Judicial Decisions On Forged Sewage Treatment Approvals
1. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) – Misleading STP Claims
Facts:
Petitioners alleged that the AMC claimed all its sewage treatment plants (STPs) were operational and handling sewage properly, whereas inspections revealed untreated sewage was being discharged into the Sabarmati River.
Court Decision:
The Gujarat High Court criticized AMC for submitting misleading compliance affidavits. The court directed AMC to ensure transparency, conduct real-time monitoring, and submit accurate data regarding STP operations.
Legal Principle:
Authorities cannot rely on self-certified reports if independent verification shows discrepancies. False reporting of STP compliance amounts to misrepresentation and can attract judicial scrutiny.
2. Supreme Court – Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearances (2025)
Facts:
The government allowed projects, including water treatment or sewage treatment facilities, to obtain environmental clearance after construction had started. This included situations where STPs were planned but not built before operations commenced.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down retrospective environmental clearances, stating that prior clearance is mandatory. Post-facto approvals violate the precautionary principle and the public’s right to a clean environment.
Legal Principle:
All projects must obtain environmental clearance, including sewage treatment obligations, before starting operations. Retrospective approval cannot validate false or incomplete STP compliance.
3. National Green Tribunal – Developer Failing to Build Mandated STP
Facts:
A real estate developer obtained environmental clearance conditional on installing an STP. Instead, they diverted sewage to a common STP operated by another agency and claimed compliance.
Tribunal Decision:
The NGT held this arrangement invalid. The project violated the EC condition, as the STP requirement was specific. The developer was ordered to install a proper STP and held liable for non-compliance.
Legal Principle:
EC conditions, including STP installation, are mandatory. Substituting or misrepresenting STP compliance violates environmental regulations and can lead to penalties.
4. Supreme Court – Verification of Proposed STP Land and Operations (Uttar Pradesh, 2025)
Facts:
The court examined claims of a proposed STP in Khoda-Makanpur. Authorities claimed the STP was set up, but land handover and operational proof were missing.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court directed verification of land possession and water-quality testing at STP inlets and outlets. Mere claims or approvals were not accepted as evidence of compliance.
Legal Principle:
Judicial oversight requires factual verification of STPs. Approvals or claims without operational proof can be challenged as misleading or false.
5. Landmark Environmental Jurisprudence – M.C. Mehta Cases
Facts:
Industrial pollution cases, including untreated effluent discharge, set the foundation for environmental compliance, STPs, and public health protection.
Court Decision:
The courts emphasized the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, and fundamental right to a clean environment. Projects must have mitigation measures, including proper sewage treatment.
Legal Principle:
Environmental protection obligations, including STPs, are mandatory. Misrepresentation or false approvals violate public trust and can attract legal action.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
False STP claims are scrutinized: Courts will not accept unverified affidavits or approvals.
Mandatory compliance: EC conditions, especially STPs, must be fulfilled in substance, not just on paper.
Retrospective approvals invalid: Ex-post facto claims or approvals cannot legalize non-compliance.
Verification required: Functional proof of STP operation is essential before approvals are considered valid.
Legal remedies: Developers or authorities can face civil, regulatory, and, in some cases, criminal consequences for misrepresentation.
RELATED Blog
{!! (isset($postDetail['review_mapping']) && count($postDetail['review_mapping']) > 0 ? count($postDetail['review_mapping']) : 0) }} comments