Summary
The National Green Tribunal, acting on a complaint about a sugar mill, constituted a joint committee whose inspection report it accepted without adjudication, and then imposed environmental compensation of Rs. 18 crores on the mill owner, which had never been impleaded or heard. The Supreme Court held that the orders were passed in violation of the sampling and analysis procedure in Sections 21 and 22 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, of Section 19 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and of elementary natural justice; the NGT cannot outsource investigation to ad hoc committees in place of the statutory procedure or base adverse orders on their reports without hearing the affected party. The orders were declared null and void and set aside without remand.
Issues
- Whether the NGT could pass adverse orders and impose environmental compensation on the appellant, against whom the entire proceeding was directed, without impleading it, without giving it notice or an opportunity to contest the joint committee's reports, and without adjudicating on those reports.
- Whether the NGT may constitute an ad hoc joint committee to inspect and sample effluents and base its decision on that committee's report, in disregard of the statutory sampling and analysis procedure in Sections 21 and 22 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
- Whether Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which frees the NGT from the Code of Civil Procedure but requires it to be guided by natural justice, was infringed.
- Whether, the orders being vitiated, the matter should be remanded to the NGT.
Provisions considered
- Section 21, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974Section 21 empowers the State Board to take samples of sewage or trade effluent for analysis, but by sub-section (2) the result of such analysis is inadmissible in any legal proceeding unless sub-sections (3) to (5) are complied with: notice to the occupier or his agent of the intention to analyse, division of the sample into two parts in his presence, sealing and signing of the containers by both, and despatch to the prescribed laboratories, with a procedure where the occupier wilfully absents himself or does not ask for division. The Court found that the joint committee's report was silent on whether this procedure was followed and that the NGT's orders violated it. (¶¶ 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 19, 30, 31, 33)
- Section 22, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974Section 22 requires the Board analyst to analyse samples taken under Section 21 and report in the prescribed form in triplicate, with one copy sent to the occupier or his agent, and provides that in case of discrepancy the report of the laboratory under Section 51 or 52 prevails. The Court held that the NGT and the joint committee gave a complete go-bye to this statutory procedure. (¶¶ 10.8, 10.9, 19, 30, 31, 33)
- Sections 2(e), 2(k), 24 and 43, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974The Court noted the definitions of 'pollution' and 'trade effluent', the prohibition in Section 24(1) on knowingly causing polluting matter to enter any stream, well, sewer or land, and the punishment under Section 43 for contravening Section 24, as part of the statutory framework within which pollution by an industrial unit is to be examined. (¶¶ 10.1, 10.4, 10.10, 10.11)
- Sections 7, 8, 14A, 15 and 15A, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986The Court noted that Sections 7 and 8 prohibit discharge of environmental pollutants beyond prescribed standards and handling of hazardous substances otherwise than as prescribed, and that Sections 14A, 15 and 15A, inserted by the 2023 amendment with effect from 01.04.2024, prescribe monetary penalties for contraventions, including by companies. The impugned orders were held to have been passed in violation of the procedures under this Act as well. (¶¶ 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 30)
- Section 19, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Section 19(1) provides that the NGT is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice; sub-section (4) gives it the powers of a civil court including, under clause (i), to pass interim orders after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that denying the appellant impleadment and any opportunity to contest the joint committee's reports was a clear violation of Section 19, and that the freedom from the CPC cannot be stretched to abandon the statutory procedure under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act. (¶¶ 6.4, 12.5, 19, 30, 31)
- Sections 14, 15 and 17, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The Court noted the NGT's jurisdiction over civil cases involving a substantial question relating to the environment (Section 14), its power to order relief, compensation and restitution of the environment (Section 15), and the liability to pay compensation for damage resulting from an activity under a Schedule I enactment (Section 17), as the source of the compensation jurisdiction exercised in the impugned orders. (¶¶ 12.2, 12.3, 12.4)
Held
- The rules of natural justice aim to secure justice and prevent its miscarriage, supplement rather than supplant the law, apply to administrative as well as quasi-judicial enquiries, and are not embodied rules: which rule applies depends on the facts, the statutory framework and the constitution of the body. An administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record reasons, and this applies all the more to a judicial tribunal with adjudicatory powers. Every order involving civil consequences or adversely affecting a person must accord with natural justice, which constitutes substantive obligations and not mere formalities. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 26, 26.1)
- The NGT is obliged to hear a party likely to be directly affected before issuing adverse directions, including in suo motu proceedings. A quasi-judicial authority must disclose material relied upon at the stage of adjudication if it is relevant to the action taken; an assertion that it has not relied on the material does not exempt it from disclosure. (¶¶ 24, 25, 25.1)
- Expert committees set up by a court or tribunal differ from those set up by the Government under a statute: the former are constituted to assist fact-finding within specific terms of reference, their reports are open to objection by the parties and are then adjudicated upon, and they do not substitute the adjudicatory role of the tribunal. Constitution of an expert committee does not absolve the NGT of its duty to adjudicate; its adjudicatory functions cannot be assigned to committees, and the NGT cannot outsource an opinion and base its decision on it. Proceeding without impleading the affected unit and without notice from the committee is a procedure unknown to natural justice and amounts to condemning a person unheard. (¶¶ 27, 27.1, 28, 28.1)
- The NGT constituted an ad hoc joint committee although Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act prescribe a statutory procedure for taking and analysing samples; the committee's report was silent on notice to the occupier and on collection and sealing of samples in the occupier's presence; the appellant was not impleaded though the entire proceeding was directed against it; it was given no opportunity to contest the report; the NGT accepted the report without adjudication; and compensation was quantified and imposed without adjudication or hearing. The impugned orders, which entail adverse civil consequences, were therefore passed in complete violation of the procedure under the Water Act (particularly Sections 21 and 22), the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 including Section 19, and of elementary natural justice, and are illegal, null and void. (¶¶ 19, 30)
- The NGT exercises judicial functions and must adhere to the statutorily laid down fair procedure of which natural justice is an inalienable part. The rigour of Section 19(1) of the NGT Act concerns the procedure the NGT adopts in conducting its proceedings; it cannot be stretched to abandon the statutory procedure under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act by outsourcing investigation to administrative committees and basing decisions on their recommendations. That is not within the NGT's remit. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- Although a violation of natural justice would ordinarily lead to remand so that the exercise is redone after due process, where the entire exercise is vitiated by non-conformity with the sampling procedure under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act, relegating the parties to the NGT serves no useful purpose. It remains open to the State Pollution Control Board to inspect the unit and take remedial measures by following the Water Act procedure and the principles of natural justice. (¶ 33)
Result
Appeals allowed; the NGT's orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022 in O.A. No. 71/2021 set aside as illegal, null and void, without remand; liberty to the UPPCB to inspect the appellant's sugar mill and take remedial measures by following the procedure under the Water Act and the principles of natural justice; no order as to costs.