The National Green Tribunal monthly review: May 2024

This column aims to report and briefly analyse some of the important cases dealt with by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) during the month in review.

In Sanyogita Singh Applicant v. Government Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (UPPCB, the Tribunal held that an area specified as a Green Belt in the master plan cannot be utilised for any other purpose nor can its nature be changed by a subsequent amendment in the master plan. The Tribunal relied upon Supreme Court decisions in Lal Bahadur v. State of UP & Others and Bangalore Medical Trust v. BS Muddappa & Others to hold that green areas cannot be changed to residential, commercial areas by a change in the master plan. The Tribunal also relied upon Pragnesh Shah v. Dr Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors to reiterate that it has the power to even issue directions to local bodies to make zonal management plans in conformity with precautionary principles to prevent damage to green belts. Ultimately, the NGT directed the Greater Noida Authority to remove construction in a designated green area of Greater Noida and also directed it to pay environmental compensation of ₹5 lakh to the UPPCB.

In Paldan Phunchog v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, the NGT considered the issue of disposal of municipal waste in Manali, Himachal Pradesh. The NGT held that on a cumulative reading of Article 243W(a)(ii) r/w Twelfth Schedule, item 6 of the Constitution of India and Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (SWM Rules), it is clear that the local municipal authority shall be responsible for management of solid waste, including development of infrastructure, processing, transportation, segregation and disposal of such waste. The Tribunal further held that criminal prosecution should be initiated against erring government officials, including the district magistrate and Secretary, Urban Development by the Central government or by the HPPCB under Sections 15, 16, 17 & 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in VC Chinnappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr and Noorulla Khan Vs. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr to hold that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not attracted for offences when prosecution is initiated under Water Act, 1974 against public servants.

Importantly, the Tribunal dealt with the question of computation and assessment of environmental compensation pursuant to Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010 and laid down several parameters to be considered. It categorised environmental violations broadly under three heads: (i) where project is carried out without obtaining requisite statutory permissions/NOC; (ii) where proponents have violated conditions imposed under statutory permissions; and (iii) where proponents have carried out their activities causing damage to environment and ecology by not following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution of air, water etc.

Lastly, the NGT held that compensation must have a deterrent effect and should be punitive in nature. It cautioned against arbitrary computation of damage and imposed a penalty of ₹4.6 crore or one paisa per kg per day of illegally dumped solid waste which has not been properly handled, managed and disposed by Municipal Council, Manali.

In Nand Lal v. Dhermendra Tomar & Ors, the Tribunal held that even with respect to unauthorised colonies, it is the statutory obligation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to ensure management and disposal of solid waste. During the pendency of the matter, land was identified by the MCD and DDA for the purpose of collection and processing of solid waste generated from Anuvrat Vihar, Delhi.

In Rajiv Kumar Dubey v. MoEF & Ors, the NGT rejected a challenge to operation of a biomedical waste treatment facility at Chandigarh for violating terms of the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016. The NGT, while acknowledging that the facility did not have minimum requisite land, rejected the petition in view of the delay in raising such a plea and also since no challenge was made to the environment clearance issued to the facility.

In Amazon Seller Services Private Limited v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Anr, the Tribunal upheld imposition of environmental compensation of ₹6 lakh, albeit for a reduced period of 32 days, on the ground that samples collected from the sewage treatment plant maintained by the appellant did not conform to the criteria prescribed. The Tribunal rejected as an afterthought the appellant’s plea that the STP was under maintenance on the day the samples were collected.

In Anuj Jain v. UOI & Ors, the NGT directed the UPPCB to initiate criminal prosecution and impose environmental compensation against a building company for environmental violations with respect to its project Nipun Saffron Valley at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The builder allegedly violated the conditions of the environmental clearance by not constructing a Sewage Treatment Plant and discharging the waste into a nearby drain without treatment. NGT held that the builder did not obtain Consent to Establish (CTE)  from the UPPCB as required under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and issued directions for commencement of criminal prosecution and recovery of environmental compensation.

