(Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.)
Chadha Sugar Mills Private Limited Through Director _____ Appellant;
v.
Sushil Kumar and Others _________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No(s). 3396 of 2019, decided on July 29, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The appellant is a Sugar Factory, which operates in Gurdaspur, Punjab. The question raised in the present appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 28.02.2019 is whether the said Judgment of the National Green Tribunal (in short, “the NGT”) is outside its jurisdiction contained in Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (in short, “the NGT Act”) as also whether the present case, being covered by various Consent Orders and Reports in favour of the appellant, whether the ultimate direction in Paragraph 6 of the impugned order could at all have been given on the facts of this case.
2. Sh. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has taken us to the relevant provisions of the NGT Act as also our Judgment in “Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.” reported in (2019) SCC OnLine SC 221 in copious detail. In addition, he pointed out that every single prayer that was asked for by a petitioner, who claims fishing rights in the river Beas, has already been addressed by directions/consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short, “the Water Act”) and by various Monitoring Reports in so far as this Sugar Unit is concerned. He, therefore, urged us to hold that the NGT acted outside its jurisdiction in issuing the directions contained in Paragraph 6 as also that each and every prayer of the appellant had already been taken care of by the Orders/Reports.
3. Sh. Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, contended that any affidavit made as to his client’s lack of bonafides is not correct, in that he had already submitted an application dated 16.04.2018 to the Fisheries Department together with photographs and videos etc. showing the state of the river Beas and the fact that it was so polluted that he could not exploit his fishing licence granted in that behalf.
4. Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board, has also taken us through our Judgment in Tamil Nadu Case (supra) and has also cited “State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee”, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 177 to argue that the NGT’s order is certainly within its jurisdiction. Also, she argued that in any case, this appeal might be infructuous as the NGT has in “Shobha Singh v. State of Punjab” by an order dated 22.01.2021 already held that the Monitoring Report should now be a thing of the past and be taken as a measure of last resort, and the State Governments should, of their own motion, now deal with the problems of river and the pollution.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, we may first set out the prayer of the appellant in Original Application No. 1040 of 2018. These prayers read as follows:—
“I. Direct the Chadda Sugar Mill as well as respondent Authorities to pay environmental compensation by applying the polluter pays principle and precautionary principle proportionate the damage caused on account of their actions, which the applicant values at any amount that the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case.
II. Direct the respondent no. 5 to pay compensation under “Polluter Pays” principle for deliberately throwing of Acidic Water into river Beas by violating environmental Laws whereby so many fishes died and fishing work of the applicant is stopped.
III. Direct the respondent no. 1 to 4 to take steps and pass necessary orders to ensure that there are no violation of section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 5 of The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 and also direct the respondents to pass all necessary orders issuance of directions and to ensure compliances with the provisions of environment protection Acts, Rules and notifications issued concerning the water pollution.
IV. Direct respondent no. 2 to conduct an enquiry and take action against the persons who found to be responsible for releasing about 10,000 kilo litres of Molasses/Acidic Water in the Beas River through adjoining rivulet, Kahnuwan drain into the river Beas resultantly because of their action so many fishes died and thereby leading to adverse environmental impacts.
V. Pass any order(s) directions(s) as this Hon’ble Trubunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present application in the interest of justice.”
6. We have been shown an order dated 24.05.2018, in which final directions under Section 33A of the Water Act have imposed a 5-Crore fine on the appellant and have ordered criminal prosecution. We have also been shown an order dated 15.06.2018 in which prosecution has actually been launched. In addition, we have been shown the Monitoring Committee Reports in which no adverse findings have been made against the appellant, the appellant having been given a clean chit so far as its unit is concerned. Importantly, we have also been shown conditional consents to operate under the Water Act dated 08.12.2018 and 09.10.2019, which are valid till 2022. Given the fact that these orders/directions have already been passed in the appellant’s case, it was wholly unnecessary for the NGT to have passed orders, particularly Paragraph 6 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:—
“6. The Committee may also consider report dated 30.01.2019 filed by the CPCB before this Tribunal in the above connected matter and recommend whether the industry should be allowed to operate and if so, subject to what safeguards on precautionary principle, including taking of performance guarantee of a suitable amount undertaking to ensure that such mishap is not repeated. The parties are at liberty to give their view point to the Committee within two weeks.”
7. Each one of the prayers that has been asked for, has been substantially addressed by each of the orders aforesaid and the Committee Reports. Therefore, without going into the larger question of jurisdiction and the two Judgments that have been cited before us, we set aside the impugned Judgment on the facts of this case. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No(s). 3396/2019
M/s. Chadha Sugar Mills Private Limited Through Director _______________________________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Sushil Kumar & Ors _____________________________ Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 8313/2019 (XVII)
(IA FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 157086/2019 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 157089/2019)
(FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 160942/2019)(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE SPARE COPIES ON IA 174503/2019) (IA No. 174503/2019 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE SPARE COPIES)(IA No. 157089/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)(IA No. 160942/2019 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)(IA No. 157086/2019-STAY APPLICATION)
Diary No(s). 18113/2019 (XVII)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No. 23569/2020-STAY APPLICATION and IA No. 23567/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL and IA No. 23568/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS and IA No. 23570/2020-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Diary No(s). 28435/2019 (XVII)
(IA No. 120819/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 120821/2019-STAY APPLICATION and IA No. 120818/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL and IA No. 120820/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
C.A. No. 9398/2019 (XVII)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 184998/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 184999/2019-STAY APPLICATION and IA No. 184997/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL)
Date: 29-07-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.)
Counsel for the parties Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv.
Mr. Harshit Sethi, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain, Adv.
Mr. Satya Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Mandeep Kalra, Adv.
Ms. Greeshma Menon, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Paras Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Kanak Malik, Adv.
Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR
Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv.
for M/s S. Narain & Co.
Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Manju Singh, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv.
Mr. Raj Panjwani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jitender Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh R. Mishra, Adv.
Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Adv.
Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR
Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Mohta, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Panjwani, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Civil Appeal No. 3396 of 2019
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
REST OF THE MATTERS
10. List on 03.08.2021 (Tuesday).
———
