. The Committee of experts has visited the site and found nothing objectionable. In these circumstances, while we do not at this stage, find any justification to interfere with the impugned EC, we suggest that the Municipal Council may use the present site as a transfer station as defined in Rule 3 (52) of the SWM Rules, 2016, for receiving solid waste from collection areas and transporting in bulk to another waste processing facility in view of its proximity to river, habitation and flood plains. The Municipal Council may also develop an appropriate buffer zone around the site, in the form of a biodiversity park, to address the concern to neutralize the odour emanation. Subject to these observations report of the Committee is affirmed and this order be read with the order already passed in Appeal No. 52/2018."

We are of the view that present application is repetition of earlier grievance which stands already disposed of. No further order is called for except that the State PCB in coordination with the concerned local body may look into the matter and take such further remedial action as may be called for in the light of order of this Tribunal.

The application is disposed of.

I.A. No. 198/2021 also stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the State PCB by e-mail for compliance.