On Tuesday, the Supreme Court has denied issuing Notice on plea filed by South Korean company LG Polymers against the order passed by NGT which directing it to pay ₹50 crores.

The Top Court also constituted a fact-finding Committee to collect details on the hazardous tragedy.

Refusing to act on the plea, the Top Court directed the company to raise the matter before the NGT Tribunal itself.

The bench comprising of Justice U U Lalit, Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Justice Vineet Saran stated:

"In compliance of the NGT Order, Appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 50 crores. Questions raised by the Appellant are purely legal in nature. Give liberty to Appellant to raise the appropriate concerns before the NGT before the next date, which is June 1st."

NGT had taken a suo moto cognizance against the Vizag Gas Leak incident and directed LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd. to deposit a sum of ₹50 crores with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam.

In addition to this, the Tribunal had also constituted a 5-member Committee, headed by Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy, former Judge of Andhra Pradesh and instructed the Committee 'to visit and inspect the site at the earliest and give its report before the next date'.

Aggrieved by the order, LG Polymers filed a SLP before the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing as the Learned Counsel of the Petitioner, informed the Bench that the entire sum of ₹50 crores had been deposited as they didn't wish to stall any proceedings.

He further submitted that the LG Polymers plant was closed, and the NGT-appointed Committee had visited the site three times, without any prior notice.

He has raised two legal issues on this, which are whether NGT can order suo moto proceedings and one Committee is substantive rather constitution of 7 committees.

The bench asked about the details of the Central Government Committee but due to lack of access to files in Chambers, Learned Counsel Rohtgi couldn't answer the same.

He further contended that NGT had no jurisdiction to take suo moto cognizance of the case when the matter is proceeding in higher courts.

He presented before the Court, the High Court's order and submitted that the Court had also gone into great detail regarding whether the High Court was right or the NGT.

He said:

"There's also a Committee by NHRC. How many Committees are required? There's an inquiry by the Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. The Court needs to see which authorities have the role to order these Committees."

To this, the Bench stated that Rohtgi has to prove that NGT has no jurisdiction.

Further the Bench pronounced:

"Incident occurred on May 7, and the Order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was on May 7. So, since the High Court was the first one to take action, you may impress upon the NGT that a Committee has been formed by a Court of Constitutional authority. NGT was not aware of these developments when it passed the Order on May 8. It would be unfair on our part to injunct".

The Top Court thus denied issuing order in the same at this stage and stated that the matter would be kept pending.

Picture Source :