Facts
The matter concerns environmental compliance issues regarding M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., sugar mill in Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. In 2021, a complaint alleged that the sugar mill was discharging untreated effluent into drains and in turn contaminating groundwater in the areas nearby. A joint committee was formed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) consisting of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), and the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar (and to carry out the investigation). The committee undertook a number of inspections and submitted reports pertaining to it from 2021-2022. The reports by the said committee had considered violations of environmental laws and included illegal disposal of untreated effluent (not providing a hazardous waste disposal certificate), absence of monitoring devices such as flow meters, and lack of effluent treatment plant logbook and lack of records concerning hazardous waste. Consequently, NGT imposed a penalty of Rs. 18 Crores which is equivalent to 2% of the annual turnover of the company and instructed that the penalty amount to be used for environmental restoration. Feeling aggrieved by the orders, Triveni Engineering filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the NGT followed the natural justice principles when passing orders against the appellant.
- Whether the procedure incorporated in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, was followed for the sampling and inspection.
- Whether the imposition of Rs. 18 crores as compensation is legally valid.
- To what extent the NGT can take support from committee reports without giving the alleged violator a chance to be heard.
Legal Provisions
• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Sections 21, 22, and 24 (sampling procedure, reporting, prohibiting disposal of pollutants).
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Sections 7, 8, 14A, 15, and 15A (Standards, Handling of hazardous substances, punishments).
• National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 15, 17, and 19 (jurisdiction, relief, compensation, procedure, natural justice).
• Constitution of India – Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life), Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade).
Arguments
Appellant: The appellant contended that the NGT orders were issued without giving Triveni Engineering an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. In response to the challenges, the appellant claimed that the joint committee had not complied with the statutory procedures under the Water Act, including ensuring prior notice during sampling and sealing of samples. They said the reports of the committee were based on incorrect data and neglected records maintained by the company. The appellant argued that in the absence of being impleaded as a party to the original proceedings, no adverse order could stand in law.
Respondents: The respondent, State and Pollution Control Boards, defended the NGT findings, asserting that untreated effluent had been discharged into drains affecting groundwater, and was risking the health of thousands of residents. They claimed that principles of natural justice were not absolute, and Triveni Engineering was aware of the reports by the committee but chose not to challenge them before the NGT. They stressed the seriousness of environmental violations and the need for deterrent punishment.
Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully examined whether the NGT complied with statutory and natural justice requirements. The Court noted that Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act set strict conditions for the procedures for the sampling of effluents, including notice and the division of samples in front of the occupier. The joint committee report failed to demonstrate adherence to these requirements. Additionally, the Court emphasized the NGT is constrained by natural justice principles under Section 19 of the NGT Act, and as the appellant was never added as a party to the initial application, and was never afforded an opportunity to respond to the reports, the orders were accordingly flawed. The Court cited cases such as A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, which provide support that an administrative or quasi-judicial body cannot act in this manner and must offer fairness, reasoned orders and the opportunity to be heard.
Judgment
The Contentious viewpoint the Supreme Court found that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had not followed the statute, had also violated the principle of audi alteram partem because Triveni Engineering was not given an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, it had struck out the NGT’s orders imposing Rs. 18 crores as compensation which was made on the 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022. While the Supreme Court established with a very explicit conclusion that the unfortunate situation of damage to the environment should be addressed with the strictest severity; requiring due process will not be compromised. The Supreme Court also determined that any further proceeding must involve the appellant as a required party, and follow the applicable statute for the Water Act, and follow principles of natural justice.
Conclusion
This judgement safeguards the fragile equilibrium between the environmental agenda and the rule of law. While acknowledging the severity of pollution and the obligation on polluting industries to comply with environmental legal norms, the Court emphasized that no penalty can be imposed if the requisite procedures relative to due process have not been adequately followed. By setting aside the NGT orders, the Supreme Court has reiterated that even in the important context of environmental jurisprudence, natural justice marks the line in the sand which cannot be crossed. The judgement emphasizes that by having fairness in procedure respects the environmental law enforcement system and only enhances the ability to sanction offenders such as polluting industries.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more
than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Anwesha
If you want to read more, MS. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. VERSUS State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
