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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
SRM Institute of Science and Technology – Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 4888 of 2025, Crl. M.P. No. 3166 of 2025
Decided On : 21-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Venkatesan
For the Respondents: P. Kumaresan, V. Gunasekaran

Ex post facto environmental clearance permissible; educational institutions including medical colleges with hospitals exempted from prior clearance; prosecution quashed upon subsequent clearance and Polluter Pays remediation payments.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 15, 16 and 19(a) - Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Criminal proceedings for expansion without prior environmental clearance - Institution running medical college with hospital expanded buildings exceeding 20,000 sq.mtrs without prior clearance - Subsequently obtained ex post facto clearance, paid Rs.93.98 lakhs towards lake renovation under CSR and Rs.1 crore bank guarantee under Polluter Pays principle - Ex post facto clearance permissible and not to be declined with pedantic rigidity - Educational institutions including medical colleges with attached hospitals exempted from prior clearance requirement - Proceedings quashed as abuse of process notwithstanding initial violation. (Paras 8, 11, 16, 20, 23, 26)

(B) Ex post facto environmental clearance - Validity - Supreme Court held should not be granted ordinarily but cannot be declined rigidly regardless of consequences - Two Judge Bench judgment restraining ex post facto clearance held per incuriam by three Judge Bench - Polluter Pays principle endorsed requiring offenders to bear remediation costs. (Paras 11, 12, 15, 16)

(C) Educational institutions - Exemption from environmental clearance - Office Memorandum clarified term includes schools, colleges, universities, professional academies, training institutes - Medical college with hospital qualifies as there cannot be medical college without attached hospital for practical training - Consent to operate issued describing as medical college precludes contrary stand. (Paras 17-20, 23)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners expanded educational institution buildings to 71,830.71 sq.mtrs without prior environmental clearance, inspected on 23.01.2020 leading to show cause notice and complaint filed on 07.03.2020. Applied for clearance on 13.04.2018, obtained Terms of Reference, made remediation payments, secured ex post facto clearance on 13.05.2020 and consent to operate on 13.11.2020.

Findings of Court:
Ex post facto clearance legal; payments under Polluter Pays principle preclude prosecution; institution qualifies as exempted educational institution; proceedings constitute abuse of process.

Issues: (i) Legality of ex post facto environmental clearance; (ii) Prosecution viability despite remediation payments; (iii) Exemption for educational institution with hospital.

Ratio Decidendi: Ex post facto clearance valid per Supreme Court precedents; educational institutions exempted including those with integral hospitals; subsequent compliance and remediation render prosecution unsustainable as abuse of process.

Result: Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.166 of 2020 quashed. (Para 26)

Table of Content
1. petitioners expanded buildings without prior environmental clearance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners argue subsequent clearance and payments justify quashing. (Para 3)
3. respondent defends prosecution for eia violation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. ex post facto clearance valid; polluter pays satisfies prosecution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. medical college qualifies as exempt educational institution. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. proceedings quashed due to exemption and remediation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

ORDER :

1. This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.166 of 2020 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu, which was taken cognizance in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 19 (a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, for the offences under Sections 15 and 16, ibid.

2. The uncontroverted facts leading to the filing of this criminal original petition could be succinctly stated thus:

2.1 The first petitioner is an institution which runs a medical college and research centre with hospital at S.F.No.153/6A, 153/6B, etc. in Potheri Village and S.F.No.85/9B and 87/1 in Vallanchery Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengalpattu District and the second petitioner is a Trustee of the first petitioner institution.

2.2 According to the respondent, as per the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, dated 14.09.2006 (for brevity “the EIA notification”) issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, construction of new projects or activities listed in the schedule to the said notification shall be undertaken only after the prior environmental clearance from the State-level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for brevity “SEIAA”) or the Central Government, as the case may be. However, on 23.01.2020, when the respondent inspected the first petitioner’s premises, it was found that the first petitioner was expanding its buildings to an extent of 71,830.71 sq. mtrs. without obtaining prior permission/clearance from the SEIAA, which is in contravention of the EIA notification. Hence, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioners on 27.01.2020, to which, a reply was sent by the petitioners on 31.01.2020 and not satisfied with the said reply, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners on 07.03.2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu, as stated in the opening paragraph, seeking quashment of which, this criminal original petition has been filed.

3. Dr. V. Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioners, made the following submissions:

i. When the petitioners had applied to the SEIAA for expansion of existing buildings on 13.04.2018 and had also got a Terms of Reference for the project proposal, in pursuance whereof, the petitioners had paid Rs.23,43,000/- for renovation of Vinjiyambakkam Lake and Rs.16,00,000/- for renovation of Potheri Lake as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility, besides making a payment of Rs.55,00,000/- to Environmental Management Authority of Tamil Nadu (all totalling to Rs.93.98 lakhs) and executing a bank guarantee in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.1 crore (under the Polluter Pays principle), the respondent ought not to have filed the complaint, as per the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in TRIL Info Park Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,  2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3850.

ii. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Voorna Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,  2023 SCC OnLine Mad 4358, has categorically held that the applicant cannot be prosecuted when he has subsequently got environmental clearance and also paid compensation as per the remediation plan and when the same set of facts obtain in the case on hand as well, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained.

iii. As per paragraph 8(i) of the EIA notificati

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