In SR Sangar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors, the NGT dealt with the important issue of sufficient water for parks maintained by the MCD. The Tribunal reiterated that water treated in sewage treatment plants should be used for gardening in Delhi’s public parks instead of fresh water and for this purpose, directed the Delhi Jal Board to supply treated water in tankers, as an interim measure, to maintain the parks in question. The Tribunal also directed the Delhi Jal Board, Municipal Corporation, Chief Secretary and other stakeholders to meet and prepare a detailed project report for use of treated water to maintain public parks. Importantly, the tribunal relied upon its earlier order passed in Manoj Mishra v. Union of India & Ors to reiterate use of treated water for maintaining public parks in Delhi.

In Pushpender v. State of UP & Ors, the NGT issued a slew of directions to Prayagraj Power Generation Company Limited (PPGCL) and Ultratech Cement Limited (UTCL) to comply with their obligations under the CTE/CTO issued by the UPPCB to combat air pollution. Importantly, the NGT also issued extensive directions on corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities that the companies can undertake in the vicinity of the project to prevent pollution and in the interest of sustainable development.

The NGT directed PPGCL and UTCL to ensure that treated industrial effluents and domestic sewage are used for industrial purposes/horticulture/plantation and are not discharged in storm water drains except during monsoon. NGT also directed PPGCL to ensure disposal of fly ash in terms of MoEF notifications and CPCB guidelines. It further directed UPPCB to recommend installation of additional dust separation and extraction systems by PPGCL and UTCL to control and limit air pollution and to monitor air quality on a regular basis. Lastly, NGT also directed PPGCL to take over the responsibility of maintenance, operation, payment of electricity bills, regulation of quality of water to be supplied in the vicinity of the project areas as part of its CSR and file a compliance report. NGT also listed a host of activities that the industries may undertake as part of their CSR in the vicinity of the project area.

In Devendra Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, the Tribunal while permitting construction of a village road on forest land, which also entailed cutting of trees, directed the forest department to carry out compensatory afforestation at another site during the monsoon season itself. The Tribunal also permitted any person having any grievance regarding this issue to approach it for seeking further directions.

In Anand Kumar Dhyani v. PWD & Ors, the Tribunal held that 11 trees were illegally cut by the contractor while constructing a road. It said that the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976 applies to all trees in the State, except those falling within a designated forest area. The Tribunal also observed an anomaly in the 1976 Act whereby statutory obligations for compensatory plantation are imposed on those cutting trees with permission, whereas no such obligation is imposed on those persons cutting trees without permission. The Tribunal, therefore, asked the State to amend the 1976 Act and further directed that two trees be planted during this monsoon season for every tree cut down.

A similar order was passed by the Tribunal in Satya Narayan Singh v. Forest Dept., Firozabad & Ors, which involved illegal cutting of trees in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.

In Junaid Ayubi v. State of Haryana & Ors, the Tribunal held that a prior replenishment study is necessary for grant of environmental clearance for mining of river bed sand. Replenishment study is a scientific study done to calculate the rate of replenishment of sand brought down by Himalayan rivers each monsoon. The rate of extraction or mining of river bed sand should be lower than the rate of replenishment to prevent irreparable damage to river bed and riverine ecosystem. The Tribunal, after considering the provisions of the MoEF’s Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 held that (i) calculating rate of annual replenishment of sand, and (ii) allowing time for replenishment of sand after mining, are both relevant and held that sand mining in the riverbed without replenishment study cannot be permitted.

In Mohan Prakash v. MoEF & Ors, the Tribunal quashed sand mining e-auction notices issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh for mining in Agra on the ground that e-auction of minerals cannot be permitted unless a (i) valid replenishment study has been conducted, and (ii) a valid District Survey Report (DSR) has thereafter been prepared in terms of the MoEF’s Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020; and (iii) such DSR has been duly approved by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Pawan Kumar & Ors and judgment of NGT in Ajit Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

The Tribunal further held that a DSR approved by the erstwhile District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) is not a valid DSR since it has not been considered and approved by SEAC and SEIAA. Thus, it was held that mining auctions can only be conducted only after a DSR duly approved by SEIAA is in place.

