Imposition of environmental compensation requires strict compliance with natural justice principles, including disclosure of adverse material and opportunity to contest quantum.

JUDGMENT

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an Appeal assailing the order dated 24.07.2024 (at page 103 of paper book) passed by Punjab State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘PSPCB’) imposing environmental compensation of Rs.6,42,25,000/- upon appellant for the period of violation i.e., from 01.04.2005 to 25.04.2019 and directing appellant to deposit the said amount within 15 days failing which PSPCB shall be constrained to take action for the recovery of the said amount.

2. The appellant has mentioned in the Memo of Appeal that it has been preferred under Section 18(1) read with Sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’) but when we confronted, it could not be disputed by appellant that the appellate power is conferred upon Tribunal only under Section 16 and reference to Sections 14, 15, 17 and 18 is an irregularity. Following the law that mere wrong mention of the provisions will not deprive an Adjudicatory Forum of entertaining a matter where the power is otherwise vested in any other provision, we ignore the irregularity and treat this Appeal under Section 16 of NGT Act, 2010.

3. Impugned order dated 24.07.2024 shows that appellant-M/s. Sumit Knit is a small scale ‘Red Category’ unit engaged in the process of dyeing and washing of the garments. PSPCB found that the unit in question was running in violation of directions issued under Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Water Act, 1974’) and Section 31A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Air Act, 1981’ whereupon directions were issued to Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vide PSPCB’s letter dated 02.08.2019 for disconnection of electric supply of appellant’s unit and electric connection was accordingly disconnected. Later on, the unit was granted consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981, both, valid upto 12.05.2020 and electric connection was also restored.

4. On a complaint received from the office of Monitoring Committee constituted by Tribunal vide letter dated 20.08.2020, a team of the officers of PSPCB was constituted and it visited the unit on 28.10.2020 when Proprietor of the industry could not produce old records, bills and justification regarding bills dated 14.08.2007 to 18.08.2007 for sweater over dyeing washing attached with the complaint.

5. It is mentioned in the impugned order, in para 7, that due to lack of complete record, the exact date of dyeing/washing unit of the industry could not be adjudged.

6. The unit was further granted Consent to Operate (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTO’) under Water Act, 1974 valid upto 30.06.2025 for Zero Liquid Discharge.

7. Further, a complaint was received from SL Verma whereupon the Committee was constituted to make enquiry and the said Committee submitted report making observations as under:

“1. There is no account of 2026 KL. Whereas, the effluent may either be directly disposed off after the ETP plant to MC sewer without evaporation to save cost of energy involved in evaporation.

2. There is possibility of unmetered water source from where the water is taken for processing activities but is not accounted in records. 3. RO is not functioning properly and efficiently and there are chances that the industry