Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1501/2020 on 4 January, 2021
WPMS No. 1501 of 2020 / WPMS No. 1504 of 2020
WPMS No. 1505 of 2020 / WPMS No. 1506 of 2020
WPMS No. 1507 of 2020 / WPMS No. 1508 of 2020
WPMS No. 1509 of 2020 / WPMS No. 1514 of 2020
WPMS No. 1515 of 2020 / WPMS No. 1517 of 2020
WPMS No. 1534 of 2020 / WPMS No. 1554 of 2020
WPMS No. 1693 of 2020 / WPMS No. 1998 of 2020
Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Mr. Narendra Bali and Ms. Vijaya
Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr.
Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional C.S.C. for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for
respondent nos. 2 & 3.
Mr. Rajeev Bhatt, Advocate for
respondent no. 4.
Since common questions of fact and
law are involved in these petitions, therefore,
these petitions are clubbed together and are
being heard & decided together. However,
for the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS
No. 1501 of 2020 are being considered.
In WPMS No. 1501 of 2020, petitioner
has challenged the directions issued by
Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board vide
order dated 05.08.2020. Perusal of the said
order indicates that these directions were
issued in terms of order dated 03.12.2019
passed by National Green Tribunal in
Original Application No. 123 of 2018, which
are as follows:-
i. A joint Committee of CPCB and SPCB
may assess the cost of restoration of the
environment and amount of
compensation required to be paid to the
victims. The Committee will be at liberty
to take the assistance of any other
expert. The nodal agency will be the
SPCB for the purpose.
ii. The Committee may also assess the
performance of the defaulting units and
CETP and determine whether any further
amount of compensation needs to be
recovered from the defaulting units and
CETP.
iii. SPEB may transfer an amount of Rs. 25
lakhs to the District Legal Services
Authority, District Udham Singh Nagar.
The District Legal Services Authority may
assess the claim of any victim and
disburse the amount to such victim. The
District Magistrate, District Udham
Singh Nagar will render such assistance
as may be required for the purpose. The
deposit and the leftover amount, if any,
will abide by further directions.
Impugned order has been passed,
based on the inspection report of the Central
Pollution Control Board and Joint Team of
Central Pollution Control Board (in short
"CPCB") & State Pollution Control Board (in
short "SPCB"), whereby petitioner has been
asked to deposit environment compensation,
as assessed in the inspection report
amounting to `60,00,000/- within thirty
days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
challenged the order passed by Uttarakhand
Pollution Control Board mainly on the
ground that petitioner was not heard in the
matter, although he was required to be
heard, as contemplated under Rule 34 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Rules, 1975.
Learned counsel appearing for
Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board,
however, submits that impugned order has
been passed on the basis of inspection of
petitioner's unit carried out by Central
Pollution Control Board and Joint Team of
CPCB & SPCB, and the Central Pollution
Control Board was of the opinion that in
view of likelihood of a grave injury to the
environment, the requirement of hearing
may be dispensed with in terms of the
provisions contained in Rule 34(6) of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Rules, 1975.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Central Pollution Control
Board and Uttarakhand Pollution Control
Board went astray, while implementing the
directions issued by National Green Tribunal
by misreading the order passed by National
Green Tribunal.
Learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 2 & 4, however, have
refuted this contention made on behalf of
the petitioner and they submit that the
direction issued by National Green Tribunal
has been complied with in its letter and
spirit.
Since the order impugned in the writ
petition has been passed in pursuance to
the directions issued by National Green
Tribunal, therefore, in my humble opinion, it
would not be appropriate for this Court to
embark upon an exercise of interpreting the
directions issued by National Green
Tribunal. If petitioner has any grievance, he
is at liberty to invoke the remedy of review
under Rule 22 of National Green Tribunal
(Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011.
Interference with the impugned order is also
not warranted in view of the fact that order
passed by National Green Tribunal is
appealable only before Hon'ble Supreme
Court under Section 22 of National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
referred to one judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs Sterlite
Industries (I) Ltd. reported in (2019) SCC
Online 221 and another judgment dated
02.07.2018 rendered by Division Bench of
this Court in SPA No. 496 of 2018 (M/s
Multiwal Duplex Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of
Uttarakhand & another).
The said judgments are distinguishable
on facts and do not support the case of the
petitioner.
In such view of the matter, these writ
petitions are dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy with liberty to the
petitioners to avail such remedy as is
available to them in law.
Let certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties within 48 hours.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)
Aswal 04.01.2021
