Summary
The Court removed NGT directions requiring petrol outlets to withhold fuel from vehicles lacking valid pollution-under-control certificates and requiring the State to deposit Rs.25 crore as compliance security. Environmental enforcement had to follow statutory powers and penalties. NGT retained jurisdiction to require strict implementation of emission and certification rules, and the State remained bound to take lawful registration and penal measures against offending vehicles and responsible persons.
Issues
- Whether NGT could impose a blanket fuel-supply prohibition for vehicles without valid PUC certificates.
- Whether NGT could require a security deposit to secure compliance, including in review.
- Whether the Tribunal retained authority to enforce the statutory pollution-control rules.
Provisions considered
- Sections 14, 15, 19, 20, 26 and 28, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Recognised jurisdiction over the environmental dispute while rejecting unsupported fuel-denial and security-deposit measures. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59)
- Rules 115(7) and 116, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989Required valid PUC certification and enforcement through the prescribed testing, registration and penal procedures. (¶¶ 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 60)
- Section 20, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981Connected the State’s emission-enforcement duty with the scheduled environmental enactments supporting NGT jurisdiction. (¶¶ 8, 41, 42, 43)
Held
- The Motor Vehicles Act’s absence from Schedule I did not exclude this environmental dispute. Enforcement of emission-related obligations arose from implementation of the scheduled Air Act and Environment Protection Act, enabling NGT to direct strict statutory compliance and lawful penal action. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
- A statutory enforcement scheme cannot be supplemented with a penalty not contemplated by the statute or rules. Neither the relevant motor-vehicle rules nor the NGT Act authorised denying fuel for absence of a PUC certificate. The blanket direction also overlooked that fuel was needed for repairs and testing. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
- The NGT Act provides mechanisms to enforce orders and punish non-compliance, but does not authorise a monetary security deposit to compel compliance. The Rs.25 crore direction lacked authority and should in any event not have been added in review when absent from the original order. (¶¶ 55, 56, 57, 58)
- Setting aside the unsupported directions did not relieve the State of enforcement duties. It was directed strictly to implement Rules 115 and 116, take registration suspension or cancellation measures and initiate penalties against responsible owners or persons controlling offending vehicles, in accordance with law. (¶¶ 59, 60)
Result
Appeals allowed; NGT orders set aside insofar as they required Rs.25 crore security and withholding fuel from vehicles without valid PUC certificates. State directed to enforce the pollution-control rules and prescribed registration and penal measures strictly in accordance with law.