Principles of natural justice must be followed in NGT proceedings, including providing notice to the party likely to be affected before arriving at a prima facie finding and appointing an Amicus Curiae after hearing all concerned parties.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

W.P.(C) 5809/2023 & CM APPL. 22747/2023 (stay)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner-Ultratech Cement Ltd. has filed the present petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter, `NGT') dated 29th September, 2022, 24th April, 2023 and 23rd January, 2023 in OA No. 617 of 2022 titled `Pushpender v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors'.

3. The Petitioner has various grievances, firstly, that the complaint made by Respondent No. 6-Pushpender before the NGT vide letter dated 23rd May 2022 contained very general allegations against the Petitioner. The said complaint is as follows:

"Respected Sir,

I am Pushpendra Singh, Address Village Berai, Post Bevra, Shankargarh Police Station, Shankargarh Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.

Sir, there is Tata and Ultratech Cement company in our village. This company is spreading pollution in the entire village. Our village is just adjacent to the boundary of the company.

The company stores cement ash inside its boundary through trucks, which is causing air pollution in the entire village. And the dirty water of the company flows from the village itself, due to which water pollution is also happening. So, the water of the village is no longer fit or fit for drinking.

Therefore, respected sir I requested to take appropriate action against these companies and save the people of the village from pollution."

However, despite the said allegations being extremely general in nature, vide order dated 29th September, 2022, a prima facie finding was given by the NGT without hearing the Petitioners.

4. Mr. Mishra, ld. Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021 SCC Online SC 897 to argue that NGT can receive communications and letters, and can even take suo moto cognizance of the matters published in the media, however, notice would have to be issued to the sender of the communication or author of the news item, and also give a notice to the person likely to be affected.

5. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in this case prior to arriving at a prima facie finding, no notice was issued to the Petitioner and a Joint Committee was appointed by the NGT vide order dated 29th September 2022 to verify the factual position. The said Joint Committee filed a report before the NGT dated 17th January, 2023. As per the said report, it is stated that the Committee found no major violations by the Petitioner and only certain recommendations were made in the said report. The said report of the Joint Committee was taken on record by the NGT vide order dated 23rd January 2023.

6. Thereafter, vide order dated 23rd January, 2023 and 24th April, 2023 an Advocate was appointed by the NGT as an Amicus Curiae to make multiple visits to the Petitioner's premises and the fee of the said Commissioner is to be borne by the Respondent No. 4-Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereinafter, `UPPCB'). Further, vide order dated 24th April 2023, it is stated that the NGT wrongly recorded that the Joint Committee has referred to environmental violations and has proceeded to make recommendations on that basis. Further, the Petitioner states the NGT also noted that remedial measures have not been taken by the Petitioner, which is contrary to record. The submission is that the NGT is not following the proper procedure which is required to be followed.

7. On behalf of the UPPCB, it is submitted by Mr. Arvind Kumar, ld. Counsel, that the report of the Joint Committee found violations on behalf of the Petitioner. However, insofar as the appoint of the Amicus Curiae, and the fee being borne by the UPPCB is concerned, it is submitted that the UPPCB would not be having proper head of funds to pay the Amicus Curiae and that the said Commissioner may not have the expertise in this matter. Thus, the U