Environmental fine requires statutory criminal ; exemplary damages may still be pursued as a public law remedy for pollution.

Environmental statutes were treated as requiring prosecution, trial and a finding of guilt before any penal fine could be imposed for pollution, and Article 142 could not be used to bypass those statutory safeguards or create a punishment inconsistent with the governing law. By contrast, pollution was recognised as a civil wrong and tort against the community, so exemplary damages could still be pursued in public law to deter environmental harm and supplement restoration costs. The withdrawal of the pollution-fine notice did not bar further proceedings on exemplary damages, and a fresh notice on that aspect was directed to be issued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pollution fine could be imposed on the motel in proceedings under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution without a prosecution and trial under the applicable environmental statutes. (ii) Whether, notwithstanding withdrawal of the pollution-fine notice, a fresh notice could be issued for exemplary damages for the acts causing environmental degradation.

Issue (i): Whether pollution fine could be imposed on the motel in proceedings under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution without a prosecution and trial under the applicable environmental statutes.

Analysis: The liability to pay compensation for restoration of the environment was distinguished from the penal consequence of fine. The environmental statutes relied upon by the Court provided specific penal provisions and required prosecution, trial, and a finding of guilt before imprisonment or fine could be imposed. Article 142 could not be used to bypass those statutory safeguards or to create a punishment inconsistent with the substantive law. Fine, being a penal consequence, could not be imposed merely through a show-cause notice in the absence of the procedure prescribed by statute.

Conclusion: Pollution fine could not be imposed in the manner proposed, and the show-cause notice for such fine was withdrawn.

Issue (ii): Whether, notwithstanding withdrawal of the pollution-fine notice, a fresh notice could be issued for exemplary damages for the acts causing environmental degradation.

Analysis: Pollution was treated as a civil wrong and a tort against the community, distinct from criminal punishment. While fine required statutory prosecution, exemplary damages could be awarded in public law to deter environmental harm and to complement compensation for ecological restoration. The Court therefore held that the absence of a prior notice on exemplary damages did not preclude further proceedings on that aspect.

Conclusion: A fresh notice for exemplary damages was directed to be issued.

Ratio Decidendi: Penal fine cannot be imposed for environmental contravention in public law proceedings unless the statute-prescribed criminal process is followed, but exemplary damages may still be pursued as a civil/public law remedy for pollution.

---