Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved environmental violations by two stone crusher units operated by respondents in Village Fatta Bangar, Haldwani, Nainital District, Uttarakhand. The appellants, residents affected by noise and air pollution, along with complaints from a college principal, alleged that the units were operating without valid permissions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, in close proximity to residential areas, educational institutions, and agricultural fields. Reports from authorities confirmed violations, including excessive noise levels and lack of acoustic enclosures. The appellants initially filed O.A. No. 332 of 2017 before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), seeking closure or relocation of the units. The NGT disposed of it with directions for relocation by 30 November 2018, but this order was set aside by the Supreme Court and remitted for a fresh speaking order. After remand, the NGT passed an order on 11 December 2018, shifting the onus to the State Government to assess violations and take action, with a compliance report to be registered as a fresh application. The State Government filed a report on 21 February 2019 detailing violations, which was registered as O.A. No. 449 of 2019 suo moto by the NGT. However, the NGT dismissed this application on 27 August 2019, erroneously opining that it did not require adjudication in light of the earlier order. The core legal issue was whether the NGT was correct in dismissing the suo moto application without adjudication on merits. The appellants argued that the dismissal was improper as the application was based on fresh violations and required consideration. The respondents contended that as old units operating since 1985, they should not be forced to relocate due to later developments. The Supreme Court analyzed that environmental laws are socio-beneficial legislation that apply to existing units, citing the NGT's decision in Himmat Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan, which held that existing units must comply with environmental norms and cannot claim a right to pollute. The court found that the NGT's dismissal was erroneous as the application raised new issues based on the government report and necessitated a hearing on merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NGT's order dated 27 August 2019, and remitted the matter back to the NGT for passing a fresh speaking order after hearing the parties, emphasizing the need for adjudication on the reported violations.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Compliance by Existing Units - Environmental laws apply to existing industrial units as socio-beneficial legislation - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - The NGT in Himmat Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan held that environmental laws protect fundamental rights and existing units must comply with anti-pollution measures and cannot claim a right to pollute. This principle was cited to reject the respondents' stand that as old units operating since 1985, they should not be forced to relocate due to later developments. Held that such contention is untenable under environmental statutes. (Paras 10-11) B) Environmental Law - Stone Crusher Operations - Violations of environmental norms and proximity to residential areas and educational institutions - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Two stone crusher units in Village Fatta Bangar were operating without valid permissions, causing air and noise pollution near residential houses, schools, and colleges, and beyond permissible parameters. Reports from the Halka Patwari, Deputy Director (Mining), and Pollution Control Board highlighted these violations, including lack of acoustic enclosures and operation in agricultural areas. The NGT had earlier directed relocation by 30 November 2018, but compliance was not achieved. (Paras 3-5, 9) C) Procedural Law - National Green Tribunal Jurisdiction - Dismissal of suo moto application without adjudication on merits - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - The NGT dismissed O.A. No. 449 of 2019, registered suo moto based on a government report detailing violations, under an erroneous impression that it did not require adjudication due to the earlier order in O.A. No. 332 of 2017. The Supreme Court found this dismissal improper as the application raised fresh issues based on the report and required consideration on merits. Held that the NGT must hear the parties and pass a fresh speaking order. (Paras 2, 12, 17-18) D) Environmental Law - Government Inaction - Failure to take action against violating units despite adverse reports - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - The Uttarakhand Government filed a report on 21 February 2019 with joint inspection reports highlighting violations by the stone crusher units, but no steps were taken to shut them down as per NGT directions. This inaction led to the registration of O.A. No. 449 of 2019 and subsequent appeals. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the State Government to assess functioning and take appropriate action against violations. (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Green Tribunal was correct in dismissing the suo moto registered Original Application No. 449 of 2019 without adjudication on merits, in light of the earlier order in Original Application No. 332 of 2017
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 27 August 2019 of the National Green Tribunal, and remitted the matter back to the NGT for passing a fresh speaking order after hearing the parties
Law Points
- Environmental laws are socio-beneficial legislation enacted to protect fundamental rights
- existing industrial units must comply with environmental norms and cannot claim a right to pollute
- the National Green Tribunal must adjudicate on merits when violations are reported
- suo moto applications based on government reports require proper consideration