Similarly, in Raj Kumar v. MoEF & Ors, the Tribunal recorded the statement of the District Magistrate, Banda, Uttar Pradesh that no auction of mines will be done, that no letter of intent will be issued and no mining lease deed would be executed until a valid DSR is prepared in terms of the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and duly approved by SEIAA.

In Arjun Singh & Ors v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors, the Tribunal, while acting on a letter petition, held that stone crushers are required to comply with the CPCB’s Environmental Guidelines for Stone Crushing Units, 2023. It directed that the stone crushers in question should not be allowed to operate in Dehradun, Uttarakhand unless they obtain a fresh Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Pollution Control Board (PCB).

In Ankur Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors the Tribunal acted on a letter petition regarding operation of a brass metal unit in a residential area in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. It held that after the registration of the case by the NGT, the district administration issued orders for closure of the unit since it was operating illegally inside a residential area and without any consent from the Pollution Control Board. NGT further directed recovery of environmental compensation for past violations and that steps be taken for shifting of the unit as per recommendations of the Joint Committee.

In Jagjeet Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors, the Tribunal directed the Punjab Water Regulation and Development Authority to revisit its 2023 exemption notification by which industrial units in Ludhiana were exempted from obtaining permission for ground water extraction despite the area being categorised as ‘over-exploited’ by the Central Ground Water Board.

In Harpal Singh Rana v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation & Ors, the Tribunal considered the important issue of wasteful discharge of rain water through metro pillars on road, which also results in water logging and traffic jams in violation of Delhi Water & Sewer (Tariff & Metering) Regulations, 2012. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier decisions that had directed all schools, colleges and buildings over 100 metres in area to develop rain water harvesting systems and directed the DMRC to construct a down take pipe with ample storage depth for harvesting rain water. The Tribunal also sent a copy of its order to all states, union territories, and pollution control boards so that they may keep these directions in mind while contemplating metro rail projects.

In Dinesh Singla & Ors v. Ajay Goel & Ors, the NGT held that mere pendency of other civil and criminal cases between the original applicant and the project proponent would not denude the Tribunal of its jurisdiction to protect the environment. It considered the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Uday Education & Welfare Trust & Anr, wherein the apex court held that the Tribunal must not ignore the bona fides and credentials of the person approaching the Tribunal where such issue is specifically raised. The NGT held that since substantial questions relating to environment are raised in the present matter and since the Tribunal in any case has jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings, it proceeded to adjudicate on the matter.

In OA No. 618/2024, the Tribunal registered a suo motu original application on basis of a newspaper article regarding large scale illegal stone mining in Chuttupalu Valley, Jharkhand. The Tribunal impleaded the Jharkhand PCB, MoEF, CPCB and District Magistrate, Ranchi as parties and listed the matter for further consideration before the NGT’s Eastern Zonal Bench at Kolkata.

In News Item titled “No crops, no brides: how rising seas are killing India’s coastal villages”, the Tribunal took suo motu cognizance of the issue of salinisation of coastal farmlands due to rising sea levels and annual cyclones, which renders such lands unfit for cultivation and ground water unfit for drinking. The Tribunal impleaded the National Coastal Zone Management Authority, among others, and listed the matter before NGT’s Eastern Zonal Bench at Kolkata.

In Om Prakash and Ors Applicant v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, the Tribunal held that where a person has resources to engage advocates to represent himself, then a letter petition should not be entertained by the Tribunal and the complainant should file a proper application in accordance with NGT Rules, 2010.

In M/s Focus Energy Limited v. SEIAA, Haryana & Ors, the Tribunal held that it has the power to condone delay of upto 60 days in filing an appeal u/s 16 of NGT Act, 2010 and that such power should be liberally used to condone delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The NGT held that it should liberally interpret “sufficient cause” to condone delay in filing an appeal upto 60 days.

Ajit Sharma is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India and the National Green Tribunal.