Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2396
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member
Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
MPCB – Respondent
APPEAL NO.09 OF 2024 (WZ)|I.A.NO.230/2024 IN APPEAL NO.09/2024 (WZ)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate, i/b and with Mr. Rahul D. Oak, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-1/MPCB, Mr. Amit Agashe, Advocate for R-2
Appeal against interim environmental compensation held infructuous upon final order enhancing amount in connected proceedings, rendering original challenge moot despite natural justice claims.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal - Appeal against environmental compensation - Appeal challenging levy of interim compensation for discharging substandard effluents into CETP becomes infructuous when final order in connected original application enhances the compensation amount and matter is pending before higher court - Principles of natural justice regarding opportunity of hearing not sufficient to admit appeal where subsequent developments render original challenge moot. (Paras 10, 14, 15)
(B) Environmental Law - Infructuous proceedings - Where expert committee reports lead to final quantification of environmental damage and restoration costs in principal proceedings, challenge to earlier interim assessment stands superseded and appeal dismissed at admission stage. (Paras 4-10)
Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged order levying environmental compensation of Rs.77.513 lakhs for 408 days of default in discharging substandard effluents into CETP, based on expert committee findings in connected original application concerning polluting industries. Respondents argued appeal infructuous due to final order enhancing compensation to Rs.196.794 lakhs and Supreme Court stay on enhanced amount while directing deposit of earlier sum.
Findings of Court:
Original levy superseded by final order in connected proceedings; Supreme Court seized of challenge to final order; insufficient notice claim rejected as proper opportunity provided earlier; appeal lacks merit for admission.
Issues: Whether appeal against interim environmental compensation remains live post final enhanced quantification in principal matter; adequacy of hearing opportunity before levy.
Ratio Decidendi: Appeal infructuous as impugned compensation enhanced/modified in final order of principal bench, with matter pending before Supreme Court; explanation for non-attendance unconvincing given record of prior notices.
Result: Appeal dismissed at admission stage; interlocutory application rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing listed for admission; arguments heard. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. original application imposed interim compensation; stayed by supreme court. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. tribunal accepted joint committee reports enforcing environmental norms. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. supreme court modified directions on compensation deposits. (Para 8) |
| 5. ngt final order revised appellant's compensation to rs.196.794 lakhs. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. mpcb affidavit and appellant's rejoinder on hearing opportunity. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. supreme court stayed enhanced compensation; appeal infructuous. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. appeal dismissed at admission stage. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER
1. Today, this matter is listed for hearing on admission of the appeal.
2. From the side of the appellant, learned senior counsel Mr. Arshad Shaikh has appeared, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Rahul D. Oak. From the side of respondent No.1-MPCB, learned counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi has appeared while from the side of respondent No.2 – Tarapur Environment Protection Society, learned counsel Mr. Amit Agashe has appeared.
3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1- MPCB and respondent No.2 – Tarapur Environment Protection Society at length, but the learned senior counsel for the appellant seeks some time to rebut the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. From the side of respondent No.2, it is mainly argued that the present appeal has become infructuous and in support of this argument, he has drawn our attention to Original Application No.64 of 2016 (WZ), wherein Akhil Bhartiya Mangela Samaj Parishad and 4 others had sought relief against MPCB and eight others to the effect that respondent No.1-MPCB be directed to close down all the polluting industries in all locations that were discharging untreated effluents into Arabian Sea at Navapur and into the creeks and nullahs in the vicinity, apart from other reliefs. This matter was considered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on 26.09.2019, on which date an order was passed wherein it was recorded that having regard to the entirety of the fact situation, the interim compensation shall be deposited with the CPCB within one month by the (a) Large Industries to the extent of Rs.1 Crore each, (b) by the Medium Industries to the extent of Rs.50 Lakhs each and (c ) by the Small Industries to the extent of Rs.25 Lakhs each, except the green and white categories of industries and other defaulting industries connected to the CETP. It was further directed that the CETP on its part shall deposit a sum of Rs.10 Crores with the CPCB towards interim compensation within one month. Besides the imposition of above interim compensation, a Joint Committee was also constituted to assess the extent of damage and cost of restoration of the environment and individual accountability of CETP and polluting industrial units, which consisted of one representative of CPCB, representative of IIM, Ahmadabad, Nominee of IIT, Ahmadabad, Scientist nominated by NEERI and representative of GPCB.
5. Against the aforesaid order, Civil Appeal No.8539 of 2019 was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by respondent No.3 – Tarapur Environment Protection Society, a copy of which is annexed at page 131 of the paper-book of Original Application No.21/2024, record of this O.A. has been submitted during the hearing of the present appeal), wherein vide order dated 18.11.2019, the order passed by this Tribunal dated 26.09.2019 passed in Original Application No.64/2016 was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. Thereafter, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal continued its functioning and submitted its reports, one in March, 2020 and another dated 18.06.2020 before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. These reports were considered by the Principal Bench in Original Application No.64 of 2016, wherein an order was passed on 17.09.2020, which is annexed at pages 19 to 45 of the paper-book
