NGT Required To Arrive At Its Decision By Fully Considering Facts & Circumstances; It Can’t Outsource Its Opinion: Supreme Court

The Appeals before the Apex Court challenged the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), vide which the NGT held that the appellant had committed a violation of the provisions of Environment Protection Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.75,00,000. The Tribunal also observed that the acid produced, which is a by-product of the process employed by the appellant, was hazardous to the environment.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, “It is thus clear that the procedure followed by the learned NGT was totally unknown to the settled principles of natural justice.”

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for the Appellants while Advocate Raghav Sharma appeared for the Respondents.

The Bench took note of the fact that after the NGT entertained the application on the basis of the letter addressed by Respondent No.1, it initially directed the plant of the appellant to be examined by the State Pollution Control Board. After the receipt of the report of the Board, the Court appointed a Joint Committee to give its report. The said Joint Committee made certain recommendations and the NGT passed the impugned order on the basis of the said recommendations.

The facts of the case also suggested that even the Joint Committee appointed by the NGT neither gave any notice to the appellant nor an opportunity of being heard was given. “As a matter of fact, the NGT could not have proceeded further with the matter even at the initial stage 4 without impleading the appellant herein as a party respondent. The approach adopted by the NGT clearly smacks of condemning a person unheard”, the Bench said.

The Court further emphasized, “Another glaring error that has been committed by the NGT is that it has based its decision only on the basis of the report of the Joint Committee. The NGT is a tribunal constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010. A tribunal is required to arrive at its decision by fully considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it. It cannot outsource an opinion and base its decision on such an opinion.” Reliance in this respect was also placed upon Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others 2022 INSC 79.

Thus, quashing the Tribunal’s orders, the Bench remitted the matters back to the NGT.

The Bench also considered another appeal where the facts of the case were almost similar. Therein, the complainant (Respondent No.2 had not even mentioned the name of the appellant. However, the Tribunal on the basis of the Report of the Joint Committee imposed a penalty of Rs.82.2 lakh and Rs.75.6 lakh for violation of environment laws on two counts.

“In the appeal arising out of the same common order we have found that the approach of the NGT in deciding the matter without impleading an affected party and passing its decision on an outsourced opinion of the experts is not permissible on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice”, the Bench held while quashing the impugned Order.

Cause Title: Grasim Industries Limited v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 926]

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Advocates Rajat Jariwal, Prerna Singh, S. Abhishek Iyer, Nishtha Kumar, Gaurav Sharma, Shatakshi Tripathi, Dev Chand [For M/s. Trilegal]; Senior Advocate R. Basant, Advocates Manish Nair, Raunak Arora, Naman Vashishta, Samyuktha H Nair, AOR T. G. Narayanan Nair

Respondents: Advocates Raghav Sharma, AOR Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR, Advocates Jaskirat Pal Singh, Kritika, Pranjal Pandey, AOR Rahul Pratap

Click here to read/download Judgment