Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited vs Arvind Manohar Mahajan

Court: Supreme Court
Case type: Civil Appeal
Decided on: 27-11-2024

<pre> NON-REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9202-9203/2022
BENZO CHEM INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED APPELLANT(S)
 VERSUS
ARVIND MANOHAR MAHAJAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. These appeals challenge the orders passed by the
National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated 29.08.2022 and
22.11.2022.
2. Vide the first order dated 29.08.2022 penalty is imposed
on the appellant for non-compliance with the environment
requirement. By the second order dated 22.11.2022, the
review application has been rejected.
3. Heard Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel for
the appellant, Shri Feroze Ahmad, learned counsel for
Respondents No.1 to 13 and Shri Mukesh Verma, learned
counsel for the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
4. Shri Nadkarni, learned senior counsel, submits that the
order passed by the learned NGT depicts total non-
application of mind. It is submitted that though the
reports of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.11.30
15:04:47 IST
Reason:
well as National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI) found that there are no non-compliances,
1

the learned NGT records to the contrary. It is further
submitted that the methodology of imposing penalty of Rs.25
Crores on the ground that the operative revenue of the
appellant ranges from 100 Crores to 500 Crores is totally
unknown to the canons of law.
5. This is the third matter today in which we are
considering the orders passed by the learned NGT, which
depicts total violation of principles of natural justice and
lack of due consideration.
6. Learned NGT in its order in para 13 observed thus:-
“13. It is patent that from 2010 till
atleast 2.10.2020, the unit remained non-
compliant. We have already referred to first
violation seen in the year 2010 and subsequent
reports of 2017, February 2018 and NEERI report
of June 2019 show that the violations continued.
Even in August 2020, the State PCB recorded
violations and the PP filed undertaking on
2.10.2020 to take further remedial action. Thus,
there could be no question of matter being beyond
limitation. Relief can be confined to five years
before filing of the application. Though status
after 2020 is not on record, the PP has to take
remedial action as well a" be held accountable
for past violations of ten years. There are rival
oral versions about current status - version of
the applicants that violations are still
continuing and version of the PP that violations
have now been remedied.” 
7. The appellant has placed on record reports of the
inspections conducted by the MPCB for the period between
2011 to 2020. Not only that but under the orders of the
NEERI, which is a premier institution insofar as environment
sciences is concerned, has also found that the unit of the
2

appellant was compliant with environment requirements and
there was not a single non-compliance.
8. In the light of these findings in the report, the
observations of the learned NGT that the unit has been non-
compliant right from the year 2010 is totally untenable. The
further observations of the learned NGT that the report of
the NEERI of June 2019 also shows that the violations
continues, is also contrary to the records. The report of
the MPCB, which is placed at page No.349 of the paperbook
would reveal otherwise.
9. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the MPCB, also
submits that in view of the inspection reports of the MPCB,
he was not in a position to counter the claim of the
appellant that there were no violation.
10. We could have allowed the appeal on this short ground,
however, the further part of the order i.e. paragraph 15
makes an interesting reading. The learned NGT held that the
appellant is liable to pay environmental damages. However,
while computing the said damages, the only methodology that
has been adopted by the learned NGT is that as per the
information which is available in the public domain the
revenue range of the appellant is between 100 Crores to 500
Crores. It is therefore found that the penalty of Rs.25
Crores would be commensurated with the revenue. Firstly,
there is a vast difference between 100 Crores and 500
Crores. Secondly, if the learned NGT had relied on the
information available in the public domain, then it would
3

not be difficult for it to come out with the exact figure.
In any case, the generation of revenue would have no nexus
with the amount of penalty to be ascertained for
environmental damages. It is further to be noted that the
learned NGT found the appellant to be guilty of violations,
the least that was expected from the NGT is to give a notice
to the appellant before imposing such a heavy penalty.
11. With deep anguish we have to say that the methodology
adopted by the learned NGT for imposing penalty is totally
unknown to the principles of law. 
12. We are, therefore, inclined to quash and set aside the
impugned judgments and orders and allow these appeals.
Ordered accordingly.
13. Needless to state that in the event any person feels
that the appellant is engaged in any of the environmental
non-compliances, such a person would always be at liberty to
approach the appropriate forum and if such an issue comes
before it, the forum would consider and decide the same
after following the principles of natural justice. 
14. It is reported that Respondent No.13 is dead and an
application for substitution has been filed, which is lying
in defect for want of death certificate. Considering the
view that we have taken and since Respondent No.13 was one
of the applicants along with the 12 other applicants who
have been duly noticed, we close the said application as no
orders are warranted.
4

15. Any other pending application(s) shall also stand
disposed of.
..............................J
( B.R. GAVAI )
..............................J
( K.V. VISWANATHAN ) 
NEW DELHI; 
NOVEMBER 27, 2024
5

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVII
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9202-9203/2022
BENZO CHEM INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED APPELLANT(S)
 VERSUS
ARVIND MANOHAR MAHAJAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 192800/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED 
JUDGMENT, IA No. 192798/2022 - STAY APPLICATION)
 
Date : 27-11-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni,Sr.Adv.
 Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR
Mr. Zulfiqur Menon,Adv.
Mr. Waseem Pangarkar,Adv.
Ms. Nadiya Sarguroh,Adv.
Mr. Swapnil Srivastava,Adv.
Mr. Jayesh Srivastava,Adv.
Mr. Allan David,Adv.
Mr. S.S. Rebello,Adv.
 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Feroze Ahmad, Adv.
 Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR
 
 Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.
 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
 Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv.
 Mrs. Vatsala Tripathi, Adv.
 Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv.
 Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR
 
 Ms. Shyamali Gadre, Adv.
 Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR
 Mr. G. Pal, Adv.
 Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.
 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
 O R D E R
The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed judgment.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR)
 DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER 
(Signed “Non-Reportable” judgment is placed on the file)
6</pre>