Natural justice is flexible, requiring context-specific application, with emphasis on actual prejudice caused to uphold procedural fairness in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, Environment Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, and the order dated 06.02.2023 issued by the office of Respondent No.1, MPPCB, imposing/ recovery sum of Rs 60,80,000/- (Rs. Sixty Lacs Eighty Thousand Only) on account of Environment Compensation from the period January 2021 to August 2022.

2. The main contention of the Appellant is that the opportunity of hearing was not provided to the Appellant and further that the calculation which was done by the Respondent is not in accordance with the procedure. Notices were issued to the Respondent and reply has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. The brief facts are that Appellant M/s Tirupati Minerals (Bolder Mine) and the crusher associated with it, M/s Tirupati Minerals (Stone Crusher) are situated at Khasra no 466 (area 0.809 hectares) & part of Khasra no. 467 (area 2.428 hectares) in an area totalling 3.327 hectares. The unit has valid Environmental Clearance for this mine for mining of 28500 M³ of stone/ year which was issued by SEIAA on dated 15.7.2015, which is subsequently transferred in favour of Atul Pathak on dated 28.12.2020. It is stated that a case was registered against appellant as O.A. No 58/2022 titled as "Milind Thakre V/s State of MP & Others” after deliberating the issue in question this Hon’ble Tribunal has passed an order on dated 19.12.2022 with direction to the respondent MPPCB to proceed in accordance with law for calculation of proposed environmental compensation and for its realisation in accordance with law after giving the opportunity of the hearing to the appellant. It is further stated that in compliance of the above order the MPPCB had conducted meeting for finalisation of the EC by a five-member committee consisting of five officers of the Board on 09.01.2023. It is stated that the Appellant preferred and appeal before Appellate authority on where, the Board had never filed any reply to the appeal filed by the appellant before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority in para 5 (अ) of the impugned order dated has relied upon the minutes of the meeting by the internal committee of the Board on assessment of EC dated 09.01.2023.

5. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the MPPCB Ms. Parul Bhadoria are that the facts of the present case originate from the orders passed in O.A. No.58/2022(CZ) (order dated 19.12.2022) where the allegations and violations as alleged in the application are as follows:-

“1) One Shri Dinesh Agrawal, resident of Vijaynagar, Balaghat Road, Gondiya (Maharashtra) – 441601, was granted Prior EC vide letter no. 3577/SEIAA/2020 dated 15.07.2015, who transferred the EC to the present Respondent No. 6, M/s Tirupati Minerals for Stone Quarry (Opencast Manual/Semi Mechanized Method) in area of 3.237 Hectares for production capacity of 28,500 CuM/year at Khasra No. 466/467 at village Dahedi, Teh.- Kirnapur, Dis