SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR,
Veena Gupta & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 1865-1866 of 2022
Decided on : 30-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Adv. Mr. Subodha Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Avneesh Arputham, AOR Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Ms. Payal Swarup, Adv. Mr. Aman, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR Mr. Vidya Sagar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Sonthalia, Adv. Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shekher Kaushik, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
National Green Tribunal cannot pass ex-parte orders without following principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14 and 15 – Suo motu proceedings – Ex parte order – Requirement of following principles of natural justice – National Green Tribunal's recurrent engagement in unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review hearing and routinely dismissing it has regrettably become a prevailing norm – In its zealous quest for justice, Tribunal must tread carefully to avoid oversight of propriety – Practice of ex-parte orders and imposition of damages amounting to Crores of rupees, have proven to be a counterproductive force in broader mission of environmental safeguarding – It is imperative for Tribunal to infuse a renewed sense of procedural integrity, ensuring that its actions resonate with a harmonious balance between justice and due process – Only then can it reclaim its standing as a beacon of environmental protection, where well-intentioned endeavours are not simply washed away – Tribunal itself has noted that notices were not issued to Project Proponents – Appellants did not have a full opportunity to contest the matter and place all their defences before Tribunal – Impugned orders set aside and matter back to Tribunal to pass appropriate orders. (Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals arise out of two orders passed by National Green Tribunal. Main order arises out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings holding appellants to be guilty and directing payment of compensation. Second order is dismissal of review petition filed by appellant No.2 alleging that he had not been given opportunity before an adverse order was passed against him.

Findings of Court:

This Order does not deal with merits of matter and the actions of those guilty of statutory and environmental violation will have to be subject to strict scrutiny and legal consequences.

Result : Civil Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. These appeals arise out of two orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short). The main order arises out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings holding the appellants to be guilty and directing payment of compensation. The second order is the dismissal of the review petition filed by the appellant No.2 alleging that he had not been given an opportunity before an adverse order was passed against him. For the reasons to follow, we set aside the orders and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to issue notice to all the affected parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders.

2. The relevant portion of the order impugned1[Original Application No. 65/2021, dated 31.08.2021] is as under:

    “7. Even though no notice was issued by the Tribunal to the PP in absence of particulars, the Joint Committee has visited the site. Notice has been issued to the PP under the Employees Compensation Act for death of a person. Remedial measures have been suggested for future. The PP has been found to be operating without statutory consents in non conforming area without safety precautions, endangering life and health of others. In these circumstances, reserving liberty to the PP to move this Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to defer the matter and to proceed by notice to the PP in view of established facts, duly verified by the statutory authorities who are themselves competent to take the recommended measures.

    8. In view of the above, further action may be taken by the Statutory Authorities, following due process. The compensation assessed may be recovered and if not paid within one month, coercive measures be taken against the concerned persons as well as against the property involved. We request the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority to ensure legal aid to the heirs of the deceased to enable due compensation to be paid to them. If the owners/tenant or other persons against whom action is taken are aggrieved, they are at liberty to take their remedies, including moving this Tribunal. The Authorities may also maintain vigil and take measures to prevent such incidents in future. We have noted the constitution of zone wise STF to check the illegal industrial activities and godowns in residential/non-conforming areas and are of the view that the same should be manned by officers of higher rank than the constitution now proposed. The Chief Secretary, Delhi may review the constitution accordingly.”

3. It is evident from the above that the Tribunal itself has noted that notices were not issued to the Project Proponents. The Tribunal, in fact, considers it unnecessary to hear the Project Proponent to verify the facts in issue. The Tribunal thought it appropriate to adopt this method in view of a Joint Inspection Report that had been submitted. The persons who were prejudiced by the order of the Tribunal naturally filed Review Petitions before the Tribunal. Appellant No. 2 is one amongst them. The Review Petition was taken up and dismissed by the Tribunal on 26.11.2021.

4. The National Green Tribunal's recurrent engagement in unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review hearing and routinely dismissing it has regrettably become a prevailing norm. In its zealous quest for justice, the Tribunal must tread carefully to avoid the oversight of propriety. The practice of ex parte orders and the imposition of damages amounting to crores of rupees, have proven to be a counterproductive force in the broader mission of environmental safeguarding.

5. Significantly, these orders have consistently faced stays from this Court, resulting in the unraveling of the commendable efforts put forth by the learned Members, lawyers, and other stakeholders2[Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors.,(2023)8 SCC 35. This Court has already noticed the practice of the Tribunal in not providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party and cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top