Nagar Panchayat Kadaura vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3333 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nagar Panchayat Kadaura vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 5 August, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132180-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21976 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Nagar Panchayat Kadaura
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. and 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J. N. Maurya
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 and 5 and Shri Mehul Khare, learned counsel for U.P. Pollution Control Board (respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4).

2. The present writ petition is preferred inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

"I. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 10.08.2021 issued by respondent no. 3 (Chief Environment Engineer, circle -2) as also all consequential steps taken subsequent thereto.

II. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impgned order cum notice dated 25.04.2025 issued by respondent no. 3/ Chief Environment Engineer, Circle-2.

III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to approve and allot the funds in favour of the Nagar Panchayat Kadaura, District Jalaun to comply the direction given by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal."

3. It appears from the record that one Pashupendra Kumar made a complaint before Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, NGT), alleging pollution in the ponds situated under the territory of petitioner Nagar Panchayat. On the said complaint, cognizance was taken by the NGT and the complaint was registered as Original Application No.41 of 2020 (Pushpendra Kumar vs. Nagar Panchayat, Kadaura and others). The NGT vide its order dated 17.02.2020 constituted a Committee consisting of District Magistrate, Jalaun (respondent no.5) and U.P. Pollution Control Board (respondent no.2) and directed to submit a report in the matter. In compliance thereof, the measurement was carried out by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpi and the report was submitted on 28.2.2020. The notices were issued to the concerned persons with direction to remove their illegal encroachment over the ponds and other public properties. Thereafter, the NGT vide its order dated 23.06.2020 directed the U.P. Pollution Control Board and the District Magistrate to do needful and submit a report. After considering the reports submitted by the UP Pollution Control Board and the objection filed by the complainant, the NGT constituted the Oversight Committee on 13.01.2021. Later on, a Three-Member Committee was constituted by the District Magistrate for complying with the directions issued by the NGT and the Three-Member Committee submitted a report dated 25.03.2021 before the District Magistrate, Jalaun, wherein it is indicated that all the temporary encroachments were removed.

4. It also appears that in compliance of the order passed by the NGT dated 13.01.2021 and the report dated 25.03.2021, the petitioner Nagar Panchayat moved an application before the State Government for sanction of Rs.310.94 lakhs for installation of sewerage treatment plant but no amount was sanctioned. Again the petitioner had moved an application dated 17.02.2022 for sanction of the amount to comply with the directions issued by the NGT. Once no amount was sanctioned by the State Government to comply with the orders passed by the NGT, the petitioner submitted a revised action plan on 10.08.2021 before the District Magistrate stating therein that the petitioner Nagar Panchayat is trying to remove all the deficiencies. Without calling any reply/objection on the report dated 23.07.2021, the Chief Environmental Officer (respondent no.2) has passed the impugned order dated 10.08.2021, whereby he has imposed a fine of Rs.1,82,88,820/- on the petitioner for environmental loss/damages. By the impugned order dated 25.4.2025, again the respondent no.2, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, directed to the petitioner to deposit the penalty to the tune of Rs.8,55,00,000/- for the alleged violation of environmental loss/damages.

5. Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court passed in Writ C No. 4816 of 2024 (Suez India Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra Mathpal vs. U.P. Pollution Control Board, Through its chairman and 6 others) and other connected matters, wherein it has been held that the State Pollution Control Board has no power to impose environmental compensation upon any person or industry and it can merely file an application before the NGT under Section 15 read with Section 18 of the NGT Act for issuance of a direction to the person concerned for payment of compensation. Accordingly, all the writ petitions were allowed and all the orders passed by the State Pollution Control Board imposing environmental compensation upon the said petitioners, were quashed. He submits that the impugned recovery proceeding is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has resisted the relief and submitted that once the order of the NGT dated 11.10.2022 had not been complied with, then the complainant filed Execution Application No.11 of 2024 before the NGT, New Delhi, wherein the applicant/complainant is seeking compliance of the common order dated 11.10.2022 in MA No.43/2022 in O.A. No.41 of 2020 and O.A. No. 94 of 2022. He submits that the said proceedings are seized before the NGT and the next date is fixed on 16-09-2025. As the execution proceedings are going on before the NGT, New Delhi, meanwhile, the Authority is not pressing the same. He further submits that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. For ready reference paragraph nos. 10 & 11 of the said order dated 11.10.2022 are extracted herein below:-

"10 We direct that apart from removing encroachments, steps for treating the waste water and its utilization be taken on the pattern of order passed in M.A. No. 43/2022 above taking the entire Kadaura town into consideration. Adoption of treatment facilities may be designed based on estimated sewage generation which may be about 2.0 MLD. It may have well laid drainage system, with sewage treatment facility meeting feacal sludge management from septic tanks.

11. We also direct that in respect of all the ponds, command/catchment areas be maintained and no disposal of sludge sewage allowed. Whenever required, aquatic weeds be eradicated and desilted de-sludged to maintain depth of ponds. Suitable species of fishes be introduced in the ponds for the control of aquatic weeds, maintaining water quality and ensuring livelihoods to the local people. Various schemes of State and Central Government for the fisheries development and also Mnrega etc. be explored for funding, apart from community involvement in appropriate ways."

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Writ C No.39926 of 2024 (Nagar Palika Parishad vs. State of UP and ors) decided on 16.12.2024 reported in MANU/UP/4898/2024. He submits that the matter is no longer res integra and the controversy is covered by the above described decision of this Court, specifically paragraphs 19-21 thereof. For ready reference, the paragraphs 19 to 21 of the judgement in Nagar Palika Parishad vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) are quoted below:-

"19. It is, therefore, apparent on record that the petitioner not only being party to the proceedings before the N.G.T., it has been directed by the N.G.T. to take effective steps for recovery of environmental compensation assessed by the order impugned, by all coercive measures and submit compliance report. The N.G.T. has also issued direction for criminal prosecution of the officers of the petitioner and submission of compliance report.

20. In view of above, we are of the view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment of damages/environmental compensation, either by the committee or by the U.P. P.C.B., the same having been done in furtherance of various directions issued by the N.G.T., it has remedy either to make its say before the N.G.T. with appropriate submissions and prayers or if it feels that the N.G.T. had no competence to entrust any action upon joint committee or U.P. P.C.B. or that any order passed by the N.G.T. is not otherwise in accordance with law, it has a remedy to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the Act of 2010. The writ jurisdiction does not come in the way at all.

21. In view of above discussion, we find that challenge made to the orders passed in furtherance of the orders issued by the N.G.T. and as a consequence thereof, cannot sustain in writ jurisdiction and any relief granted to the petitioner against the impugned demand would have an effect of expressly or impliedly staying or setting aside orders passed by the N.G.T. This being impermissible in view of appellate forum being Supreme Court as per Section 22 of the Act of 2010, we are of the view that the reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition, either interim or final, cannot be granted.

22. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach N.G.T. or Supreme Court for redressal of its grievance."

8. Considering the factual situation, we are of the respectful agreement of the Division Bench Judgment passed in Nagar Palika Parishad vs. State of U.P. and others (supra).

9. Accordingly, the present petition is also dismissed in terms of the decision of this Court in Nagar Palika Parishad vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach NGT or Hon'ble Supreme Court for redressal of its grievance.

Order Date :- 5.8.2025

Bhanu

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)