Case Title: Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ajay Khera & Ors.
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 2019
Dated on: 11 January 2024
Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA and JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
FACTS OF THE CASE
The first respondent, Ajay Khera, a former Executive Director of the Central Warehousing Corporation, filed an original application with the National Green Tribunal (NGT) against the Container Corporation of India Ltd. (Container Corporation) and the Railway Board. The application raised concerns about pollution caused by the Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad, which was used by trucks and trailers not destined for Delhi, contributing to increased air pollution in Delhi NCR. The ICD at Tughlakabad was used by trucks and trailers not destined for Delhi, leading to increased air pollution in Delhi NCR. The first respondent contended that other ICDs around Delhi could be used to divert these trucks and trailers, reducing pollution. The Container Corporation argued that diverting the ICD would lead to more pollution due to increased movement of cargo on roads from various ports in India to Delhi. Consequently, NGT passed an interim order directing the Container Corporation to shift to electric, hybrid, and CNG vehicles in a phased manner. The NGT also directed that diesel vehicles should be restricted to satellite terminals (ICDs) at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas, or other ICDs around Delhi. An outer limit of six months was fixed for compliance, with an action plan to be filed within one month. Aggrieved from the NGT’s order the appellant filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court issued notice on the appeal and directed that no coercive action be taken against the Container Corporation based on the NGT order. The Court directed the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) to look into the issues raised in the appeal and file a report with recommendations.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010:
- Section 14: Deals with the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment) is involved.
- Section 15: Empowers the Tribunal to provide relief and compensation to victims of pollution and other environmental damage, and for restitution of property damaged and the environment.
- Section 18(1): Specifies who can file an application or appeal to the Tribunal, including any person aggrieved by an order or decision, among others.
Constitution of India:
- Article 21: Article 21 Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty
EPCA REPORT
The EPCA (Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority) submitted its report on 30 June 2020 under the directions of the supreme court. The report records that 22,082 vehicles entered the said ICD, out of which 75% of the vehicles (16,562) were bigger vehicles using diesel, with an average capacity of 19 metric tons. Only 25% were CNG vehicles, having an average capacity of 6 metric tons. It records that the number of diesel vehicles entering the said ICD daily was 534. A positive feature recorded in the EPCA report is that the total quantity of goods transiting through the said ICD from 201415 has gradually decreased. In the financial year 201415, the total quantity of goods entering ICD was 4,26,144 TEUs, which was reduced to 3,10,399 in the financial year 20192020. One TEU is equivalent to the carrying capacity of a 20footlong container. Broadly, the EPCA considered three issues:
- The feasibility of shifting to CNG/electric/hybrid vehicles as directed by the NGT by the impugned order;
- The issue of restricting and reducing the entry of nondestined diesel vehicles at the said ICD and the issue of diverting nondestined diesel vehicles to nearby ICDs; and
- The problem created by congestion and lack of adequate parking facilities at ICDs.
Now, coming to the recommendations of the EPCA, The report noted that shifting to CNG/electric/hybrid vehicles was not feasible due to technology constraints. It recommended using BS-VI heavy-duty diesel vehicles as a cleaner alternative. The report suggested that the Container Corporation of India Ltd. (Container Corporation) should formulate a plan for optimal utilization of inland container depots (ICDs) around Delhi to reduce the use of the ICD at Tughlakabad. It recommended diverting non-destined diesel vehicles to nearby ICDs. The report noted that the parking facility for trucks and trailers was available but was used haphazardly, leading to congestion and pollution. It recommended that the Container Corporation provide a time-bound plan for upgrading the parking/holding area by optimizing the space available inside the depot and working with agencies to provide adequate holding space outside the depot.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Court accepted the EPCA’s recommendation that shifting to CNG/electric/hybrid vehicles was not feasible for heavy-duty diesel vehicles due to technology constraints. Instead, the Court directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to come out with a policy for the scrappage of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and their replacement with BS-VI vehicles within six months. The Court accepted the EPCA’s recommendation that the Container Corporation of India Ltd. (Container Corporation) should formulate a plan for optimal utilization of inland container depots (ICDs) around Delhi with in six months to reduce the use of the ICD at Tughlakabad and directed the Container Corporation to work with certified agencies and laboratories to extend their services to ICDs outside Delhi within a specified timeframe. The Court accepted the EPCA’s recommendation that the Container Corporation should provide a time-bound plan for upgrading the parking/holding area by optimizing the space available inside the depot and working with agencies to provide adequate holding space outside the depot. With the above directions the the court dismissed the appeal on a condition to monitor the implementation of these directions and scheduled a compliance hearing for 31st July 2024.
“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 fall into a 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.”
Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA
