Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1972
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BHOPAL (CENTRAL ZONE BENCH)
HON’BLE MR. SHEO KUMAR SINGH, J, HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, ACJ
Tahir Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Appeal No.02/2024 (CZ) | I.A.No.13/2024
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Prakash Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Sthapak, Adv., Ms. Vanshika Dubey, Adv. (for Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv.), Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv.
The court reaffirmed that environmental regulations mandate prior consent for operations and disallow retrospective regularization of environmental violations under the Polluter Pays Principle.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Notification by State Pollution Control Board regarding Environmental Compensation for operational gaps deemed invalid and contravening environmental statutes - Key provisions mandate prior consent for operation and levy penalties for violations. (Paras 2 to 4, 16 to 24)
(B) Principles of Environmental Law - Polluter Pays Principle - Emphasizing accountability for environmental harm and preventing regularization of unauthorized operations. (Paras 23 to 26)
Facts of the case:
Appellant contested the notification allowing non-levy of Environmental Compensation for back periods, arguing it violated key environmental laws and past court orders.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the notification was beyond jurisdiction and against environmental law principles, indicating the necessity of holding industries accountable.
Issues: The validity of the State PCB's order permitting operational regularization without consent and its compliance with set environmental standards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined regularization without accountability violates stringent environmental laws and principles, reinforcing the precedent against retrospective consents.
Result: Appeal allowed, order modified, and compensation against violations mandated.
ORDER
1. The State Pollution Control Board Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 02.01.2024, issued a notification as follows:-
“ d. No Environmental Compensation would be levied for the Back Period for which Consent to operate has been regularised.
e. …..
f….
g….
it is further clarified that this dispensation would also be applicable in case where demand of Environmental Compensation raised on account of “Back Period” is yet to be deposited”
2. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant are that the above notification is in violation of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 , Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and order passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 606/2018.
3. It is further argued that it is in violation of order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India reported in 1996 A.I.R. S.C.W., page 3399, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Appellant Vs. Union of India & Ors. Respondent.
4. Notices were issued to the Respondents and in compliance thereof, Respondents have filed their reply. A report/expert report and opinion was called from the Regional Director, CPCB, Bhopal, Integral Office and he has submitted the report. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 - CPCB are that the consent to establish and consent to operate to industrial unit is given by concerned State Pollution Control Board in accordance with the Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which states that, "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area.... (2) An application for consent of the State Board under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed and shall be made in the prescribed form and shall contain the particulars of the industrial plant and such other particulars as may be prescribed." Also, Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, states that, "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, (a) establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or (b) bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage; or (c) begin to make any new discharge of sewage... (2) An application for consent of the State Board under sub-section (1) shall be made in such form, contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
6. That in reference to the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order dated 31.08.2018 in the matter of O.A. 593/2017 titled Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. a methodology for assessing EC was prepared by CPCB. The said methodology was accepted as an interim measure by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2019. It is submitted that, the above referred methodology considers following cases for levying EC:-
a. Discharges in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards/ consent limits.
b. Not complying with the directions issued, such as direction for closure due to non-installation of OCEMS, non- adherence to the action plans submitted etc.
c. Intentional avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering the Online Continuous Emission/Effluent Monitoring systems.
d. Accidental discharges lasting for short duration resulting into damage to the environment.
e. Intentional discharges to the environment i.e. land, water and air resulting into acute injury or damage to the environment.
f. Injection of treated/partiall
