Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 926
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1711-1712 OF 2021
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5158 OF 2021
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1711-1712/2021
1. These appeals challenge the order dated 07.04.2021
passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), vide which the
NGT has held that the appellant had committed a violation of
the provisions of Environment Protection Act. The Court
found that the appellant had failed to install the online flow
meter in CS2 stacks to quantify the CS2 emissions. It also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.12.03
18:37:00 IST
Reason:
found that the acid produced which is a by-product of the
process employed by the appellant was hazardous to the
1
environment. The NGT, therefore, on different counts
imposed penalty of Rs.75,00,000/- each.
2. We have heard Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior
counsel for the appellant and Shri Raghav Sharma, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/State of Madhya
Pradesh through Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board
and Shri Rahul Pratap, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2.
3. Though, Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior
Counsel, submits that there is no violation as found by the
learned NGT, we find that the present appeals deserve to be
allowed on the following short ground.
4. After the NGT entertained the O.A. on the basis of the
letter addressed by Respondent No.1, it initially directed the
plant of the appellant to be examined by the State Pollution
Control Board. After the receipt of the report of the State
Pollution Control Board, the Court appointed a Joint
Committee to give its report. The said Joint Committee made
certain recommendations and the NGT passed the impugned
order on the basis of the said recommendations.
5. The material placed on record would also reveal that the
2
appellant herein was not made a party to the proceedings
before the learned NGT or before the Joint Committee.
Though an application for impleadment was filed by the
appellant, the same was rejected by the learned NGT.
6. It further appears that even the Joint Committee
appointed by the NGT neither gave any notice to the
appellant nor an opportunity was given of being heard.
Though, this objection was specifically taken by the
appellant, the NGT observed “We asked the learned Counsel
whether the stand of the unit is that the violations found
never existed or whether they existed but have been
remedied. His answer is later. It is patent that there were
violations”.
7. It is thus clear that the procedure followed by the
learned NGT was totally unknown to the settled principles of
natural justice.
8. Neither was any notice given by the Joint Committee
before giving an adverse report against the appellant nor the
NGT permitted impleadment of the appellant as a party
respondent. As a matter of fact, the NGT could not have
proceeded further with the matter even at the initial stage
3
without impleading the appellant herein as a party
respondent. The approach adopted by the NGT clearly
smacks of condemning a person unheard. A reliance in this
respect should be placed on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v.
1
Ankita Sinha and Others .
9. Another glaring error that has been committed by the
NGT is that it has based its decision only on the basis of the
report of the Joint Committee. The NGT is a tribunal
constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010.
A tribunal is required to arrive at its decision by fully
considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it.
It cannot outsource an opinion and base its decision on such
an opinion. A reliance in this respect should be placed on the
judgment of this Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj
Parivartan Trust and Others v. State of Gujarat and
2
Others .
10. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are not
sustainable, the same are quashed and set aside and the
matters are remitted back to the learned NGT for considering
1
(2022) 13 SCC 401 : 2021 INSC 624
2
2022 SCC OnLine SC 120 : 2022 INSC 79
4
the matters afresh.
11. Needless to state that if the NGT decides to proceed
further on the basis of the complaint of Respondent No.1, it
shall not do so unless the appellant herein is impleaded as a
party respondent.
12. With these observations and directions, the appeals are
allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5158 OF 2021
1. The facts in the present case are almost similar or
rather more glaring than the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 1711-
1712 of 2021. In the present appeals the complainant
(Respondent No.2 herein) had not even mentioned the name
of the present appellant. However, the learned National
Green Tribunal (NGT) on the basis of the Report of the Joint
Committee imposed penalty of Rs.82.2 Lacs and Rs.75.6 Lacs
for violation of environment laws on two counts.
2.
In the appeal arising out of the same common order we
have found that the approach of the NGT in deciding the
matter without impleading an affected party and passing its
5
decision on an outsourced opinion of the experts is not
permissible on the ground of violation of principle of natural
justice.
3.
In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow this
appeal.
4. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the learned NGT for considering
the matter afresh.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
..............................J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 27, 2024.
6