The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that the relocation of a Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF) cannot be treated as a mere administrative adjustment but constitutes a new project requiring fresh Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. This ruling reinforces the principle that environmental approvals must be site-specific and cannot be transferred or inherited from prior authorizations, even where the operator seeks to shift operations to a new location.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s. Hygiene Biomed Services, purchased land in Loyavillage, Krishna District to establish a CBMWTF and obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) on 22.08.2020, valid for seven years. The 5th respondent, SafeEnviron Private Limited, an existing CBMWTF operator, sought to relocate its Unit One from Dharmavarappadu Thanda to Industrial Development Area, Kondapalli - just 2.8 km from the petitioner’s proposed site. The petitioner opposed the relocation, citing violation of the Revised Guidelines for CBMWTFs, 2016, which mandate a minimum 75 km radial distance between facilities.
Procedural History
- 2017 - 2020: Petitioner secured EC for proposed facility after public hearing.
- 2024 - 2025: 5th respondent applied for relocation without seeking fresh EC; submitted application under Form-I as if for relocation.
- 03.06.2025: State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) issued Terms of Reference (ToR) treating the proposal as relocation, ignoring pending complaints against the 5th respondent for unauthorized capacity enhancements.
- 14.05.2025: Petitioner filed detailed representation highlighting irregularities in the 5th respondent’s CTOs, including inflated incinerator capacities and unapproved ETP expansions.
- 22.01.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 challenged the ToR as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the ToR issued on 03.06.2025, declaration that relocation without fresh EC is illegal, and directions to treat the 5th respondent’s application as a new project requiring full compliance with EIA Notification, 2006, including public consultation and appraisal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether relocation of an existing CBMWTF under the EIA Notification, 2006, qualifies as a new project requiring fresh Environmental Clearance, or whether it can be treated as a mere change of location under the same existing EC and CTO.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the EIA Notification, 2006, does not recognize "relocation" as a distinct category. Only new projects, expansion, or modernization are recognized under para 7. The Revised Guidelines, 2016, explicitly state that relocation requires compliance with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which implies a fresh EC. The petitioner relied on Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India to invoke the precautionary principle and argued that the SEIAA’s failure to consider pending complaints against the 5th respondent violated principles of natural justice. The ToR improperly attributed the 5th respondent’s existing coverage area (140 km) to the new site, effectively precluding the petitioner’s project.
For the Respondent
The 5th respondent contended that the writ petition was premature, as the ToR was only a stage-two document under the four-stage EIA process and not a final decision. It argued that the NGT Act, 2010, provided an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 16, and that the petitioner lacked locus standi as a third party with no vested right to object to another’s application. It relied on Mantri Techzone v. Forward Foundation and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha to assert that pre-decisional stages are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the EIA Notification, 2006, and the Revised Guidelines for CBMWTFs, 2016, to determine the legal nature of relocation. It noted that while the EIA Notification lists only "new projects," "expansion," and "modernization" as categories requiring EC, Guideline 5.3 of the Revised Guidelines, 2016, explicitly includes "relocation of the existing CBWTF" as an activity requiring compliance with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This, the Court held, cannot be read as a mere procedural formality but as a substantive requirement for fresh Environmental Clearance.
"The relocation of an existing facility is not a continuation of the same project but a new environmental undertaking at a different site, with distinct ecological, hydrological, and demographic implications."
The Court further observed that the 5th respondent’s application did not mention "relocation" in its Form-I, suggesting it was attempting to circumvent the full EIA process. The SEIAA’s decision to attribute the existing coverage area and bed strength to the new location was found to be legally unsustainable, as it effectively denied the petitioner’s legitimate right to operate within the 75 km radius mandated by the Guidelines.
The Court rejected the argument that the ToR was merely procedural and non-final. While acknowledging that the final decision lies at Stage IV (appraisal), it emphasized that the principle of natural justice requires that objections raised by an aggrieved party - especially one with a prior EC and substantial investment - must be considered at every stage. The failure to address the petitioner’s detailed representations regarding the 5th respondent’s illegal capacity expansions rendered the process procedurally flawed.
The Court also clarified that the existence of an alternative remedy under the NGT Act does not oust the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly where issues of jurisdiction, natural justice, and statutory compliance are involved.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that relocation of a CBMWTF requires a fresh Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, and cannot be processed under an existing EC. The ToR issued on 03.06.2025 was set aside, and the regulatory authority was directed to reconsider the application as a new project, with full compliance to all stages of the EIA process, including public consultation, and with due consideration of the petitioner’s objections.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Relocation Is Not a Loophole for Bypassing EIA
- Practitioners must treat any change in location of a regulated facility as a new project requiring fresh EC, even if the operator is the same.
- Authorities cannot rely on prior CTEs or CTOs to justify relocation; each site demands independent environmental scrutiny.
- Applications must be evaluated under the correct category in Form-I; misclassification as "relocation" to avoid public consultation is legally invalid.
Public Consultation Cannot Be Ignored Without Reasoned Justification
- If a project falls under Category A or B1, public consultation is mandatory unless a specific exemption applies.
- Authorities must record cogent reasons for exempting any project from public consultation under para 7(iii) of the EIA Notification.
- Failure to do so renders the entire process vulnerable to judicial review.
Natural Justice Requires Consideration of All Substantive Objections
- Even at preliminary stages like scoping, authorities must consider written objections from aggrieved parties with a legitimate interest.
- Pending investigations into violations by an applicant cannot be ignored while processing applications that may benefit from those violations.
- A representation raising material irregularities must be addressed before any recommendation is made.
