Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS.10084-85/2022
State of Uttar Pradesh and others …Petitioners
Versus
Anand Engineering College and another …Respondents
O R D E R
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 8339/2012 and 8340/2012, by which
Signature Not Verified
the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.07.23
12:41:50 IST
Reason:
respondents herein and has set aside the order/notice imposing
1
damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) for violation of
the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, which was imposed in
exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972, the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Forest Department has
preferred the present special leave petitions.
2. That the respondents herein are running an educational institution
in the area at Agra-Mathura Road and that too in the close vicinity of
the National Chambal Sanctuary Project undertaken by the State
Government. That due to the effluent flowing out of the premises of
the college that borders the Sanctuary has resulted in serious threat to
the ecology of the area as well as causing environmental damage and
consequently has endangered the flora and fauna as well as the wild
life in the sanctuary. The Forest department issued various notices to
the respondents right from the year 2003 onwards regarding threat to
the environment on account of effluent flowing in the sanctuary area
from the huge multi storied building of the institution. However, the
respondents continued to discharge the effluent which, according to
the Forest Department, resulted in serious environmental damage in
the area and consequently endangered the wild life in the sanctuary.
Therefore, by order dated 30.12.2011 the Forest Department of the
State imposed damages of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores)
2
upon the respondents. The said order imposing damages upon the
respondents was the subject matter before the High Court in the
aforesaid writ petitions. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
subsequently notice dated 10.02.2012 was issued to the original writ
petitioners to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Water
(Control and Removal of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Control and
Removal of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also the Environmental Protection
Act, 1986.
2.1 Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the original writ
petitioners that the order imposing damages was in gross violation of
principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was ever issued
to them in respect of the proposed action of imposing damages. It was
also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the authority
passing the order imposing damages is not vested with any such
power under any law for the time being in force. It was also the case
on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the amount of damages
imposed is too excessive without there being any statistical basis for
the same and assessment for loss based on any cogent and
convincing material. Before the High Court and even before this
Court, the State/Forest Department relied upon Section 33 of the Wild
Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which reads as under:
3
“33. Control of sanctuaries – The Chief Wild Life Warden shall be the
authority who shall control, manage and maintain all sanctuaries and for
that purpose, within the limits of any sanctuary, -
(a)may construct such roads, bridges, buildings, fences or barrier
gates, and carry out such other works as he may consider necessary
for the purposes of such sanctuary:
Provided that no construction of commercial tourist lodges, hotels,
zoos and safari parks shall be undertaken inside a sanctuary except
with the prior approval of the National Board.
(b)Shall take such steps as will ensure the security of wild animals in
the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and wild animals
therein;
(c)may take such measures, in the interests of wild life, as he may
consider necessary for the improvement of any habitat;
(d)may regulate, control or prohibit, in keeping with the interests of
wild life, the grazing or movement of 2 live-stock.”
2.2 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
allowed the aforesaid two writ petitions and set aside the order/notice
imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores, by holding that under the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest Department/ State has no
jurisdiction and/or authority to impose damages. The High Court has
also observed that imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores was in
breach of principles of natural justice as before imposing such
damages, no opportunity of being heard was given to the original writ
petitioners and as such there was no material to impose damages of
Rupees Ten Crores.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court in setting aside
4
the order imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores for discharging the
effluent flowing out of the premises of the college in the national
sanctuary and consequently endangering the environment as well as
the wild life in the sanctuary, the State has preferred the present
special leave petitions.
3. We have heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State. We have gone through the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court. At the outset, it is
required to be noted that the order/notice imposing damages of Rs.
10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) has been found to be in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice. Nothing is on record to
indicate that before imposing damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Crores) any show cause notice was issued upon the original writ
petitioners to show cause as to why the damages may not be imposed
or for any violation of any of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act and/or the Environmental Protection Act and/or any other law.
Neither the respondent was given any opportunity of hearing by the
authorities concerned. There was no material on record to impose
damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores). Imposing
damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores), thus can be said
to be without any basis and/or material and the extent of damages
5
caused to the environment and/or wild life sanctuary. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting
aside the imposing of damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Crores) which, as observed hereinabove, was found to be in breach of
the principles of natural justice.
4. On merits and on jurisdiction and/or authority of the Forest
Department/Environment Department to impose damages, heavy
reliance is placed on Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,
which is reproduced hereinabove. It is the case on behalf of the
Department that right from the year 2003, all efforts were made by the
Department to see that the original writ petitions stop discharging the
effluent in the sanctuary area. However, the original writ petitioners
have continued to discharge the effluent and have caused the
environmental damage and have endangered the environment as well
as wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the
Department that thereafter when the original writ petitioners have
continued to act detrimental to the environment and wild life in the
sanctuary, the authority was justified in imposing the damages while
exercising the powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972.
6
5. On a fair reading of Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972, reproduced hereinabove, the appropriate authority shall have
wide powers to take such steps as well as to ensure the security of
wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary
and wild animals therein. The Chief Wild Life Warden also may take
such measures, in the interests of wild life, as he may consider
necessary for the improvement of any habitat and may also regulate,
control or prohibit, in keeping with the interests of wild life, the grazing
or movement of livestock. Therefore, in exercise of powers under
Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Chief Wild Life
Warden/appropriate authority may even pass an order of closure of the
institution, if the institution continues to discharge the effluent in the
sanctuary which may affect and/or damage the environment as well as
wild life in the sanctuary. Mere issuance of notice is not suffice. There
can be further steps, may be of closure of an institution in case of
repeated breaches and/or the action in discharging the effluent which
may damage the environment and wild life in the sanctuary, after
following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law.
To that extent, the authority is not helpless.
However, at the same time, the authority cannot impose damages
and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before
7
the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages.
However, straightway in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the authority could not have imposed
damages.
6. Be that as it may, as observed hereinabove, before imposing
damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores), admittedly, no
show cause notice was issued to the original writ petitioners calling
upon them to show cause as to why damages may not be imposed for
discharging effluent in the sanctuary, which damages/affects the
environment and wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, setting aside the order of damages does
not call for any interference of this Court. However, at the same time,
if the authorities are very serious and are the opinion that the original
writ petitioners have continued to discharge the effluent in the national
sanctuary area which ultimately damages/affects the environment as
well as wild life in the sanctuary, it will always be open for the
department/authority to take steps as provided under Section 33 of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as observed hereinabove
including the closure of the institution and even stop discharging the
effluent in the national sanctuary, however, of course, after following
the principles of natural justice. The authorities may not stop taking
8
any further action and be satisfied by issuing notice only. If the
discharge of the effluent is a threat to the environment and/or wild life
in the national sanctuary, the authorities have to take further steps to
stop such use and/or threat to the environment and wild life in the
national sanctuary, in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the present special leave petitions
stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J.
JULY 12, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
9