Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited vs Arvind Manohar Mahajan

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9202-9203/2022

BENZO CHEM INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ARVIND MANOHAR MAHAJAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. These appeals challenge the orders passed by the

National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated 29.08.2022 and

22.11.2022.

2. Vide the first order dated 29.08.2022 penalty is imposed

on the appellant for non-compliance with the environment

requirement. By the second order dated 22.11.2022, the

review application has been rejected.

3. Heard Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel for

the appellant, Shri Feroze Ahmad, learned counsel for

Respondents No.1 to 13 and Shri Mukesh Verma, learned

counsel for the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.

4. Shri Nadkarni, learned senior counsel, submits that the

order passed by the learned NGT depicts total non-

application of mind. It is submitted that though the Signature Not Verified reports of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) as Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.11.30 15:04:47 IST Reason: well as National Environmental Engineering Research

Institute (NEERI) found that there are no non-compliances,

1 the learned NGT records to the contrary. It is further

submitted that the methodology of imposing penalty of Rs.25

Crores on the ground that the operative revenue of the

appellant ranges from 100 Crores to 500 Crores is totally

unknown to the canons of law.

5. This is the third matter today in which we are

considering the orders passed by the learned NGT, which

depicts total violation of principles of natural justice and

lack of due consideration.

6. Learned NGT in its order in para 13 observed thus:-

“13. It is patent that from 2010 till atleast 2.10.2020, the unit remained non- compliant. We have already referred to first violation seen in the year 2010 and subsequent reports of 2017, February 2018 and NEERI report of June 2019 show that the violations continued. Even in August 2020, the State PCB recorded violations and the PP filed undertaking on 2.10.2020 to take further remedial action. Thus, there could be no question of matter being beyond limitation. Relief can be confined to five years before filing of the application. Though status after 2020 is not on record, the PP has to take remedial action as well a" be held accountable for past violations of ten years. There are rival oral versions about current status - version of the applicants that violations are still continuing and version of the PP that violations have now been remedied.”

7. The appellant has placed on record reports of the

inspections conducted by the MPCB for the period between

2011 to 2020. Not only that but under the orders of the

NEERI, which is a premier institution insofar as environment

sciences is concerned, has also found that the unit of the

2 appellant was compliant with environment requirements and

there was not a single non-compliance.

8. In the light of these findings in the report, the

observations of the learned NGT that the unit has been non-

compliant right from the year 2010 is totally untenable. The

further observations of the learned NGT that the report of

the NEERI of June 2019 also shows that the violations

continues, is also contrary to the records. The report of

the MPCB, which is placed at page No.349 of the paperbook

would reveal otherwise.

9. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the MPCB, also

submits that in view of the inspection reports of the MPCB,

he was not in a position to counter the claim of the

appellant that there were no violation.

10. We could have allowed the appeal on this short ground,

however, the further part of the order i.e. paragraph 15

makes an interesting reading. The learned NGT held that the

appellant is liable to pay environmental damages. However,

while computing the said damages, the only methodology that

has been adopted by the learned NGT is that as per the

information which is available in the public domain the

revenue range of the appellant is between 100 Crores to 500

Crores. It is therefore found that the penalty of Rs.25

Crores would be commensurated with the revenue. Firstly,

there is a vast difference between 100 Crores and 500

Crores. Secondly, if the learned NGT had relied on the

information available in the public domain, then it would

3 not be difficult for it to come out with the exact figure.

In any case, the generation of revenue would have no nexus

with the amount of penalty to be ascertained for

environmental damages. It is further to be noted that the

learned NGT found the appellant to be guilty of violations,

the least that was expected from the NGT is to give a notice

to the appellant before imposing such a heavy penalty.

11. With deep anguish we have to say that the methodology

adopted by the learned NGT for imposing penalty is totally

unknown to the principles of law.

12. We are, therefore, inclined to quash and set aside the

impugned judgments and orders and allow these appeals.

Ordered accordingly.

13. Needless to state that in the event any person feels

that the appellant is engaged in any of the environmental

non-compliances, such a person would always be at liberty to

approach the appropriate forum and if such an issue comes

before it, the forum would consider and decide the same

after following the principles of natural justice.

14. It is reported that Respondent No.13 is dead and an

application for substitution has been filed, which is lying

in defect for want of death certificate. Considering the

view that we have taken and since Respondent No.13 was one

of the applicants along with the 12 other applicants who

have been duly noticed, we close the said application as no

orders are warranted.

4

15. Any other pending application(s) shall also stand

disposed of.

..............................J ( B.R. GAVAI )

..............................J ( K.V. VISWANATHAN )

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 27, 2024

5 ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9202-9203/2022

BENZO CHEM INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ARVIND MANOHAR MAHAJAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

(IA No. 192800/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 192798/2022 - STAY APPLICATION)

Date : 27-11-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Mr. Zulfiqur Menon,Adv.

Mr. Waseem Pangarkar,Adv.

Ms. Nadiya Sarguroh,Adv.

Mr. Swapnil Srivastava,Adv.

Mr. Jayesh Srivastava,Adv.

Mr. Allan David,Adv.

Mr. S.S. Rebello,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Feroze Ahmad, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR

Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv.

Mrs. Vatsala Tripathi, Adv.

Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR

Ms. Shyamali Gadre, Adv.

Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. G. Pal, Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed judgment.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER

(Signed “Non-Reportable” judgment is placed on the file)

6