Environmental laws – Violations – Imposition of penalty – Appellant-exporter engaged in manufacturing activities resulting in ineffective effluent treatment, storage of hazardous wastes – Case of respondent no.1 before the tribunal alleging that the appellant actively perpetrating environmental degradation and pollution as also extracting ground water; thus polluting the surroundings and also releasing effluents into the nearby river – On basis of Joint Committee Report, imposition of compensation of Rs.50 Crores by the tribunal and issuance of certain directions – Challenge to: Held: Imposition of compensation of Rs.50 Crores by the NGT striked out – Direction permitting a continuous monitoring and restoration, and fresh water audit of the pollution control measures to ensure a pollution free, compliance regime, retained – These directions relating to audit, monitoring and restoration necessarily within the powers of the NGT and is a continuing process – There could be constant monitoring of the unit especially looking at the past violations – However, having accepted the report of compliance, no warrant for a sweeping direction to close such of the divisions of the appellant which are falling short of the compliance – Reserving the right of the jurisdictional PCBs to proceed against any violation of statutory or other conditions imposed, the direction issued by the NGT set aside – Generation of revenue, or its quantum, would have no nexus with the amount of penalty to be ascertained for environmental damages – Methodology adopted by the NGT for imposition of penalty totally unknown to any principle of law – Rule of law does not permit State or its agencies to extract a ‘pound of flesh’, even in environmental matters – Though there was admitted turnover of Rs.550 crores, absence of nexus between the turnover and the pollution alleged – If at all the NGT was of the opinion that the environmental compensation imposed was minimal or low, it could have referred to the methodology framed by the CPCB and not merely looked at the revenue generation of the polluter – Furthermore, NGT has no jurisdiction to direct the prosecution of individuals under the PMLA – NGT should act within the contours of the powers conferred on it – Direction issued to the Enforcement Directorate set aside – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. [Paras 9-13]
Judgment/order – Lengthy judgments referring to laws, guidelines, reports and decisions – Relevance: Held: Concern expressed that application of mind is not proportionate to the number of pages – Impugned judgment dealt elaborately with the environmental law, the numerous pollution prevention measures, the guidelines and publications issued by various States as also decisions, various reports, interim orders of the NGT and the objections which would anyway be available in the records of the case – Unfortunately this was an exercise in futility – Judicious consideration is the sum and substance of adjudication and the Courts/Tribunals should restrain themselves from engaging in mere rhetoric by stating the law in general without particular reference to the facts. [Para 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.