Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 503
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, JJ
VIJAY CHANDEL VS
IA No. 89/2025 / DELHI
Mr. Ritwik Parikh, Advocate; Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava; Mr. Yash Jain; Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava; Ms. Sugandha Anand; Ms. Rajnandani Kumari; Mr. Pankaj Yadav; Mr. Sahil Raveen; Ms. Rashmi Malhotra; Mr. Shalinder Saini; Mr. M.P. Singh; Mr. Abhishek Kr Singh
State and its instrumentalities have a constitutional obligation to protect the environment, and failure to respond to environmental violations can lead to imposed costs and mandatory compliance measures.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Laws - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environmental compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- imposed for remediation of environmental damage caused by illegal activities - State and its instrumentalities under constitutional obligation to protect environment as per Article 48-A - Non-appearance of respondents no.1 to 4 deemed unacceptable, costs imposed. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
(B) Jurisdiction - Tribunal's suo-motu jurisdiction exercised in public interest for environmental protection - Respondents required to respond to substantial environmental questions raised. (Paras 1, 12)
(C) Compliance - Directions issued for recovery of environmental compensation and personal appearance of relevant officials mandated for proper adjudication. (Paras 14, 24)
ORDER
1. Applicant-Mr. Vijay Chandel has sent letter petition dated 05.09.2023 to this Tribunal which has been treated and registered as Original Application No.137/2024 in exercise of jurisdiction of taking suo-moto jurisdiction as recognized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Noida Versus Ankita Sinha and Ors., (2022)13 SCC
2. Vide order dated 19.04.2024 this Tribunal directed issuance of notices to the respondents no.1 to 6 and also constituted a Joint Committee.
3. The Joint Committee submitted report dated 25.05.2024 and additional report dated 08.08.2024.
4. Reply dated 16.10.2024 and additional reply dated 06.12.2024 have been filed by respondents no.7 and 8. Reply dated 15.01.2025 has been filed by respondent no.52. Response dated 15.01.2025 has been filed by HSPCB.
5. Vide order dated 16.08.2024 this Tribunal Mr. Shri Ritwik Parekh appointed as Amicus Curiae, who has submitted report dated 16.08.2024. 6. In view of the facts disclosed in the reports of the Joint Committee and other documents filed, respondents no.7 to 49 were impleaded vide order dated 16.08.2024 and respondents no.50 to 52 were impleaded vide order dated 24.10.2024.
7. Vide order dated 19.04.2024 notice was ordered to be served on respondent no. 6-Gurdyal through Deputy Commissioner, Solan (HP). Notice was duly served on him but he failed to appear on the date fixed on which on his non-appearance bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him vide order dated 10.12.2024.
8. In compliance thereof respondent no. 6-Gurdyal has appeared in person and has also engaged counsel to represent him.
9. We have questioned respondent no. 6-Gurdyal with respect to the averments made against him. On being questioned he has submitted that taught he had leveled the land in question in village Khol, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and taken permission for sale of excavated material. He supplied soil weighing about 7/8 thousands metric tons. The land in question was owned by some other persons but he got an agreement executed regarding the same. He is a transporter by occupation and provides vehicles on hire basis. He has two Tippers and one JCB Machine. He is the registered owner of both the Tippers and JCB is registered in the name of his wife. He provides said vehicles on hire basis. He can produce the agreement executed in his favour before this Tribunal. He does not know whether any compliant was made against him by anyone. The Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal summoned him and he submitted reply to the Joint Committee. He will file copies of his reply submitted to the Joint Committee alongwith his affidavit before this Tribunal within one month.
10. Vide order dated 10.12.2024 costs of Rs.10,000/- each were imposed on respondents no.2, 3 and 4 for non-appearance for the reasons as mentioned therein.
11. IA No.89 of 2025 has been filed by respondents no.1 to 4 for waiver of costs on the grounds that non-appearance of the respondents no.1 to 4 was not intentional/deliberate as they were under the impression that Joint Inspection Report shall be presented by HPSPCB or its Counsel and their non-appearance was inadvertent in view of the said impression.
12. We have heard learned Counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 and gone through the relevant record. Detailed reasons were recorded by us in our order before imposing the costs. The Original Application raises substantial questions of very vide public importance. State of Himachal Pradesh and all its instrumentalities are under constitutional obligation under Article 48-A of the Constitution to protect and improve environment. Consistent with said obligation, State of Himachal Pradesh and its instrumentalities are also under corresponding obligation to promptly respond to any complaint made or any proceedings initiated regarding environmental violations. HPSPCB is statutory authority entrusted with prevention and control of air and water pollution and also regulating and monitor
