The court emphasized the importance of adherence to the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard, especially in cases involving civil consequences, and highlighted the violation of these principles in the NGT's order and the APPCB's notice.

JUDGMENT

A.V.SESHA SAI, J. - Heard Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Sri V. Surender Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, apart from perusing the material available on record.

2. Order of the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "NGT"), Southern Zone, Chennai, dtd. 2/3/2022, in Original Application No.115 of 2021 (SZ), and the consequential notice bearing No.718 / APPCB / HO / UH-II / TF / KDP / 2022, dtd. 6/9/2022, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as "APPCB"), are under challenge in the present writ petition, instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition is the lessee of Barytes Mine in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The NGT, obviously, exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Sec. 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short "the Act, 2010"), took up the issue, vide Original Application No.115 of 2021 (SZ), and passed an order on 2/3/2022, directing the petitioner to pay environmental compensation of Rs.4, 25, 38, 966.00. As a consequence of the said order, the APPCB-5th respondent herein, vide notice, dtd. 6/9/2022, directed the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount, quantified by the NGT, with an observation that, in the event of failure to pay the said amount within the specified period, further coercive action would be initiated against the petitioner under Sec. 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Sec. 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and amendments thereof and as provided under the respective statutes, in accordance with law.

4. On 27/5/2023, the writ petitioner filed an application, vide M.A.No.8 of 2023 in Original Application No.115 of 2021 (SZ), under Rule 22 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 (for brevity "the Rules, 2011"), seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Implead this applicant as party to proceedings and conduct fresh enquiry and decide the matter on merits by affording fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard for this applicant.

b. And pass such and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and necessary considering the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

5. The NGT, Southern Zone, Chennai, passed an order on 31/5/2023, which reads as follows:

1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, one Mr. P. Prajeeth, the learned counsel on record appeared and submitted that the applicant has to be impleaded as party to the proceedings in O.A.No.115 of 2021 (SZ). The said Original Application [O.A.No.115 of 2021 (SZ)] was disposed of by this Tribunal vide judgment dtd. 2/3/2022.

2. The grievance of the applicant seems to be that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had levied an environmental compensation on the applicant herein. If he is aggrieved by the same, he can challenge the same in the manner known to law and he cannot come before this Tribunal seeking impleadment in the disposed of application, particularly when the Original Application is registered Suo Motu cognizance by this Tribunal.

3. After making submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant wanted to withdraw the application and accordingly, this Miscellaneous Application [M.A.No.08 of 2023 in O.A.No.115 of 2021 (SZ)] is dismissed as withdrawn and the learned counsel for the applicant is directed to send an e-mail to the Registry to this effect."

Eventually, the matter has landed before this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by the NGT and the consequential notice issued by the APPCB are highly erroneous, contrary to law, opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of 2010 Act and the Rules made thereunder and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended by t