The judgment establishes that the imposition of damages must adhere to principles of natural justice and be supported by sufficient material. It also clarifies the jurisdiction and authority of the Forest Department under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

ORDER :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 8339/2012 and 8340/2012, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the respondents herein and has set aside the order/notice imposing damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) for violation of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, which was imposed in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Forest Department has preferred the present special leave petitions.

2. That the respondents herein are running an educational institution in the area at Agra-Mathura Road and that too in the close vicinity of the National Chambal Sanctuary Project undertaken by the State Government. That due to the effluent flowing out of the premises of the college that borders the Sanctuary has resulted in serious threat to the ecology of the area as well as causing environmental damage and consequently has endangered the flora and fauna as well as the wild life in the sanctuary. The Forest department issued various notices to the respondents right from the year 2003 onwards regarding threat to the environment on account of effluent flowing in the sanctuary area from the huge multi storied building of the institution. However, the respondents continued to discharge the effluent which, according to the Forest Department, resulted in serious environmental damage in the area and consequently endangered the wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, by order dated 30.12.2011 the Forest Department of the State imposed damages of Rs.10,00,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Crores) upon the respondents. The said order imposing damages upon the respondents was the subject matter before the High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. At this stage, it is required to be noted that subsequently notice dated 10.02.2012 was issued to the original writ petitioners to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Water (Control and Removal of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Control and Removal of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.

2.1 Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the order imposing damages was in gross violation of principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was ever issued to them in respect of the proposed action of imposing damages. It was also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the authority passing the order imposing damages is not vested with any such power under any law for the time being in force. It was also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the amount of damages imposed is too excessive without there being any statistical basis for the same and assessment for loss based on any cogent and convincing material. Before the High Court and even before this Court, the State/Forest Department relied upon Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which reads as under:

“33. Control of sanctuaries – The Chief Wild Life Warden shall be the authority who shall control, manage and maintain all sanctuaries and for that purpose, within the limits of any sanctuary, -

(a) may construct such roads, bridges, buildings, fences or barrier gates, and carry out such other works as he may consider necessary for the purposes of such sanctuary:

Provided that no construction of commercial tourist lodges, hotels, zoos and safari parks shall be undertaken inside a sanctuary except with the prior approval of the National Board.

(b) Shall take such steps as will ensure the security of wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and wild animals therein;

(c) may take such measures, in the interests of wild life, as he may consider necessary for the improvement of any habitat;

(d) may regulate, control or prohibit, in keeping with the interests