State of Madhya Pradesh vs Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development & Ors.

(1) of Rule 116. Rule 116 and in particular sub-Rule (1) read with sub-Rules 2 to 5 thereof empower an officer to direct the driver or any other person in charge of a motor vehicle to submit the vehicle for a test to measure the standards of emission in an authorised testing station and produce a certificate. The driver and/or the person in charge of the vehicle is obliged to comply with such direction. The consequences of non-compliance of Rules 115(2) and (7) are prescribed in sub-Rules (4) to (9) of Rule 116 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. [Paras 22, 24 and 25][1158D; 1160-D-E]

1.2 The Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has been enacted to establish a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating, inter alia, to environmental protection and matters connected therewith. Section 2(1) (c) of the said Act defines environment to include water, air and land and the inter-relationship, which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property. Section 2(1) (m) defines “substantial question relating to environment’. Section 15 clothes the National Green Tribunal with power to pass orders of relief, compensation and restitution. Section 23 enables the Tribunal to make such order as to costs as it may consider necessary and Section 24 empowers the Tribunal to make an award for monetary compensation or relief on the ground of damage to environment. An award or order or decision of the Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act is executable as a decree of the Civil Court, by the Tribunal itself, for which purpose the Tribunal has all the powers of a Civil Court. The Tribunal may also transmit any order or award made by it to a Civil Court for execution. An appeal from a decision of the Tribunal lies to the Court under Section 22 on one or more grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or in other words on a substantial question of law. This Court does not, therefore, deem it necessary to examine the correctness of any factual findings in the judgments and orders under appeal. The Tribunal constituted under the NGT Act has jurisdiction under Section 14 of the said Act to decide all civil cases where any substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of any right relating to environment is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the said Act, which includes The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986. In view of the definition of “substantial question of environment in Section 2(m) of the NGT Act, the Tribunal can examine and decide the question of violation of any specific statutory environmental obligation, which affects or is likely to affect a group of individuals, or the community at large. For exercise of power under Section 14 of the NGT Act, a substantial question of law should be involved including any legal right to environment and such question should arise out of implementation of the specified enactments. Violation of any specific statutory environmental obligation gives rise to a substantial question of law and not just statutory obligations under the enactments specified in Schedule I. However, the question must arise out of implementation of one or more of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may not be specified in Schedule I to the NGT Act. However, the statutory 1989 Rules framed under the said Act casts statutory environmental obligations on manufacturers, owners and others in control of motor vehicles, as also the State and other statutory authorities under the said Act. The enforcement of the statutory environmental obligations under the 1989 Rules, which is a substantial question relating to environment, arises out of implementation of the 1981 Act and the Environment Protection Act and, in particular, Section 20 of the 1981 Act which casts on the State Government the mandatory duty to give instructions to the authorities in charge of Registration of Motor Vehicles with a view to ensure compliance of the standards of emission of our pollutants and Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act, which prohibits any person from carrying on any operation, which would include operation of a motor vehicle, from discharging or emitting any environmental pollutants in excess of prescribed standards or permitting such discharge or emission. On a combined reading of Sections 3, 7, 10, 11 and 23 of the Environment Protection Act, with particular reference to Section 3(1), 3(2)(i)(a) and (b), 3(2) (iii, iv) and 3(2)(x) with Section 20 of the 1981 Act and Sections 14, read with 2(c), and 2(m) of the NGT Act and Rules 115 and 116 of the 1989 Rules, the Tribunal had the power, authority and/or jurisdiction to direct the appellant State Government to strictly implement the requirement of vehicles to possess and/or display a valid PUC Certificate, and also to direct the appellant State Government and/or the other authorities concerned to take penal action in accordance with law, that is, Rules 115/116 of the 1989 Rules. On a purposive reading of Section 20 with Section 17(1)(g) of the 1981 Act, the standards of emission prescribed by Rules 115 and 116 of the 1989 Rules attract Section 20 of the 1981 Act. Driving a vehicle without a pollution PUC certificate entails (i) suspension of registration certificate; (ii) imprisonment which may extend to three months; (iii) fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- or both

(iv) disqualification for holding licence for a period of three months

(v) imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- or with fine. A perusal of Rule 116(8) and (9) makes it amply clear that the suspension of the certificate of registration is temporary. The suspension is until such time as a certificate is produced before the Registering Authority certifying that the vehicle complies with sub Rules (2) and (7) of the Rule 115 of the Central rules. A Certificate of Registration is also to be deemed to have been suspended, until a fresh Pollution Under Control certificate is obtained. When a Statute or a Statutory Rules prescribed a penalty for any act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated in the Statute or a Statutory Rules can be imposed. When Statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done only in that manner. Stoppage of supply of fuel to vehicles not complying with the requirement to have and/or display a valid PUC Certificate is not contemplated either in the 1989 Rules or in the NGT Act. Motor Vehicles not complying with the requirement of possessing and/or displaying a valid PUC Certificate cannot be debarred from being supplied fuel. The Tribunal (Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal) had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to pass orders directing the Appellant State Government to issue orders, instructions or directions on dealers, outlets and petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate. [Paras 2628, 31, 33, 35, 37–43, 48-50, 52 and 54][1160-E-G; 1162-A; 1164C-D; 1165-F; 1166-B-H; 1167-A-D; 1168-B-E, F; 1169-A-B]

1.3 The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on and enforceable against the Appellant State. The Tribunal had the power, authority and jurisdiction to direct the Appellant State to strictly implement compliance with Rules 115 and 116. An order of the Tribunal under the NGT Act is enforceable in the manner provided in Section 25 of the NGT Act. There is no provision in the NGT Act for deposit of security to secure compliance of an order of the Tribunal. The penalty for failure to comply with an order of the Tribunal entails the penalty prescribed in Sections

26 and 28 of the NGT Act. Section 39 of the 1981 Act and Section

15 of the Environment Protection Act pertain to penalty and/or punishment for contravention of the provisions of the 1981 Act, and/or the Environment Protection Act and the rules, orders and directions issued thereunder and Section 41 of the 1981 Act and Section 17 of the Environment Protection Act governs offences by Government Departments. None of the provisions provide for monetary deposit to secure compliance of an order. The Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to direct the appellant State to deposit Rs.25 crores to secure compliance with its order. In any case such an order should not have been passed in review when the initial order did not contain any direction for security deposit. The impugned judgments and orders of the Tribunal are set aside to the extent that the Tribunal has directed the Appellant State to make a deposit of Rs.25 crores by way of security and also to the extent that the Tribunal has directed the appellant State to issue orders and/or instructions and/or directions on all dealers and/or outlets and/or petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles which do not comply with the requirement of producing and/or displaying valid PUC Certificates. The State appellant shall, however, strictly implement compliance of Rules 115 and 116 of the Rules and penalize all those who contravene the said Rules in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Rules. [Paras 55-60][1169-B-H; 1170-A]

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India 1988 SC 1030; Dayal v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 867 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 152 – relied on.