2020 Supreme(SC) 445

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rohinton Fali Nariman, S. Ravindrabhat, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority Of India – Appellant(s)
Versus
Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6932 of 2015 with C.A. No. 5971 of 2019; C.A. No. 4379 of 2018; C.A. No. 2741 of 2020 (Arising Out of Diary No. 19018 of 2018); C.A. No. 6862 of 2018; C.A. No. 2742 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 28178 of 2018); C.A. No. 11803 of 2018; C.A. No. 2743 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 1706 of 2019) and C.A. No. 2744 of 2020 (Arising Out Of Diary No. 1632 of 2019)
Decided on : 14-07-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Fatal accident due to stone slide – Award of compensation towards death, and damages towards restitution – Absence of legal representatives or heirs of deceased in proceedings, or fact that they had initiated independent civil action was not an impediment, nor could it have precluded NGT from exercising its jurisdiction, given gravity of matter and danger posed to members of public.
(2) Though an administrative order need not necessarily comply with principles of natural justice such as granting hearing, yet, administrative decisions or orders have to be based on some reasons.
(3) NGT cannot issue any blanket prohibition which is based on limited inputs.

Headnote:

(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 14(1) read with Sections 15, 16 and 18 – Degradation of environment – Prohibition by NGT on development relating to construction in an area abutting hills up to 100 feet – Under Section 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c), NGT has power to make directions and provide for restitution of property damaged and for restitution of environment for such area or areas as Tribunal may think fit – Expression “environment” and “environmental pollution” have to be given a broader meaning, having regard to Parliamentary intent to ensure objective of EPA – It effectuates principles underlying Article 48A of Constitution of India – EPA is in essence, an umbrella legislation enacting a broad framework for central government to coordinate activities of various central and state authorities established under other laws, such as Water Act and Air Act – EPA also effectively enunciates critical legislative policy for environment protection – It changes the narrative and emphasis from a narrow concept of pollution control to a wider facet of environment protection – Expansive definition of environment that includes water, air and land and interrelation which exist among and between water, air and land, other human creatures, plants, micro-organisms and property give an indication of wide powers conferred on Central Government – A wide net is cast over environment related laws – EPA also empowers central government to comprehensively control environmental pollution by industrial and related activities – NGT correctly assumed jurisdiction, having regard to nature of accident in facts of this case. (Paras 43 and 51)

(B) National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 16 – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 14(1) read with Sections 15, 16 and 18 – Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – Section 48 – Fatal accident due to stone slide – Award of compensation towards death, and damages towards restitution – Inspection reports were furnished to NHAI shortly before incident, highlighting deficiencies – Absence of legal representatives or heirs of deceased in proceedings, or fact that they had initiated independent civil action was not an impediment, nor could it have precluded NGT from exercising its jurisdiction, given gravity of matter and danger posed to members of public – Initiation of civil action did not mean that NGT had to either reject application or await outcome of civil suit – Application without impleading legal heirs cannot be rejected – Direction to NHAI and licensee, jointly making them liable to pay 15 lakhs is justified. (Paras 65, 66 and 67)

(C) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 154 – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 14(1) read with Sections 15, 16 and 18 – Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – Section 48 – Degradation of environment – Prohibition by NGT on development relating to construction in an area abutting hills up to 100 feet – NGT is an expert regulatory body – Its personnel include technically qualified and experienced members – Powers it exercises and directions it can potentially issue, impact not merely those before it, but also state agencies and state departments whose views are heard, after which general directions to prevent future occurrence of incidents that impact environment, are issued – NGT’s directions, though placed in context of its adjudicatory role, have a wider ramification in the sense that its rulings constitute appropriate norm which are to be followed by all those engaging in similar activities – General directions for future guidance, to avoid or prevent injury to environment for appropriate assimilation in relevant rules, can be given by NGT – In present case, what NGT had before it, was report of SDM and a report commissioned about nature of incident – Based on these limited inputs, Tribunal concluded without any rationale and based on no scientific or technical evidence, or experts’ opinion, that development and construction should not be carried out within 100 feet of a “lowest slope i.e. incline of any hill within its territorial limits, as well as hill-tops – Such directions were improper and not justified in facts of this case – Tribunal’s directions were improper and are procedurally indefensible – Use of Section 154 of MRTP Act, in present case, in fact amounted to a modification of all plans - regional, development, etc. – Such modification (by way of absolute prohibition in construction) was not preceded by any manner of public consultation, much less previous invitation of objections or consideration of views of affected parties – Impugned judgment of Bombay High Court set aside and directions in notification under Section 154 (dated 14.11.2017) quashed. (Paras 71, 72, 75, 76, 84, 87, 90 and 91)

(D) Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Though an administrative order need not necessarily comply with principles of natural justice such as granting hearing, yet, administrative decisions or orders have to be based on some reasons. (Pars 88)

Facts of the case:

In the appeals (by special leave as well as the statutory appeals by third parties), where the grievance is on account of the directions issued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 154 of the MRTP Act, the third party appellants challenge the order of the NGT arguing that the provisions of the NGT Act, especially sections 14, and 19 do not authorise that tribunal to issue sweeping and unilateral directions requiring stoppage and cessation of all manner of building activity or developments within hundred feet of hill slopes. It is highlighted that such sweeping directions are illogical and are not based on any scientific study or analysis.

Findings of Court:

Use of Section 154 of the MRTP Act, in the present case, in fact amounted to a modification of all plans - regional, development, etc. Such modification (by way of absolute prohibition in construction) was not preceded by any manner of public consultation, much less previous invitation of objections or consideration of the views of affected parties. It is in this background that one has to consider the argument of the state, which found favour with the High Court, that such notification was issued in public interest. By the impugned common judgment, the High Court held that there was no denial that the power to issue such directions or circulars existed by way of the amended Section 154 and that such power was essential. The court further held that no individual or entity could claim any absolute right and contend that he could develop or construct anywhere and that the directions contained in the notification supplemented bye-laws and building codes already in place in Mumbai and Pune.

Result : Appeals disposed of with directions.