Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3534
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 original environmental compensation levy held infructuous upon subsequent enhancement in connected proceedings, rendering challenge academic.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Environmental compensation - Appeal against levy of Rs.77.513 lakhs for 408 days of effluent discharge violation - Subsequent final order in connected proceedings enhanced compensation to Rs.196.794 lakhs - Supreme Court stayed enhanced amount directing deposit of original sum - Appeal dismissed at admission stage as infructuous due to supersession by subsequent higher/modified compensation order. (Paras 10, 14, 15)
(B) Natural Justice - Opportunity of hearing - Short notice (3 days) for appearance rejected as inadequate by appellant - Tribunal found explanation unconvincing but did not decide on merits due to infructuousness. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged MPCB order levying environmental compensation for substandard effluent discharge to CETP based on Joint Committee report in connected Original Application. Respondents argued appeal infructuous citing subsequent NGT final order enhancing compensation and Supreme Court stay on enhancement.
Findings of Court:
Original levy superseded by enhanced compensation in final order of connected proceedings; matter rendered infructuous as Supreme Court seized of challenge to final order.
Issues: Whether appeal against original compensation survives post-enhancement in connected proceedings; adequacy of hearing opportunity.
Ratio Decidendi: Appeal becomes infructuous when subject order is modified/superseded by subsequent higher authority determination in linked proceedings, rendering challenge academic.
Result: Appeal dismissed at admission stage; interlocutory application rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural hearing listing noted. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of oa 64/2016 and interim orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. supreme court order on objections and deposits. (Para 8) |
| 4. ngt final order on compensation chart. (Para 9) |
| 5. respondents argue appeal infructuous due to revised compensation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. supreme court stays enhanced compensation. (Para 13) |
| 7. hearing opportunity dispute resolved. (Para 14) |
| 8. appeal dismissed as infructuous. (Para 15) |
| 9. ia rejected post appeal dismissal. (Para 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 in Original Application No.21 of 2024, wherein the second report of the Joint Committee dated 18.06.202
