SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 913

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ.
ITC Limited having its manufacturing Unit, Coimbatore - Appellant
Versus
The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Coimbatore & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. No. 10495 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos. 13720 & 13721 of 2020, W.M.P. No. 19593 of 2021, W.M.P. Nos. 17957 & 25448 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:C. Manishankar, Senior Counsel, M/s. Rahul, M. Shankar, Advocates. For the Respondents:R. Shanmugha Sundaram, Advocate General assisted by Shanmughavalli Sekar, Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, A. Deivasigamani, impleading party.

Violation of principles of natural justice in the imposition of damages for environmental violations.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Environmental Damage - Air Act, 1981 - Water Act, 1974 - [ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE] - [MANUFACTURE OF PAPER BOARDS] - [Air Act, 1981, Section 31; Water Act, 1974, Section 28] - The court discussed the violation of principles of natural justice in the imposition of damages for environmental damage. It highlighted the duty of the respondents to hear the petitioner, consider the reply, and pass a detailed speaking order containing reasons before imposing damages. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for a fair hearing and a detailed speaking order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a paper board manufacturing company, was directed to pay damages for environmental violations without proper consideration of its response to the show cause notices. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order on the grounds of violation of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had not complied with the basic norms of the principles of natural justice in imposing damages for environmental violations.

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in the imposition of damages for environmental damage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there is a violation of principles of natural justice, a Writ Petition would lie, and the petitioner need not be pushed to avail the alternative remedy under the Act.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent, and directed the 2nd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner, fix the date of hearing, and pass a detailed speaking order taking into consideration all aspects including the Joint Inspection Report.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent ending with Proceedings No.T1/TNPCB/F.0038/CBN/RL/W & A/2020, dated 17.03.2020 and quash the same.)

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.T1/TNPCB/F.0038/CBN/RL/W & A/2020, dated 17.03.2020, quash the same and for consequential orders.

2. The case of the petitioner company is that it is indulging in manufacture of paper boards. Originally, it was being run by an entity called BILT Industrial Packaging Limited. It was taken over by the petitioner and after investment of huge sum of money, it has developed the manufacturing process. According to the petitioner, it is strictly complying with all the TNPCB norms, taking into consideration the impact on the environment. The petitioner claims that it has been the recipient of several awards for its "Green Initiation". The affidavit further states that between 06.01.2020 and 08.01.2020, the officials belonging to the 2nd respondent conducted a surprise inspection. At that time, it came to its knowledge that the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the NGT), Southern Zone, had passed an order directing inspection. This order was passed on 13.12.2019. The petitioner had co-operated with the Officials and a detailed inspection report had been prepared. It further states that pursuant to the inspection, the 1st respondent, District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued two Show Cause Notices on 10.01.2020, pointing out several deficiencies under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Air Act) and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Water Act).

3. On receipt of the said notices issued by the 1st respondent (Page Nos.284 to 286 of the typedset of papers), a detailed reply was given to the Show Cause Notices by the petitioner (Page Nos.288 and 297 of the typedset of papers) dated 31.01.2020.

4. According to the petitioner, without reference to its reply dated 31.01.2020, the 2nd respondent had issued the impugned order on 17.03.2020. As per the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.331.80 lakhs as damages and an additional amount of Rs.30,000/- per day until the compliance of the said demand. Alleging violation of principles of natural justice and non-consideration of the reply, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 28 of the Water Act and Section 31 of the Air Act. Apart from that, it was pleaded that the Board has jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation. In this regard, the learned Advocate General placed reliance upon the order of the NGT in Appeal No.21 of 2019 dated 27.07.2020. It conceded to the fact that the impugned order was issued in terms of the Show Cause Notices issued under the Water Act and the Air Act dated 10.01.2020 and that the petitioner is trying to wriggle out of its liability by filing the Writ Petition. The counter also relied upon the order of the NGT to ascertain that since the interim compensation had been calculated by the Joint Inspection Committee appointed by the order of NGT dated 13.12.2019 and the formula had also been incorporated in the said report, it merely implemented the same. It further added that after passing of the impugned order, the Board had called for personal meetings on 10.06.2020 at its Office at Guindy. The meetings proposed during June and July were not conducted due to Covid 19 pandemic. Therefore, it conducted a meeting on 07.08.2020 and the request of the petitioner to waive was not considered. On these grounds, the respondents sought

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top