JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The respondent no. 1, the applicant before the National Green Tribunal (for brevity ‘NGT’) alleged that the appellant, the respondent no. 1 before the NGT, as an industry was actively perpetrating environmental degradation and pollution as also extracting ground water; thus polluting the surroundings and also releasing effluents into the nearby river which is a tributary of the Ganga. It was also alleged that the other official respondents, the Pollution Control Board of the State & the Centre, the Central Ground Water Authority and the District Collector were mute spectators to the activities of the appellant and often colluding, in polluting and damaging the environment. The proceedings before the NGT extended over a period of three years in which various reports were called for from a Joint Committee constituted by the NGT and eventually based on the reports, the matter was disposed of with certain directions, with which the appellant is aggrieved.

2. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would point out that the environmental compensation (for brevity ‘EC’) as determined by the statutory bodies were paid up by the appellant. The appellant also had brought about all the mitigating measures, eventually leading to a report of complete compliance of the statutory conditions and the terms imposed by the Pollution Control Board (for brevity ‘PCB’). Despite that last report of 30.07.2021, clearly recording compliance, the NGT went ahead and imposed a compensation of Rs. 50 crores based on the allegedly admitted turnover of the appellant. There is no rational nexus in thus computing the penalty, which has also been deprecated by this Court in Benzo Chem Industrial (P) Ltd. vs. Arvind Manohar Mahajan, 2024 SCC Online SC 3543. The NGT also directed the Enforcement Directorate (for brevity ‘ED’) to examine the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment and take appropriate action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002¹ [for brevity “PMLA”] wherein the environmental laws are also included in Part-A of Schedule I. The said measure has also been frowned upon in Waris Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. U.P. Pollution Control Board, 2025 SCC Online SC 1261. The contours of maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (for brevity ‘PIL’) is explicitly declared in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal , (2004) 3 SCC 349 within which contours the present litigation does not fall.

3. None appears for respondent no. 1 who was the applicant before the NGT. It is to be observed at the outset that we are not inclined to consider the question of maintainability of the PIL, at this stage especially when the initial reports of the Joint Committee constituted by the NGT clearly indicate violations of the environmental laws which led to the penalisation by imposition of EC. The proceedings were commenced by the applicant in the year 2019 and it was only in the year 2021 that a modicum of compliance was reported.

4. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the Pollution Control Board submits that as of now there is full compliance of the environmental laws. However, it is urged that the NGT was within its power in enhancing the penalty since it is a deterrent measure. It is also pointed out that the calibration of the quantum of penalty could also be with reference to multipliers under CPCB, 2019 methodology, instead of a flat turnover percentage. It is also sought that structural directions in paragraph 569-571 of the NGT judgment may be u