NGT Orders Regarding Hotels Requiring Chief Technology Officer

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

Excerpt

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, passed an Order on 24th August 2020. This was regarding hotels requiring CTO (Chief Technology Officer). The NGT clearly said that the hotels cannot avoid obligation under the Water Act to prevent discharge of any untreated pollutants. Section 26 of the Water Act, 1974 applies to an establishment set up before 1974.

Brief Facts

Two appeals filed by Pramod Kumar Agarwal and M/s Sushila Touring Hotel challenged the Orders of the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board (PCB). This required the Appellants to make arrangement for sewage treatment and taking consent to operate in terms of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

Arguments before the Court

The Appellants claimed that they were operating since 1980. Section 26 of the Water Act does not require the Appellants to apply for consent to operate unless a date is notified by the State Government. The Appellants did not have any plant or machinery or generator set or boiler. Therefore, the Air Act also does not apply.

Analysis

The case dealt with the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
 
Section 26 of the Water Act states:
 
“Provision regarding the existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent—Where immediately before the commencement of this Act any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a 1[stream or well or sewer or on land], the provisions of section 25 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such person as they apply in relation to the person referred to in that section subject to the modification that the application for consent to be made under sub-section (2) of that section shall be made on or before such date as may be specified by the State Government by notification in this behalf in the Official Gazette.”
 
Article 48A of the Constitution of India, 1949:
 
“Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life: The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.”
 
Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010:
 
“Tribunal to apply certain principles-The Tribunal shall while passing any order or decision or award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.”

Court’s Observation

The Court observed that Pollution free environment is part of Right to Life and is expressly covered by the Directive Principle under Article 48A. The Tribunal is to enforce Sustainable Development and Precautionary principles under Section 20 of the NGT Act. The Appellants cannot avoid obligation under the Water Act to prevent discharge of any untreated pollutants. Moreover, Section 26 applied to an establishment set up prior to 1974.

Court’s Decision

The NGT stated that the regulatory framework of Water and Air Acts is certainly applicable to the Appellants for running hotels where polluted water and air generation potential are not ruled out. The NGT dismissed the appeals as they did not find any merit in the appeals.

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -