* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1185 : 2024 INSC 89
Veena Gupta & Anr.
v.
Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
30 January 2024
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1865-1866 of 2022)
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and
Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned orders passed by National Green Tribunal
– order arising out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings
holding the appellants guilty and directing payment of compensation;
and order of dismissal of the review petition filed by appellant No.2
alleging that he had not been given opportunity before adverse
order was passed against him, were not sustainable.
Headnotes
Practice and Procedure – Opportunity of hearing to affected
party – National Green Tribunal’s recurrent engagement in
unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review
hearing and routinely dismissing it – Deprecated.
Held: On facts, it is evident that the Tribunal itself noted that notices
were not issued to the Project Proponents – The Tribunal, in fact,
considered it unnecessary to hear the Project Proponent to verify
the facts in issue – 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 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 – 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 – It appears that the appellants
did not have a full opportunity to contest the matter and place all
their defenses before the Tribunal – The matter is remanded back
to the Tribunal to issue notice to all the affected parties, hear them
and pass appropriate orders. [Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6]
1186 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani
Kumar Dubey & Ors., [2023] 10 SCR 440 : (2023) 8
SCC 35 – referred to.
List of Keywords
National Green Tribunal; ex parte order; Suo motu proceedings;
Review petition; Adverse order; Opportunity of hearing; Affected
party; Unilateral decision making; ex post facto review hearing;
Facts in issue; Prejudice; Prevailing norm; Procedural integrity;
Harmonious balance; Justice; Due process; Opportunity to contest
the matter; Remand.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.1865-1866 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2021 in OA No.65 of
2021 and dated 26.11.2021 in RA No.37 of 2021 of the National
Green Tribunal.
Appearances for Parties
Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ashish Aggarwal, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal,
Ms. Tatini Basu, Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Subodha Pandey, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Avneesh Arputham, Ankit Sharma, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani,
Suraj Singh, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Praveen Swarup, Ameet Singh,
Devesh Maurya, Ravi Kumar, Ms. Payal Swarup, Aman, Rajeev Kumar
Bansal, Vidya Sagar, Rajesh Sonthalia, Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Shekher
Kaushik, Ganesh Barowalia, Mrs. Vandana Gupta, Rahul Gupta,
Deepak Goel, Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari,
Ms. Alka Goyal, Jitendra Bharti, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1187
Veena Gupta & Anr. v. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
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
orders and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to issue notice
to all the affected parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders.
2. The relevant portion of the order impugned1
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
1 Original Application No. 65/2021, dated 31.08.2021
1188 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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.”
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, and other stakeholders2
. 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.
2 Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors., [2023] 10 SCR 440 : (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.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1189
Veena Gupta & Anr. v. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors.
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.
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. The Civil Appeals are allowed with these directions.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Result of the case: Appeals
allowed with directions.
