Pollution Control Boards Have Power to Impose Environmental Compensation, Allahabad High Court Rules

LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has decisively affirmed the jurisdiction of the U.P. Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) to impose environmental compensation on polluting industries under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. A division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla dismissed a writ petition filed by a dyeing unit, holding that the legal position has been settled by a recent Supreme Court judgment.

The Court also declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction, citing the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) within the prescribed time limit and a significant delay of over three years in approaching the High Court.

Case Background

The case was brought by M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, a Ghaziabad-based industrial unit, challenging a series of orders issued by the UPPCB. Initially, in August 2021, the Board ordered the closure of the unit and imposed an environmental compensation of Rs. 14,20,000. While this order was later conditionally revoked in June 2022, it was subject to the payment of the remaining compensation of Rs. 13,20,000. The petitioner, who had already paid Rs. 1,00,000, challenged these orders in a writ petition filed in 2025.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioner's central argument was that the UPPCB lacked the legal authority to impose such compensation under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974. They contended that this provision does not explicitly grant adjudicatory power to levy compensation, and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust vs. State of Gujarat .

In response, the U.P. Pollution Control Board argued that the matter was no longer an open question. Their counsel cited the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Delhi Pollution Control Committee vs. Lodhi Property Company Ltd. , which directly addressed and upheld the power of Pollution Control Boards to impose environmental compensation under both the Water Act and the Air Act as a remedial measure.

Court's Analysis and Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

The High Court meticulously analyzed the precedents cited. It found that the Kantha Vibhag case was not applicable as it dealt with the NGT's inability to delegate its own adjudicatory powers, not the inherent powers of the Pollution Control Boards.

The Bench placed firm reliance on the Lodhi Property judgment, which clarified the scope of the Board's powers. The Supreme Court in that case had distinguished between: 1. Remedial Measures: Restitutionary and compensatory damages levied to remedy environmental harm, based on the "Polluter Pays" principle. 2. Punitive Actions: Fines or imprisonment, which can only be imposed through prescribed judicial procedures.

The High Court quoted the Supreme Court's reasoning:

"We are of the opinion that these regulators in exercise of these powers can impose and collect, as restitutionary or compensatory damages fixed sum of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as ex-ante measure towards potential or actual environmental damage."

The Allahabad High Court concluded that the power to issue directions under Section 33A of the Water Act is broad enough to include levying compensation for environmental remediation.

"In view of the said authority, it is no longer res integra that the Pollution Control Board has the authority/jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation," the judgment stated.

Dismissal on Grounds of Alternative Remedy and Delay

Despite affirming the Board's jurisdiction, the Court considered the petitioner's plea to examine other alleged irregularities. However, the bench noted that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal before the NGT under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. The petitioner had not only failed to avail this remedy but had also approached the High Court with a delay of more than three years.

Citing the principle of judicial restraint in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy, the Court declined to entertain the petition.

Final Decision

The writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the legal authority of state pollution control boards to act as robust environmental regulators by imposing compensation to make polluters pay for environmental damage.