The National Green Tribunal must comply with principles of natural justice, ensuring parties have the opportunity to present their case before any adverse decisions are made.

ORDER :

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)

At the outset, learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. K. Arvind Kamath, assisted by learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. B. Pramod for the petitioners does not press prayer (ii) in paragraph 32, seeking to delete the same.

2. Accordingly, prayer in paragraph 32(ii) is permitted to be deleted, which was as under,

“Issue a writ or order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent not to order closure of the 2nd petitioner and not to take any coercive/adverse action pursuant to notice/communication dated 09.07.2024 [Annexure A2] pending disposal of the Appeal before the Hon’ble NGT, Chennai”

2.1 Similarly, in the interim prayer, the following part was not pressed and sought to be deleted, which is permitted to be deleted,

“…… and notice/communication dated 09.07.2024 [Annexure-A2] passed by the 3rd respondent, and direct the respondents not to take any coercive/adverse action against the petitioners in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other order/s deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The Union of India along with its two limbs namely M/s. Madras Engineering Group and Centre and M/s. Garrison Engineers (North) Bangalore which are under the Ministry of Defence, have filed the present petition.

3.1 The petitioner No.2-Madras Engineering Group is a category-B Training establishment, having designed capacity to train 2700 Agniveers and 1500 Soldiers. The Centre has authorized 51 Officers, 267 Junior Commissioned Officers and 1093 other Ranks. They along with the soldier-trainees undergo regular training. About 5000 employees and trainees stay within the campus with their family. Petitioner No.3-M/s.Garrison Engineers provide accommodation complexes.

3.2 Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged order dated 23rd September 2021 and 20th May 2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai passed in Original Application No.54 of 2015 which was a suo motu proceedings, based on the news item published in ‘The Hindu’ daily dated 8th March 2016 titled as ‘Lake in the heart of Bengaluru City turns graveyard for fish’.

3.3 An interim order was passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on 23rd September 2021 in the aforesaid proceedings, whereby the NGT imposed environment compensation to the tune of Rs.2,94,60,000/- on petitioner No.2-Madras Engineering Group on the ground of non-compliance of the discharge standards in 100 KLD STP. Order dated 20th May 2022 thereafter came to be passed, finally disposing of the said proceedings of Original Application No.54 of 2016. In that order, a finding was inter alia recorded in paragraph 12 that Madras Engineering Group-petitioner No.2 along with the slaughter house Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) has contributed to the pollution.

3.4 It was directed that the compensation be assessed and recovered by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board-respondent No.3 herein from the petitioner No.2. The Tribunal provided that the BWSSB may contribute Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) towards the interim compensation. It is to be noticed that the petitioners herein were not party in the aforesaid proceedings before the NGT.

3.5 The prayer which was deleted as recorded above, was in respect of the notice-cum-order dated 9th July 2024, whereby the competent authority of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board called upon the petitioner to pay the environmental compensation of Rs.2,94,63,000/- as per the order dated 23rd September 2021 of the NGT within seven days, failing which, it was provided that, the closure order would be issued under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

3.6 With the above background of the order passed by the NGT, the case of the petitioners in the present petition may be noticed.

While calling in question the aforementioned order