The National Green Tribunal’s order in Prajesh Bisen & Ors. v. Chief Municipal Officer, Balaghat underscores that procedural filings - no matter how detailed - cannot substitute for tangible environmental compliance. For urban local bodies, this ruling establishes that delayed infrastructure projects, even under central schemes, do not absolve statutory obligations under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants alleged persistent non-compliance by the Balaghat Municipal Council with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, particularly regarding the absence of a functional Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) despite repeated directives from the National Green Tribunal. The respondents admitted systemic delays but attributed them to financial constraints and bureaucratic dependencies on the Urban Administration and Development Department (UADD), Government of Madhya Pradesh.
Procedural History
- 2024: Original Application No.138/2024(CZ) filed before NGT Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, seeking enforcement of waste management obligations.
- Prior Orders: Tribunal had previously directed the Municipal Council to submit an action taken report.
- 2025: Respondents filed reports detailing steps taken: submission of Detailed Project Report (DPR) on 19.03.2025, financial sanction granted on 10.06.2025, tender issued on 08.07.2025, and contractor awarded on 17.09.2025.
- Current Status: Construction had commenced but no completion date was provided in the action taken report.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought strict enforcement of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, recovery of pending Environmental Compensation imposed by the State Pollution Control Board, and a binding timeline for project completion.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere initiation of tender processes and receipt of financial sanctions under Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) 2.0 constitutes compliance with statutory obligations under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, or whether actual physical progress and timely completion are mandatory.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants contended that compliance under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 requires operational infrastructure, not administrative paperwork. They cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to argue that environmental duties are non-negotiable and cannot be deferred due to funding delays. They emphasized that Environmental Compensation of ₹1.5 crore, imposed by the State PCB, remained unrecovered despite being legally valid.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents argued that they were acting in good faith, constrained by financial dependency on UADD and procedural delays in state-level approvals. They relied on the Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) 2.0 guidelines to justify the timeline, asserting that the award of contract and commencement of work demonstrated compliance. They further stated that recovery of Environmental Compensation was beyond the PCB’s authority and lay with the District Collector under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal rejected the notion that procedural milestones equate to substantive compliance. It held that while financial and administrative delays are understandable, they cannot override the absolute duty of urban local bodies to manage solid and sewage waste as mandated by the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The Court distinguished between planning and performance, noting that the Rules require not just proposals but operational outcomes.
"The submission of DPRs, sanction letters and tender documents, though necessary, are not sufficient to discharge the statutory obligation under Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The ultimate test is whether the infrastructure is being constructed and will become functional within a reasonable timeframe."
The Tribunal also clarified that while the State PCB lacks direct recovery powers, its imposition of Environmental Compensation is legally binding, and the District Collector’s role under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is merely an enforcement mechanism - not a substitute for accountability. The failure to provide a completion date in the action taken report was deemed a procedural lapse undermining transparency.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The National Green Tribunal held that mere administrative steps do not satisfy statutory compliance under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The Municipal Council must complete the STP project expeditiously, and the State PCB must ensure recovery of Environmental Compensation through the District Collector’s office.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compliance Requires Physical Progress, Not Paperwork
- Practitioners must now demand evidence of on-ground construction progress, not just sanctioned budgets or tender notices, when challenging municipal inaction.
- Environmental petitions should include specific requests for completion timelines and progress photographs as proof of compliance.
Environmental Compensation Recovery Is Mandatory, Not Optional
- State PCBs must formally transmit recovery orders to District Collectors without delay.
- Failure to initiate recovery under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 may itself constitute dereliction of duty under Section 33 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Completion Deadlines Are Non-Negotiable in Environmental Matters
- Action taken reports filed before environmental tribunals must include definitive completion dates.
- Omission of such dates renders the report incomplete and may invite adverse inference under the principle of res ipsa loquitur in environmental jurisprudence.
