Grasim Industries Limited Chemicals Division And Staple Fibre Division vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

2024 INSC 926 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1711-1712 OF 2021

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5158 OF 2021

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1711-1712/2021

1. These appeals challenge the order dated 07.04.2021

passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), vide which the

NGT has held that the appellant had committed a violation of

the provisions of Environment Protection Act. The Court

found that the appellant had failed to install the online flow

Signature Not Verified meter in CS2 stacks to quantify the CS2 emissions. It also Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.12.03 18:37:00 IST Reason: found that the acid produced which is a by-product of the

process employed by the appellant was hazardous to the

1 environment. The NGT, therefore, on different counts

imposed penalty of Rs.75,00,000/- each.

2. We have heard Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior

counsel for the appellant and Shri Raghav Sharma, learned

counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/State of Madhya

Pradesh through Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

and Shri Rahul Pratap, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2.

3. Though, Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior

Counsel, submits that there is no violation as found by the

learned NGT, we find that the present appeals deserve to be

allowed on the following short ground.

4. After the NGT entertained the O.A. on the basis of the

letter addressed by Respondent No.1, it initially directed the

plant of the appellant to be examined by the State Pollution

Control Board. After the receipt of the report of the State

Pollution Control Board, the Court appointed a Joint

Committee to give its report. The said Joint Committee made

certain recommendations and the NGT passed the impugned

order on the basis of the said recommendations.

5. The material placed on record would also reveal that the

2 appellant herein was not made a party to the proceedings

before the learned NGT or before the Joint Committee.

Though an application for impleadment was filed by the

appellant, the same was rejected by the learned NGT.

6. It further appears that even the Joint Committee

appointed by the NGT neither gave any notice to the

appellant nor an opportunity was given of being heard.

Though, this objection was specifically taken by the

appellant, the NGT observed “We asked the learned Counsel

whether the stand of the unit is that the violations found

never existed or whether they existed but have been

remedied. His answer is later. It is patent that there were

violations”.

7. It is thus clear that the procedure followed by the

learned NGT was totally unknown to the settled principles of

natural justice.

8. Neither was any notice given by the Joint Committee

before giving an adverse report against the appellant nor the

NGT permitted impleadment of the appellant as a party

respondent. As a matter of fact, the NGT could not have

proceeded further with the matter even at the initial stage

3 without impleading the appellant herein as a party

respondent. The approach adopted by the NGT clearly

smacks of condemning a person unheard. A reliance in this

respect should be placed on the judgment of this Court in the

case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v.

Ankita Sinha and Others1.

9. Another glaring error that has been committed by the

NGT is that it has based its decision only on the basis of the

report of the Joint Committee. The NGT is a tribunal

constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010.

A tribunal is required to arrive at its decision by fully

considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it.

It cannot outsource an opinion and base its decision on such

an opinion. A reliance in this respect should be placed on the

judgment of this Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj

Parivartan Trust and Others v. State of Gujarat and

Others2.

10. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are not

sustainable, the same are quashed and set aside and the

matters are remitted back to the learned NGT for considering 1 (2022) 13 SCC 401 : 2021 INSC 624 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 120 : 2022 INSC 79

4 the matters afresh.

11. Needless to state that if the NGT decides to proceed

further on the basis of the complaint of Respondent No.1, it

shall not do so unless the appellant herein is impleaded as a

party respondent.

12. With these observations and directions, the appeals are

allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5158 OF 2021

1. The facts in the present case are almost similar or

rather more glaring than the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 1711-

1712 of 2021. In the present appeals the complainant

(Respondent No.2 herein) had not even mentioned the name

of the present appellant. However, the learned National

Green Tribunal (NGT) on the basis of the Report of the Joint

Committee imposed penalty of Rs.82.2 Lacs and Rs.75.6 Lacs

for violation of environment laws on two counts.

2. In the appeal arising out of the same common order we

have found that the approach of the NGT in deciding the

matter without impleading an affected party and passing its

5 decision on an outsourced opinion of the experts is not

permissible on the ground of violation of principle of natural

justice.

3. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow this

appeal.

4. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the

matter is remitted back to the learned NGT for considering

the matter afresh.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

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

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

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 27, 2024.

6