Karnataka High Court Sets Aside NGT's ₹2.94 Crore Fine Imposed On Indian Army's Training Unit For Polluting Ulsoor Lake

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) directing Madras Engineering Group, a training Unit of the Indian Army, to pay an environmental compensation of Rs Rs.2,94,63,000 for polluting Ulsoor Lake in Bengaluru.A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind said “This Court is inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in limited context and in respect of specific area which is non compliance of principles of natural justice, in as much as the order against the petitioners came to be passed by the NGT imposing the liability of payment of environment compensation without affording hearing to the petitioners.” It added “The NGT passed an interim order and then confirmed the finding against the petitioners to confirm the liability even when the NGT had no version available from the petitioners, which could have been raised in defence.” The Union of India approached the Court after the State Pollution Control board called upon it to pay the environmental compensation amount as per the order dated September 23, 2021 of NGT within seven days, failing which, it was provided that, the closure order would be issued under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. NGT had taken up suo-motu proceedings based on the news item published in 'The Hindu' daily dated 8th March 2016 titled as 'Lake in the heart of Bengaluru City turns graveyard for fish'. Union contended that the Centre has authorized 51 Officers, 267 Junior Commissioned Officers and 1093 other Ranks. They along with the soldier-trainees undergo regular training. About 5000 employees and trainees stay within the campus with their family. They were not party to the said suo-motu proceedings initiated by the NGT. An open storm water drain of BWSSB flows through MEG & Centre adjacent to the 100 KLD STP commissioned in 2019 culminating in Ulsoor Lake.Further, it was claimed only when the Joint Committee appointed by the NGT came for inspection, the petitioner came to know about the suo motu proceedings. The Committee in its report dated 10th August 2020 recommended to the NGT that the STP was operated without Consent of Establishment and Consent of Operation and that the treated water did not comply with the discharge standards. The Committee recommended imposition of environmental compensation, even during this re-inspection, the petitioners were not given opportunity by the Joint Committee of being heard and put forward their case. Following which NGT had passed the impugned orders where the petitioners were not part. The petitioners have challenged the order in appeal. The State Pollution Control board questioned the maintainability of the petition before the High Court and said the petitioner could approach the Supreme Court only and not before the High Court. On going through the record the bench noted there is no gainsaying that the petitioners were not party before the NGT which took up suo motu proceedings and proceeded to pass the interim and thereafter the final order against the petitioners, imposing environment compensation recording a finding to hold that the petitioners are contributory to pollution.Rejecting the contention of the respondents on maintainability of petitioner before the High Court the bench said, “Only reason that an alternative remedy is available, would not be an embargo on the High Court's power to entertain the petition under Article 226 in certain contingencies.” It held that non-compliance of principles of natural justice is one of the exceptions to the rule of discretion normally followed by the High Courts to desist from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the alternative remedy is available. Relying on the Apex court judgment in the case of Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association vs. Union of India [(2022) SCC Online 639], wherein one of the issue considered by the Apex Court was whether the NGT ousts High Court's jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act, the bench said, “The power of judicial review can be exercised and prerogative writs can be issued in three circumstances namely enforcement of the fundamental rights, where there is a breach of violation of principles of natural justice or where the order of proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction.”It added “Even if the appellants could be attributed with the knowledge of the proceedings before the Tribunal, when they were not given opportunity to put forward their case and that they were not heard, their right to challenge the finding and the decision could be said to be remaining alive to be exercised in Court of law.” Court noted that NGT in imposing the liability of environment compensation on the petitioners-the Union of India and its defence establishment, not only proceeded in breach of natural justice and without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, the amount...

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside NGT's ₹2.94 Crore Fine Imposed On Indian Army's Training Unit For Polluting Ulsoor Lake

Mustafa Plumber

Court asked NGT to consider the matter afresh and meanwhile ordered the Unit to make Rs. 1 crore deposit.

Tags