IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
WP (C) No. 7753 of 2019
Decided On : 05-09-2024
Environmental - Writ Petition - Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sections 33(A) - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice before imposing environmental compensation fines, highlighting the lack of proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Central Public Sector Undertaking, challenged a show cause notice and subsequent communications regarding environmental compensation for alleged violations related to effluent treatment plants, following directives from the Supreme Court and NGT.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the imposition of the environmental compensation fine violated principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations before the fine was imposed.
Issues: Whether the communications imposing environmental compensation fines were valid given the alleged violation of natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that civil consequences arising from administrative actions necessitate adherence to natural justice, including proper notice and opportunity to respond.
Result: The impugned communications imposing environmental compensation fines were set aside and quashed.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 on call.
2. The petitioner herein which is a Central Public Sector Undertaking and engaged in the business of exploration, commerce, development and production of oil and natural gas, have approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the show cause notice dated 28.06.2019; the communications dated 05.09.2019, 26.09.2019 and 23.10.2019 and in addition to that also have challenged the analysis report dated 05.08.2019.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the Supreme Court in the case of Paryavaran, Suraksha Samiti and Another Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 5 SCC 326, which was passed on 22.02.2017 had issued certain directions in respect to effluent treatment plant. The issue which came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the said case was on the basis of a writ petition being filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for appropriate directions upon the Union Government, all State Governments as well as the Union Territories to ensure that no industry which requires consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board (for short, the PCB) is permitted to function, unless it has a functional effluent treatment plant, which is capable to meet the prescribed norms for removing the pollutants from the effluent before it is discharged. From a perusal of the said judgment dated 22.02.2017, it transpires that there was a consensus arrived at that having effluent treatment plants were highly beneficial in carrying forward the process of removing pollutants from the discharged effluents in a systematic and coordinated manner. In that regard, the Supreme Court observed at paragraph 4 that industries be permitted to run subject to setting up of primary effluent treatment plant, which is functional. Accordingly directions were issued to the State PCB to issue notices to all industrial units which require consent to operate by way of a common advertisement requiring them to make their primary effluent treatment plant fully operational within 3(three) months from the date of the said order. The State PCBs’ were directed to carry out inspections to verify whether or not each industrial unit requiring consent to operate had functional primary effluent treatment plant after the expiry of the notice period of three months and during inspection, if it is found that such industry does not have the primary effluent treatment plant, such industry be refrained from any further industrial activity. Paragraph 4 of the said order dated 22.02.2017 is reproduced herein-below:
The court established that the imposition of civil liabilities requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including proper notice and opportunity for the affected party to respond.
The court reinforces the 'Polluter Pays' principle, imposing environmental penalties to ensure compliance with ecological standards post-violations.
The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board lacks authority to impose environmental compensation without legislative backing and established procedures. Judicial pronouncements dictate the need for s....
The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board cannot impose Environmental Compensation without legislative authority, necessitating subordinate legislation for its calculation and imposition.
Natural justice is context-dependent; its violation must demonstrate actual prejudice to affect the legality of administrative actions like environmental compensation assessment.
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.
The court established that consistent non-compliance with pollution discharge standards necessitates compensation for affected farmers, and a structured remediation approach must be adopted.
Violation of principles of natural justice in the imposition of damages for environmental violations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.