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) 1115

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 9202-9203 of 2022
Decided On : 27-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni,Sr.Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Mr. Zulfiqur Menon,Adv. Mr. Waseem Pangarkar,Adv. Ms. Nadiya Sarguroh,Adv. Mr. Swapnil Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Jayesh Srivastava,Adv. Mr. Allan David,Adv. Mr. S.S. Rebello,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Feroze Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Vatsala Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Ms. Shyamali Gadre, Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. G. Pal, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.

The court emphasized that penalties for environmental non-compliance must be based on sound legal principles and supported by evidence, ensuring adherence to natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act - Penalty for non-compliance - Orders of National Green Tribunal challenged - Tribunal's findings of non-compliance contradicted by reports from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and NEERI - Methodology for imposing penalty deemed unknown to law - Principles of natural justice violated. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of notice before imposing penalties - Tribunal failed to provide due process before imposing heavy penalties. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appeals contest penalties imposed by the NGT for alleged environmental non-compliance, which the appellant claims were unfounded based on inspection reports indicating compliance.

Findings of Court:
The court found the NGT's methodology for imposing penalties to be legally unsound and quashed the orders.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the NGT's findings on non-compliance and the methodology for calculating penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the NGT's findings were unsupported by evidence and that penalties must be based on sound legal principles, including the necessity of notice before imposing penalties.

Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. These appeals challenge the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated 29.08.2022 and 22.11.2022.

2. Vide the first order dated 29.08.2022 penalty is imposed on the appellant for non-compliance with the environment requirement. By the second order dated 22.11.2022, the review application has been rejected.

3. Heard Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Shri Feroze Ahmad, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 13 and Shri Mukesh Verma, learned counsel for the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.

4. Shri Nadkarni, learned senior counsel, submits that the order passed by the learned NGT depicts total nonapplication of mind. It is submitted that though the reports of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) as well as National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) found that there are no non-compliances, the learned NGT records to the contrary. It is further submitted that the methodology of imposing penalty of Rs.25 Crores on the ground that the operative revenue of the appellant ranges from 100 Crores to 500 Crores is totally unknown to the canons of law.

5. This is the third matter today in which we are considering the orders passed by the learned NGT, which depicts total violation of principles of natural justice and lack of due consideration.

6. Learned NGT in its order in para 13 observed thus:-

    “13. It is patent that from 2010 till atleast 2.10.2020, the unit remained non- compliant. We have already referred to first violation seen in the year 2010 and subsequent reports of 2017, February 2018 and NEERI report of June 2019 show that the violations continued. Even in August 2020, the State PCB recorded violations and the PP filed undertaking on 2.10.2020 to take further remedial action. Thus, there could be no question of matter being beyond limitation. Relief can be confined to five years before filing of the application. Though status after 2020 is not on record, the PP has to take remedial action as well a" be held accountable for past violations of ten years. There are rival oral versions about current status - version of the applicants that violations are still continuing and version of the PP that violations have now been remedied.”

7. The appellant has placed on record reports of the inspections conducted by the MPCB for the period between 2011 to 2020. Not only that but under the orders of the NEERI, which is a premier institution insofar as environment sciences is concerned, has also found that the unit of the appellant was compliant with environment requirements and there was not a single non-compliance.

8. In the light of these findings in the report, the observations of the learned NGT that the unit has been non- compliant right from the year 2010 is totally untenable. The further observations of the learned NGT that the report of the NEERI of June 2019 also shows that the violations continues, is also contrary to the records. The report of the MPCB, which is placed at page No.349 of the paperbook would reveal otherwise.

9. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the MPCB, also submits that in view of the inspection reports of the MPCB, he was not in a position to counter the claim of the appellant that there were no violation.

10. We could have allowed the appeal on this short ground, however, the further part of the order i.e. paragraph 15 makes an interesting reading. The learned NGT held that the appellant is liable to pay environmental damages. However, while computing the said damages, the only methodology that has been adopted by the learned NGT is that as per the information which is available in the public domain the revenue range of the appellant is between 100 Crores to 500 Crores. It is therefore found that the penalty of Rs.25 Crores would be commensurated with the revenue. Firstly, there is a vast difference between 100 Crores and 500 Crores. Secondly, if the learned NGT had relied on the information available in the pub

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