Environmental Law

Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO

2022 SCC OnLine SC 362; 2022 INSC 344

Facts

Several small and medium industrial units in Haryana manufactured formaldehyde.
They had obtained consent to establish and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board.
They had not obtained prior environmental clearance.
The NGT ordered closure on the basis of this omission.
The units argued that:
the regulatory position had not been consistently understood;
they were operating with pollution-control consents;
they were capable of obtaining EC;
thousands of workers depended upon the units.
The environmental organisation argued that operation without prior EC was illegal and could not be excused by later applications.

Whether closure was mandatory solely because prior EC had not been obtained.
Whether the units could operate while their applications were considered.
How the Court should respond where industries were environmentally capable of compliance but procedurally unlawful.

Prior environmental clearance is the normal and mandatory rule.
Ex post facto clearance must not become:
automatic;
routine;
a reward for deliberate violation.
However, the Environment Protection Act does not expressly require closure in every case.
Remedies must be proportionate to:
the seriousness of the environmental impact;
the nature of the violation;
technical compliance;
employment and public consequences.
Continued operation may be considered temporarily where the activity is otherwise permissible and pollution safeguards are in place.

The Court did not deny that the units had violated the prior-clearance requirement.
Consent from the Pollution Control Board was not a substitute for EC.
The two approvals serve different purposes:
consent regulates emissions and discharge;
EC examines broader environmental consequences before establishment.
Nevertheless, the NGT had treated closure as automatic without fully considering the particular facts.
The units were not shown to be:
operating in prohibited areas;
incapable of meeting pollution standards;
causing harm that could only be stopped through immediate closure.
Many workers and dependent families would be affected.
The Court held that employment cannot justify pollution, but it is relevant when choosing between lawful remedies.
A strict appraisal could still:
refuse EC;
impose environmental compensation;
require improved technology;
direct closure if compliance failed.
Permitting operation during appraisal therefore did not guarantee final approval.
The Court emphasised that authorities must decide applications promptly so that temporary operation does not become indefinite regularisation.

The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s automatic closure direction.
The units were allowed to continue temporarily while their EC applications were considered.
They remained subject to:
pollution-control standards;
penalties and compensation;
the final decision of the environmental authority.
The Court reiterated that retrospective clearance is exceptional, not an entitlement.
If a unit was environmentally impermissible or non-compliant, closure remained available.
Use this case for: proportional remedies where a compliant industrial unit lacks prior EC, without diluting the mandatory character of prior appraisal.