Madhya Pradesh HC Allows Harda Factory Owners To Object To Victim's Claim Passed In Suo-Moto Proceedings By NGT

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed the owners of the Harda Factory to object to victim's claim passed in suo-moto proceedings undertaken by National Green Tribunal in wake of the a blast that went off affecting 160 houses.
The Court was cosnidering a Writ-Petition against the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
The division-bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, "It would be open to the petitioner to raise the objection with regard to classification, genuineness of claimants/ victims in respect of the injuries; and the categorization, classification and quantum to be paid to individual for loss of property and destruction of houses and displacement."
The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Naman Nagrath while the Respondent was represented by Advocate General Prashant Singh.
An explosion occurred in the firecracker factory of the Petitioners caused huge explosion and blast affecting several persons and houses and an FIR was registered against them alleging that there was huge quantity of explosive material kept in the shop, which was not properly managed and there was no safety provision, which laid to the explosion and fire incident. NGT took suo motu cognizance on news regarding blast in the factory of petitioners and passed interim order directing payment of interim compensation to the victims on the same day. It awarded Rs. 15 lakh per death, Rs. 3 lakh per small injury case, Rs. 5 lakh burn injury case and grievous injuries, Rs. 5 lakh per damaged or burnt house and Rs. 2 lakh to each person, who has been forced to vacate his house. In compliance of the order passed by NGT, Collector Harda calculated the liabilities against the petitioners to tune of Rs.15.80 crore and ordered to deposit the amount with District Environment Compensation Fund and failing which coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. Further Collector Harda calculated the liabilities against the petitioners to tune of Rs.2.43 Crore and initiated confiscation of the various properties of the petitioners worth Rs. 9 crores for generating money by putting them to auction.
Advocate General raised the issue of maintainability of the petition and submitted that the impugned NGT order is appealable under Section 14 and 22 of the NGT Act and therefore the present petition is not maintainable as alternate efficacious remedy is available. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors. reported in (2022) 13 SCC 401 and submitted that petitioners are having statutory remedy of Appeal as provided under the National Green Tribunal Act and thus present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the NGT order is assailed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the petition is maintainable and availability of appeal is no bar and cited Supreme Court's decision in Veena Gupta &Ors vs. Central Pollution Control Board &Ors 2024 SCC online SC 103, wherein the Court had condemned the practice of NGT passing ex-parte orders without following principles of natural justice and verifying facts and circumstances of the case. He further cited Supreme Court's decision in Jetpur Dyeing and Printing Association vs. Ramdevbhai Samatbhai Sanjva and Others, 2024 SCC online SC 689 wherein the impugned order which was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard was set-aside and remanded for reconsideration.
He further submitted that NGT awarded interim compensation in arbitrary and unlawful manner in complete violation of principles of natural justice and the same cannot be justified as necessary information were not available with NGT. He averred that granting permission to local administration to proceed with recovery of amount by conducting auction of the properties of the petitioners without affording any opportunity of hearing amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable despite having alternate remedy of appeal. The Senior Counsel further submitted that the present case is covered by the exceptions laid down to the general rule of non-entertainment ofn the writ petition when alternative remedy is available by Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1998 (8) SCC 1.
He submitted that the NGT awarded ex-parte interim compensation in highly arbitrary and unlawful manner. At the time of passing the order, no material was available with NGT and the order was passed only on the basis of media report. He argued that the NGT passed the order in arbitrary manner without assessing the quantum of compensation and several ineligible persons have claimed the compensation and the Collector, Harda passed the orders without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who are in jail since incident.
The Senior Counsel submitted that in so far as death cases are concerned, there is no issue, however in respect of injury cases and cases pertaining to damage to houses and displacement of persons from the houses is concerned, the collector has not correctly verified the medical records and other attending circumstances. It was submitted that no parameters have been laid down by NGT for determining as to which individual would fall in the category of grievously injured or having suffered simple injury so as to be entitled to the amount quantified by NGT.
The Court at the outset pointed out that the Apex Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association Vs.UOI & others, 2022 SCC online SC 639, has held that National Green Tribunal under Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
"In the instant case main grievance of the petitioners are that ex-parte order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing by which liability of more than Rs. 15 crores have been saddled against the petitioners and the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, consequently this court deemed it proper to entertain the writ petition and issued notices. In view of the judgment delivered by Apex Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association (supra), Veena Gupta (supra) and Whirlpool Corporation (supra) objection regarding maintainability of writ petition is overruled and writ petition is held maintainable," the Court observed.
The Court allowed the Petitioners to raise objection to the claim and passed appropriate directions.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Somesh Agrawal and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2024:MPHC-JBP:59738)
Appearances:
Petitioners- Senior Advocate Naman Nagrath, Advocate Anvesh Shrivastava
Respondents- Advocate General Prashant Singh, Additional Advocate General H.S. Ruprah, Additional Advocate General Amit Seth, Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh, Advocate Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate Vikram Johri, Advocate Avani Bansal
Click here to read/ download Judgement: