1. Challenge to penalties imposed by the National Green Tribunal under Section 26 of the NGT Act for non-compliance with orders regarding municipal solid waste management. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 912
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Dr. I.S. Tomar – Appellant
Versus
Invertis University & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 Of 2014 with Civil Appeal No. 5631-5633 of 2024
Decided On : 23-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahavir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Kumar Dey, Adv. Mr. Shilpi Dey Auditya, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma,Sr.Adv. Mr. Akul Krishnan,Adv. Mr. Akshu Jain,Adv. Mrs.Stuti Jain,Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Ms. Manisha, Adv. Ms. Rupali, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mishra, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahavir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Kumar Dey, Adv. Mr. Shilpi Dey Auditya, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma,Sr.Adv. Mr. Akul Krishnan,Adv. Mr. Akshu Jain,Adv. Mrs.Stuti Jain,Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Ms. Manisha, Adv. Ms. Rupali, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mishra, AOR
The court held that penalties against public officials for violating tribunal orders must be supported by evidence of willful misconduct, and officials without sufficient authority cannot be penalized under the National Green Tribunal Act.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 26 - Penal provisions on officials for violation of tribunal orders - The appellants, including the Mayor and the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, were penalized for non-compliance with tribunal orders regarding waste management, facing civil imprisonment and fines. The court found no evidence of willful breach by the Mayor, reversed his penalties, and acknowledged an absence of executive authority to enforce compliance. (Paras 12, 14, 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
The respondents filed applications against the establishment of a solid waste plant and alleged violations of environmental orders. The tribunal imposed penalties for non-compliance. The Mayor claimed he was not a party to the initial applications. (Paras 3, 4, 8)
Findings of Court:
The Mayor's penalties were set aside due to lack of direct involvement in the violations, while the penalties against the Commissioner remained due to breach of directives. (Paras 21)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Mayor could be penalized for the actions of the Municipal Corporation and the justifications for the fines imposed by the NGT. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal’s penalties were overturned as the Mayor lacked sufficient authority or involvement in decision-making regarding the violations, and punitive measures could not be justified without evidence of willful misconduct. (Paras 14, 18)
Result: Appeals allowed in favor of the Mayor; the fines against the Commissioner, however, were partially upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether penalties under Section 26 are applicable to officials lacking executive power to comply or where willful default is not established. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Penal provisions require strict construction; liability for non-compliance depends on the individual's legal power to prevent the prohibited act and evidence of willful default. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Penal provisions under Section 26 of the NGT Act must be strictly construed, requiring proof that the penalized person had the power to prevent the prohibited act. (Para 14 )
5. Penalties against the Mayor and Commissioner set aside; daily fine against the Municipal Corporation upheld. (Para 21 )
6. What is the standard of construction for penal provisions under Section 26 of the NGT Act?
Sub-section (1) of Section 26 is a penal provision and must be strictly construed. To establish a failure to comply, it must be proven that the person was responsible for the prohibited act or had the power to prevent it. (Para 14 )
7. Can an official be penalized for non-compliance with NGT orders if they lack executive power?
No. A person is only deemed to have failed to comply with a direction if it is shown that they possessed the executive powers necessary to prevent the act prohibited by the Tribunal. (Para 14 )
8. Is a finding of willful default necessary to justify imprisonment or personal penalties for officials?
Yes. The court held that a sentence of imprisonment and penalty against an official cannot be justified if there is no finding recorded that there was a willful default on the part of that official. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT :
(ABHAY S. OKA, J.)
1. The issue involved in these appeals is very limited. Whether the appellants can be subjected to a penalty by the National Green Tribunal (for short ‘the NGT’) in exercise of powers under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short ‘the NGT Act’) on account of their failure to comply with the orders passed by it. The appellants are Dr. I.S. Tomar, the then Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly (in Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014) the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly and its Commissioner (in Civil Appeal Nos. 5631-5633 of 2024).
2. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 24th October 2013, of the NGT, wherein the NGT, inter alia, found that the Mayor and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, had violated the orders dated 28th May 2013 and 18th July 2013. Accordingly, the NGT punished the Mayor and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, with civil imprisonment till rising of the Court and a payment of a fine of Rs.5 lakhs each. The NGT also imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, for causing degradation to the environment and injury to public health for the period from 28th May 2013 to 27th July 2013. Paragraph No. 45 of the impugned Judgment reads thus:
“45. Having given our serious consideration to the matters and issues before us and in view of the findings recorded supra, we pass the following orders and directions:
(i) We accept the unconditional apology tendered by the Respondent No.5 for making such undesirable remarks in his Press interview and therefore decline to initiate criminal or other proceedings against him for bringing disrepute to the Tribunal and committing contempt of the Tribunal. The notice issued and the proceedings against him to that extent are hereby dropped.
(ii) For intentionally violating the orders dated 28th May, 2013 and 18th July, 2013, Dr. I.S. Tomar, Mayor and Sh. Umesh Pratap Singh, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, are punished with civil imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of Five lakh Rupees each.
(iii) For causing degradation to environment and injury to public health for the period from 28th May, 2013 to 27th July, 2013, the Municipal Corporation of Bareilly shall pay a sum of One lakh Rupees per day.
(iv) We direct that all amounts payable by the respondents under this order would be deposited with the Deputy Commissioner, Bareilly, as Chairperson of the Committee constituted under this order and all these amounts shall be utilised for complying with the directions contained in this order and if any amount still remains unspent, the same shall be used for setting up of an STP at an approved site in accordance with law.
(v) We constitute a Committee consisting of the following:-
a. Deputy Commissioner, Bareilly- Chairperson
b. Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board
c. Director (Public Health), Government of U.P.
d. One representative of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), being an Expert to be nominated by the Secretary, MoEF.
(vi) Respondents No.4 and 5 shall remove the entire municipal solid waste from the site in question within four weeks from the date of passing of this order and restore the site and environment to its original condition (as it existed prior to the establishment and operation of the MSWM plant).
(vii) We also reiterate our direction that no municipal solid waste shall be dumped at the site in question so as to prevent environmental pollution, contamination of underground water and injury to the public health. The said respondents shall dump the municipal solid waste only at the site which has been so approved and earmarked under the Master Plan of Bareilly, 2021, that too in a most scientific manner, and at no other place.
(viii) The pits that are dug at the newly designated site for dumping of municipal solid waste shall be prepared in accordance with the MSW Rules and with all scientific measures in
