Summary
The U.P. Forest Department imposed damages of Rs 10 crore on an engineering college on the Agra–Mathura road for discharging effluent into the National Chambal Sanctuary, invoking Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, after notices since 2003 had gone unheeded. The Allahabad High Court set the order aside for want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice. The Supreme Court declined to interfere. No show-cause notice or hearing preceded the order and there was no material quantifying the damage. Section 33 gives the Chief Wild Life Warden wide powers to secure the sanctuary, extending even to closing an institution that persists in discharging effluent, after following natural justice, but not to impose damages, which must be determined by the appropriate court or forum. The Department was told not to rest content with notices if the discharge threatened the sanctuary.
Issues
- Whether the Forest Department could impose damages of Rs 10 crore under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for discharge of effluent into a sanctuary, without initiating proceedings before a court or forum to determine the damages.
- Whether an order imposing damages without any show-cause notice, hearing or material quantifying the loss could stand.
- What steps the Chief Wild Life Warden may take under Section 33 against an institution that continues to discharge effluent into a sanctuary.
Provisions considered
- Section 33, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972The Chief Wild Life Warden has wide powers to take such steps as will ensure the security of wild animals and the preservation of the sanctuary, including measures for improvement of habitat; these extend to ordering closure of an institution that keeps discharging effluent into the sanctuary, after following natural justice. The section does not, however, authorise the authority itself to impose damages; those must be ascertained in appropriate proceedings before the competent court or forum. (¶¶ 2.1, 4, 5, 6)
- Compliance notice, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986A subsequent notice of 10.02.2012 required the college to comply with this Act and the Water and Air Acts; the damages order itself was framed as being for violation of the 1986 Act but was passed under Section 33 of the Wild Life Act. (¶¶ 1, 2)
Held
- Nothing on record showed that any show-cause notice was issued or any hearing given before damages of Rs 10 crore were imposed, and there was no material on the extent of damage to the environment or the sanctuary. The order was without basis and in gross violation of natural justice, and the High Court committed no error in setting it aside. (¶¶ 3, 6)
- Under Section 33 the authority is not helpless: mere issuance of notice is not enough, and in case of repeated breaches it may take further steps, including closure of the institution, after following natural justice and in accordance with law. But it cannot straightaway impose damages in exercise of that power; it must initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court or forum to determine them. (¶ 5)
- If the authorities are of the opinion that the college continues to discharge effluent that damages the environment and wildlife in the sanctuary, it remains open to them to act under Section 33, including closure and stopping the discharge, after following natural justice; they should not be satisfied with issuing notices only. (¶ 6)
Result
Special leave petitions disposed of; the High Court's order setting aside the Rs 10 crore damages left undisturbed, with liberty to the Department to take steps under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, including closure, after following natural justice.