Frivolous, motivated environmental PIL alleging unsubstantiated violations warrants dismissal with exemplary costs.

The petitioner, a resident of Sarigam, District Valsad, and owner of a manpower-supply business, filed a public interest litigation seeking investigation into alleged environmental violations by Respondent No. 8, a pulp and paper industry. He alleged that the industry caused air, noise, and water pollution; failed to comply with the conditions of its Environmental Clearance dated 29 January 2019; operated a plastic-waste-fired boiler without requisite prior Environmental Clearance; and that the authorities failed to act on his complaints.

The Gujarat Pollution Control Board (“GPCB”) filed a detailed affidavit stating that the industry had obtained the necessary Environmental Clearances, Consent to Establish, and Consolidated Consent and Authorisation for its operations, including the captive power plant.

GPCB further stated that repeated inspections had been conducted between 31 January 2025 and 10 June 2026, including inspections pursuant to the petitioner’s complaints, and that directions had been issued wherever aberrations were noticed.

According to GPCB, the allegations of illegal effluent discharge, abnormal ambient air pollution, excessive noise, and groundwater contamination were not substantiated by inspections and testing.

Respondent No. 8 was not issued notice after the Court received GPCB’s response.

1. Whether Respondent No. 8 was operating in violation of environmental laws and the conditions of its Environmental Clearance by causing air, noise, or water pollution and by operating a plastic-waste-fired captive power plant without requisite prior Environmental Clearance?

2. Whether the statutory and regulatory authorities, particularly GPCB, had failed to act upon the petitioner’s complaints and representations concerning the alleged environmental violations?

3. Whether the PIL was a motivated and frivolous proceeding filed by a busybody, warranting dismissal with exemplary costs?

The Court considered the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, particularly Sections 7, 8, and 15, and the EIA Notification, 2006, which require compliance with prescribed environmental standards and prior Environmental Clearance where applicable.

It also considered the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the applicable ambient noise standards.

The Court relied on the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Office Memorandum dated 23 January 2019, which clarified that setting up or expanding captive power plants employing waste-heat recovery boilers without auxiliary fuel does not attract the EIA Notification, 2006, in the specified circumstances.

The Court applied the principle that a PIL must be bona fide and cannot be used for personal or collateral purposes; a frivolous or motivated PIL may be dismissed with costs for abuse of the judicial process and wastage of judicial time.

The Court accepted GPCB’s inspection-based response because it showed that the industry possessed the relevant permissions and that inspections had repeatedly been undertaken in response to the petitioner’s complaints.

The allegations of illegal discharge into the Dharota river were contradicted by matching industry and CETP logbook data, while ambient air, noise, and groundwater testing was reported to be within prescribed standards.

The Court also noted that the industry had undertaken plantation and green-belt measures, including the planting of approximately 15,000 trees.

On the captive power plant issue, the Court relied on GPCB’s assertion that the plant was a waste-heat recovery boiler without auxiliary fuel and held that the petitioner had not specifically controverted that assertion in the rejoinder.

The Court therefore rejected the petitioner’s claim that the industry was operating without requisite permissions.

It further found the petitioner’s assertions regarding the industry’s location, pollution, regulatory inaction, and absence of permissions to be vague, misleading, or disproved by the record.

The petitioner’s status as a manpower-supply businessman and the absence of specific denials to GPCB’s affidavit led the Court to conclude that the PIL was motivated by personal interests rather than genuine public concern.

It found that Respondent No. 8 had obtained the requisite permissions, that GPCB had conducted inspections and taken action where required, and that the petitioner had made vague and misleading allegations.

The PIL was accordingly dismissed as motivated and frivolous, with costs of ₹1,00,000, to be deposited within three weeks with the Registrar General and transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for tree plantation benefiting orphan and tribal children.

The connected Civil Application for Joining Party was disposed of as having become infructuous.