Summary
The NGT had jurisdiction over deaths and environmental damage following illegal hill excavation and highway flooding. NHAI’s maintenance duties and prior knowledge of blocked drainage supported prima facie liability alongside the miner. The compensation direction was maintained subject to independent adjudication in the revived civil suit, and environmental restitution was upheld. However, the blanket restriction on construction within 100 feet of hills, and Maharashtra’s consequential planning notification, were set aside for lack of scientific support, adequate procedure and independent reasons.
Issues
- Whether the NGT could award compensation and restitution for the fatal flooding incident.
- Whether NHAI and the miner were liable and how the pending civil suit should proceed.
- Whether the NGT’s general construction restriction and Maharashtra’s consequential planning directions were valid.
Provisions considered
- Sections 14, 15, 17 and 18, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The Tribunal could entertain the environmental dispute and order compensation and restitution; absence of the deceased’s heirs did not require rejection, though they should have been impleaded. (¶¶ 32, 33, 35, 37, 42, 43, 50, 51, 66, 67)
- Section 19, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Procedural flexibility and expert assistance supported preventive powers but did not excuse unsupported general restrictions. (¶¶ 69, 71, 72, 75, 76)
- Rule 24, National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011The power to secure the ends of justice supported appropriate orders and directions. (¶¶ 70, 75, 76)
- Sections 4 and 5, National Highways Act, 1956Highways included drainage structures and appurtenant land; statutory maintenance responsibilities supported the duty owed to highway users. (¶¶ 54, 64, 65)
- Section 16(1), National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988NHAI’s duty to develop, maintain and manage entrusted highways informed its responsibility despite the concession agreement. (¶¶ 55, 56, 64, 65)
- Section 154(1), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966The amended overriding direction power did not justify an unexplained blanket change to regional and development plans solely on the NGT’s unsupported order. (¶¶ 86, 87, 90, 91)
Held
- Sections 15(1)(b) and (c) confer broad restitutionary powers independently of the Schedule I limitation. In any event, the mining activity here disclosed violation of the Environment Protection Act framework, establishing jurisdiction for compensation under Sections 15(1)(a) and 17. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51)
- NHAI’s statutory responsibilities, safety and inspection arrangements, and prior warnings established awareness of foreseeable danger from obstructed drainage. Its failure to ensure remedial action, and the miner’s failure to prevent the danger, disclosed prima facie liability. (¶¶ 52, 53, 54, 55, 64, 65)
- Absence of the heirs and their civil action did not oust the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, although non-joining heirs should have been impleaded. The civil suit was to revive and independently determine liability, apportionment and consequential relief on evidence. The compensation findings were prima facie, not conclusive. (¶¶ 66, 67)
- NHAI and Rathod were to deposit Rs.15 lakh compensation in equal proportions in the civil court within four weeks. The Rs.10 lakh restitution direction was upheld, with equal deposits for disbursement to the State for restoration and afforestation. (¶ 67)
- The Tribunal can issue general preventive directions for future guidance. The particular 100-foot prohibition nevertheless lacked scientific or technical evidence, expert evaluation and an opportunity to address such material; paragraph 17(e) was set aside. (¶¶ 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76)
- The State’s notification effectively changed regional and development plans without consultation and rested solely on the unsupported Tribunal direction. Its undefined reference to hills, absence of independent reasons and lack of expert support rendered the exercise arbitrary. The notification and High Court judgment upholding it were quashed. (¶¶ 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91)
Result
NHAI’s and Rathod’s appeals disposed of with compensation, restitution and civil-suit directions; other appeals partly allowed. NGT paragraph 17(e), Maharashtra’s notification of 14 November 2017 and the High Court judgment sustaining it set aside. No costs.