Full Judgment Text
1
2024 INSC 89
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1865-1866/2022
VEENA GUPTA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. These appeals arise out of two orders passed by the
National Green Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short). The main order
arises out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings
holding the appellants to be guilty and directing payment of
compensation. The second order is the dismissal of the review
petition filed by the appellant No.2 alleging that he had not
been given an opportunity before an adverse order was passed
against him. For the reasons to follow, we set aside the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2024.02.06
18:04:18 IST
Reason:
orders and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to issue
notice to all the affected parties, hear them and pass
2
appropriate orders.
1
2. The relevant portion of the order impugned is as under:
“7.Even though no notice was issued by the Tribunal
to the PP in absence of particulars, the Joint
Committee has visited the site. Notice has been
issued to the PP under the Employees Compensation
Act for death of a person. Remedial measures have
been suggested for future. The PP has been found to
be operating without statutory consents in non-
conforming area without safety precautions,
endangering life and health of others. In these
circumstances, reserving liberty to the PP to move
this Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to
defer the matter and to proceed by notice to the PP
in view of established facts, duly verified by the
statutory authorities who are themselves competent
to take the recommended measures.
8. In view of the above, further action may be
taken by the Statutory Authorities, following due
process. The compensation assessed may be recovered
and if not paid within one month, coercive measures
be taken against the concerned persons as well as
against the property involved. We request the
Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services
Authority to ensure legal aid to the heirs of the
deceased to enable due compensation to be paid to
them. If the owners/tenant or other persons against
whom action is taken are aggrieved, they are at
liberty to take their remedies, including moving
this Tribunal. The Authorities may also maintain
vigil and take measures to prevent such incidents
in future. We have noted the constitution of zone
wise STF to check the illegal industrial activities
and godowns in residential/non-conforming areas and
are of the view that the same should be manned by
officers of higher rank than the constitution now
proposed. The Chief Secretary, Delhi may review
the constitution accordingly.”
1 Original Application No. 65/2021, dated 31.08.2021
3
3. It is evident from the above that the Tribunal itself has
noted that notices were not issued to the Project Proponents.
The Tribunal, in fact, considers it unnecessary to hear the
Project Proponent to verify the facts in issue. The Tribunal
thought it appropriate to adopt this method in view of a Joint
Inspection Report that had been submitted. The persons who
were prejudiced by the order of the Tribunal naturally filed
Review Petitions before the Tribunal. Appellant No. 2 is one
amongst them. The Review Petition was taken up and dismissed
by the Tribunal on 26.11.2021.
4. The National Green Tribunal's recurrent engagement in
unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review
hearing and routinely dismissing it has regrettably become a
prevailing norm. In its zealous quest for justice, the
Tribunal must tread carefully to avoid the oversight of
propriety. The practice of ex parte orders and the imposition
of damages amounting to crores of rupees, have proven to be a
counterproductive force in the broader mission of
environmental safeguarding.
5. Significantly, these orders have consistently faced stays
from this Court, resulting in the unraveling of the
commendable efforts put forth by the learned Members, lawyers,
4
2
and other stakeholders . It is imperative for the Tribunal to
infuse a renewed sense of procedural integrity, ensuring that
its actions resonate with a harmonious balance between justice
and due process. Only then can it reclaim its standing as a
beacon of environmental protection, where well-intentioned
endeavors are not simply washed away.
6. It appears that the appellants did not have a full
opportunity to contest the matter and place all their defenses
before the Tribunal. They filed this appeal and by order dated
04.03.2022, this Court stayed the judgment and order passed by
the Tribunal. This was inevitable. Two years have passed by
and the stay is still operating. We have no other alternative
except to set aside the orders dated 31.08.2021 and 26.11.2021
and remand the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal issue
notices to all the necessary parties, hear them in detail, and
pass appropriate orders. Needless to say that the Tribunal
shall hear the case, uninfluenced by the observations and
conclusions drawn in the orders dated 31.08.2021 and
26.11.2021.
2
Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors., (2023)8 SCC
35. This Court has already noticed the practice of the Tribunal in not providing
an opportunity of hearing to the affected party and consequently set aside its
orders and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration after
following principles of natural justice .
5
7. We make it clear that this order does not deal with the
merits of the matter and the actions of those guilty of
statutory and environmental violation will have to be subject
to strict scrutiny and legal consequences.
8. T he Civil Appeals are allowed with these directions.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
..……………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
..……………………J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
New Delhi
January 30, 2024.