TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR. JUDGMENT K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. The respondent no. 1, the applicant before the National Green Tribunal (for brevity, 'NGT') alleged that the appellant, the respondent no. 1 before the NGT, as an industry was actively perpetrating environmental degradation and pollution as also extracting ground water; thus polluting the surroundings and also releasing effluents into the nearby river which is a tributary of the Ganga. It was also alleged that the other official respondents, the Pollution Control Board of the State & the Centre, the Central Ground Water Authority and the District Collector were mute spectators to the activities of the appellant and often colluding, in polluting and damaging the environment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ution Control Board 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1261. The contours of maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (for brevity, 'PIL') is explicitly declared in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349; within which contours the present litigation does not fall. 3. None appears for respondent no. 1 who was the applicant before the NGT. It is to be observed at the outset that we are not inclined to consider the question of maintainability of the PIL, at this stage especially when the initial reports of the Joint Committee constituted by the NGT clearly indicate violations of the environmental laws which led to the penalisation by imposition of EC. The proceedings were commenced by the applicant in the year 2019 and it was only in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been granted the consent to establish/operate, among other defects. The report proposed a show cause notice under the Water Act, 1974, the closure of the unit and imposition of EC of Rs.10 lakhs. This was followed up with a notice dated 30.03.2019 by the UPPCB to which objections were filed. 7. Further reports dated 16.07.2019 and 03.12.2019 were placed before the NGT in which EC was computed based on the "Assessment of Environmental Compensation in Case of Illegal Extraction of Groundwater" dated 26.06.2019 brought out by the CPCB in compliance with the orders of the NGT. A total EC of Rs. 2,49,71,157/- was imposed. The appellant is said to have deposited an EC of Rs. 1,16,39,727/-; after the waiver effected on representations made. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24.12.2022 was filed before this Hon'ble Court. The said report records inter alia that soil parameters were normal; yellowing of stored groundwater was attributable to oxidation of iron and manganese; there was no crop damage within a 2.5 km radius as per the District Horticulture Officer, Amroha; OPD records from the Chief Medical Officer, Amroha did not show any air-borne disease burden requiring oxygen or ventilator support; and that other industries in the vicinity also contributed to environmental load. The report further records that the Appellant has installed extensive flow-meters and piezometers, that reconciliation between fresh water abstraction and consumption shows negligible variance (approximately 0.39% over a five-month pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as he then was) considered the question of imposition of penalties on a reference to the annual turnover wherein the NGT having noticed the revenue range of the polluter to be between 100-500 crores imposed a penalty of Rs.500 crores. This Court first noticed the huge disparity in the range noticed by the NGT, also taken from the public domain which would have clearly indicated the exact figure. It was categorically held that generation of revenue, or its quantum, would have no nexus with the amount of penalty to be ascertained for environmental damages. The methodology adopted by the NGT for imposition of penalty was held to be totally unknown to any principle of law. We fully agree with the observation and add that rule of law does not pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the cited case, here, neither is there registration of FIR for any scheduled offence nor any complaint is filed alleging such offences under the various environmental protection statutes scheduled under the PMLA and coming within its ambit. This Court had also raised serious doubts about the jurisdiction of the NGT to direct the prosecution of individuals under the PMLA; which we fully subscribe to. The NGT should act within the contours of the powers conferred on it which is Section 15 of the NGT Act of 2010. Though such power would be available to a Court constituted under the PMLA or to constitutional courts, it would not be available for exercise by the NGT, constituted to ensure effective and expeditious consideration of cases relat....