Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1081
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Prakash Shrivastava, CJ, A. Senthil Vel, EM
Rafeek Ahamad & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. – Respondent
Original Application No. 1101/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Hasil Jain, Mr. Shaim Hasan, Ms. Farha Shah, Mr. Busra, Mr. Gaurav Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukesh Verma, Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Mr. Varun Sharma, Mr. Vedant Bijalwan, Mr. Abhishek Darmora, Mr. Amarjeet, Mr. Sai Darshan Patra
Liability for hazardous activities is absolute; State responsible for ensuring safety and compensating victims due to regulatory failures.
Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 15 and 17 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 - Compensation sought for deaths and injuries caused by illegal firecracker factory explosion - Allegation of operating without necessary licenses and safety measures - Tribunal directed compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs for each death and varying amounts for injuries based on severity, with liability placed on the State to ensure payment and recovery from violators. (Paras 20, 22, 24)
(B) Principle of absolute liability - Recognized in MC Mehta (1987) 1 SCC 395 - Liability is absolute for those engaged in hazardous activities, upheld in the present case with a ruling on the State's regulatory failures and responsibilities. (Paras 7, 8, 20)
Facts of the case:
Applicants claimed compensation after their family members died or were injured in a blast at an illegal firecracker factory operated without a license and safety compliance.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal found the Respondents were operating illegally and failed to ensure safety measures, thus liable for damages.
Issues: The key questions involved the illegal operation of the firecracker factory and the regulatory lapses leading to the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle of absolute liability and placed the onus on the State for failing to execute necessary oversight, directing compensation to the victims.
Result: The court ordered the State of Uttarakhand to pay Rs. 20 Lakhs for each deceased and varying amounts for the injured, with the right of recovery from the Respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident involving illegal firecracker factory explosion. (Para 1) |
| 2. claimants detailed familial losses and illegal operations linked to the factory. (Para 2 , 3 , 12) |
| 3. legal obligations and regulatory failures highlighted by the court. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. argument of the applicants supported by regulatory authority. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 5. tribunal's directives for compensation based on established liability. (Para 20 , 22) |
ORDER
1. In this original application, the plea of the Applicant is that on 20.02.2023, serial blasts of firecracker explosives took place in the illegal firecracker factory/godown operated by Respondents no. 5 and 6 situated at Mohalla Kanoon Goyan, Panchayat Dharmashala, Roorkee, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The Applicant is claiming compensation under Sections 15 and 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, “NGT Act”) for the death and injury of the following persons in that incident:
(i) Arman aged 15 years (son of Applicant no.1- Rafeek Ahamad)
(ii) Adnan aged 13 years (son of Applicant no.2- Sagir Ahamad)
(iii) Naushad (son of Khurshid)- and brother of Applicant no. 3 (both parents of Naushad are pre deceased)
(iv) Saddam (son of Nasarat Hussain and Applicant no. 4(mother)) Further 2 persons got severely injured:
(i) Neeraj (son of Chatarpal)
(ii) Suraj (son of Rajkumar)
2. The case of the Applicant is that Arman and Adnan were the helping hands of the family of Applicants Nos. 1 and 2, who used to work at the factory of Respondents Nos. 5 and 6. However, the true nature of the work undertaken by the Respondents Nos 5 and 6 was misrepresented and concealed from the Applicants. The Applicant alleges that the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were manufacturing, storing and selling the fireworks items without any licence or without complying with the rules, regulations and safety norms. They also did not have the Consent to Operate (for short, “CTO”). They were carrying out hazardous activities and caused workers to handle hazardous/dangerous explosives, which were kept in large quantities. Further case of the Applicant is that the Respondents No. 5 and 6 were running the firecracker and godown unit without any licence or permission from the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (for short, “UKPCB”), and in violation of rule 7, 9, 10 and 13 of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 (for short, “the 1989 Rules”) framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short, “EP Act”) which is a schedule enactment under the NGT Act. The Applicant relies upon various orders of the NGT passed in similar circumstances, awarding compensation to the family members of the victims of illegal firecracker units.
3. The UKPCB has filed the reply disclosing that the Respondents No.. 5 and 6 were illegally operating the godown of firecrackers and they had not obtained permission/licence of the same from the competent authority under the Explosives Rules, 2008. The illegal godown was located in a highly congested area, having access only through 6-foot- wide road, which restricted the movement of firefighting teams. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had stored the firecrackers without any fire and safety arrangements. The incident occurred on 20.02.2023, F.I.R. No. 198/2023 was lodged, and after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed.
4. The Respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Haridwar has filed the reply disclosing the details of the firecracker godown which was being illegally run by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 and registration of the FIR.
5. The Respondent No. 5 in his reply dated 16.03.2025 took the stand that it is engaged in the business of retail sales of stationery products, kites, etc. and has a warehouse adjacent to the shop which contains reserves of the products to be sold in the shop, such as kites, charkha, etc. He further took the stand that the fire broke out due to short circuit in the inverter battery, in which the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had su
