Supreme Court Upholds NGT's 2013 Direction Imposing Fine Of ₹1L Per Day On Bareilly Municipal Corporation; Sets Aside Orders Against Former Mayor & Commissioner
The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment whereby the NGT had punished the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, as well as the former Mayor and the then Commissioner of the Corporation.
Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the direction of the NGT imposing a fine of Rs 1 lakh per day for the period from May 28, 2013 to July 27, 2013 on the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, over failure to remove municipal waste. The Apex Court, however, set aside the directions passed against the former Mayor & Commissioner of the Corporation.
The appeals before the Apex Court arose from a judgment dated October 24, 2013, whereby the NGT had punished the Mayor and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, with civil imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a payment of a fine of Rs 5 lakhs each. The NGT also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, for causing degradation to the environment and injury to public health for the period from May 28, 2013 to July 27, 2013.
The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “Thus, admittedly, there was a breach of the very important direction issued under Order dated 18th July, 2013, to remove the waste from the site…By the impugned Order, the Municipal Corporation was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per day. This direction was fully justified.”
Factual Background
Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, Invertis University, and a group of residents of Village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly, had filed separate Original Applications before the NGT, challenging the establishment and operation of a municipal solid waste management plant, a project of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, located at Village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly. The applicants before the NGT contended that the plant was set up in violation of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and prayed for quashing of the circular of the MoEFCC which permitted the establishment and operation of the plant.
The NGT directed the immediate closure of the solid waste management plant. It restrained the Corporation from dumping any further municipal waste and ordered the removal of all municipal waste within four weeks. The applicants before the NGT filed three different miscellaneous applications, which were converted into Original Applications. The applicants alleged that dumping of solid waste had continued at the site in question, despite the clear directions of the NGT. Accordingly, the NGT punished the appellant and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, with civil imprisonment and also imposed a fine on the Municipal Corporation.
Reasoning
The Bench first dealt with the role of the Mayor. Referring to section 26 of the NGT Act, which provides for the penalty for failure to comply with the orders of the Tribunal, the Bench explained that Sub-section (1) of Section 26 is a penal provision. “A person can be said to have failed to comply with the direction issued by the NGT, provided it is shown that the person against whom a direction is issued has the power to prevent the act which was prohibited by the NGT.As it is not shown that the appellant had executive powers to direct the Municipal Corporation to stop dumping on the site, it is impossible to record a finding that there was a failure on the part of the appellant to comply with both orders.”
The Bench noted that the appellant was holding a responsible post of the first citizen of the city, of which he was the Mayor. Secondly, as a citizen of India, it was his fundamental duty, as per Clause (g) of Article 51A, to protect the environment. Thirdly, as the Mayor of the city, it was his duty to bring to the notice of the Commissioner the violations of the provisions of Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2016. The Bench also stated that making an allegation that the NGT had “pre-decided” an issue amounted to scandalizing the NGT.
However, the appellant had tendered an unconditional apology for the utterances to the media, and the NGT had accepted the same. The Bench also found that there was no failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the orders, penal provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 could not have been invoked against the appellant.
Coming to the role of the Municipal Corporation, the Bench observed that the direction issued was against the Municipal Corporation not to dump any waste at the site and to remove all the municipal waste already dumped at the site within four weeks. However, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it was accepted that the entire municipal waste could not be removed. Thus, admittedly, there was a breach of the very important direction issued under the Order for the removal of the waste from the site. The Bench observed that the Corporation was directed to pay a sum of Rs 1 lakh per day and this direction was fully justified.
Coming to the role of the Commissioner, the Bench noted that the Commissioner was penalised by sentencing him to civil imprisonment till the rise of the Court and payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs. There was no finding recorded that there was a wilful default on the part of the Commissioner. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment and penalty couldn’t be justified.
Thus, maintaining the direction passed against the Corporation, the Bench set aside the directions passed against the former Mayor & Commissioner
Cause Title: Dr. I.S.Tomar v. Invertis University & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 775)
