Reports By Pollution Control Boards Not Furnished To Affected Party: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT's Order For Compensation
The Supreme Court set aside NGT's order directing the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to take action against the operator of the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP), Narol, Ahmedabad, for discharging untreated effluents into the Sabarmati River.
In an Order reaffirming the importance of due process and natural justice, the Supreme Court has set aside a July 2020 order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had directed the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) to take action against the operator of the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP), Narol, Ahmedabad, for discharging untreated effluents into the Sabarmati River.
The Tribunal had also directed recovery of Rs. 8.16 crore as environmental compensation, following a suo motu cognizance initiated on the basis of a complaint letter.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan held, "We are of the considered view that before accepting the reports and issuing directions based upon it, NGT ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to rebut the report and question the compensation assessed therein. Unfortunately, this was not done. Instead, NGT abdicated its adjudicatory role and let the GPCB and CPCB to proceed and act on their own reports. Such action of the NGT cannot be countenanced."
The Appeal, filed under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, was allowed by the Supreme Court, which found that the CETP operator had not been given any opportunity to rebut the allegations or challenge the environmental compensation imposed.
Senior Advocates Nakul Dewan appeared for the Appellant while Advocate Aastha Mehta appeared for the 2nd Respondent.
Background and NGT Proceedings
The controversy began when the NGT took suo motu cognizance of a complaint letter alleging that the CETP was discharging untreated industrial effluents into the Sabarmati River. In an order dated August 5, 2019, the NGT directed the State Pollution Control Board to investigate the matter and submit an action-taken report.
Following this, the Gujarat Pollution Control Board submitted a report confirming non-compliance by the CETP and initially assessed environmental compensation of ₹70 lakh. On November 15, 2019, the NGT accepted the report and directed the SPCB to not only recover compensation under the 'polluter pays' principle but also to reduce pollution load by decreasing the operational capacity of units contributing to the pollution.
Subsequently, a revised report submitted on January 31, 2020, increased the compensation to ₹3.63 crore for violations committed between September 6, 2017, and November 22, 2019. However, the NGT expressed dissatisfaction with the calculation methodology and directed a Joint Committee of the Central and Gujarat Pollution Control Boards to reassess the damages.
This culminated in another report dated June 18, 2020, on the basis of which the NGT, in its order dated July 7, 2020, disposed of the proceedings, allowing the authorities to act on the revised assessment. Pursuant to this order, GPCB demanded Rs. 8.16 crore from the CETP operator.
Court's Findings
The Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, ruled in favor of the appellant. While the Central Pollution Control Board and GPCB maintained that inspections were conducted with prior notice and that assessments were based on empirical data, the Court observed that there was no evidence that the CETP operator was ever given a copy of these reports or afforded a chance to respond.
The Bench emphasized that since the NGT is a judicial body with adjudicatory functions, it must comply with the principles of natural justice. Citing its earlier rulings in Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey and Veena Gupta v. Central Pollution Control Board, the Court reiterated that if a tribunal intends to rely on expert reports, the affected party must be given an opportunity to contest their contents before any action is taken.
The Court observed, “NGT abdicated its adjudicatory role and let the GPCB and CPCB to proceed and act on their own reports. Such action of the NGT cannot be countenanced.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed both the July 7, 2020, NGT order and the consequential Rs. 8.16 crore demand. It restored Original Application No. 510 of 2019 on the NGT’s file and directed the Tribunal to issue notice to the CETP operator, provide all adverse reports, and grant them a fair opportunity to file objections and be heard.
To ensure timely proceedings, the Court directed the appellant to appear before the NGT by or before April 30, 2025.
Cause Title: Narol Textile Infrastructure and Enviro Management v. Aditya Singh Chauhan & Anr.
Click here to read/download the Order
