State Of U.P. vs Anand Engineering College

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS.10084-85/2022

State of Uttar Pradesh and others …Petitioners

Versus

Anand Engineering College and another …Respondents

ORDER

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 8339/2012 and 8340/2012, by which

the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.07.23 12:41:50 IST Reason:

respondents herein and has set aside the order/notice imposing

1 damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) for violation of

the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, which was imposed in

exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,

1972, the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Forest Department has

preferred the present special leave petitions.

2. That the respondents herein are running an educational institution

in the area at Agra-Mathura Road and that too in the close vicinity of

the National Chambal Sanctuary Project undertaken by the State

Government. That due to the effluent flowing out of the premises of

the college that borders the Sanctuary has resulted in serious threat to

the ecology of the area as well as causing environmental damage and

consequently has endangered the flora and fauna as well as the wild

life in the sanctuary. The Forest department issued various notices to

the respondents right from the year 2003 onwards regarding threat to

the environment on account of effluent flowing in the sanctuary area

from the huge multi storied building of the institution. However, the

respondents continued to discharge the effluent which, according to

the Forest Department, resulted in serious environmental damage in

the area and consequently endangered the wild life in the sanctuary.

Therefore, by order dated 30.12.2011 the Forest Department of the

State imposed damages of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores)

2 upon the respondents. The said order imposing damages upon the

respondents was the subject matter before the High Court in the

aforesaid writ petitions. At this stage, it is required to be noted that

subsequently notice dated 10.02.2012 was issued to the original writ

petitioners to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Water

(Control and Removal of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Control and

Removal of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also the Environmental Protection

Act, 1986.

2.1 Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the original writ

petitioners that the order imposing damages was in gross violation of

principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was ever issued

to them in respect of the proposed action of imposing damages. It was

also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the authority

passing the order imposing damages is not vested with any such

power under any law for the time being in force. It was also the case

on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the amount of damages

imposed is too excessive without there being any statistical basis for

the same and assessment for loss based on any cogent and

convincing material. Before the High Court and even before this

Court, the State/Forest Department relied upon Section 33 of the Wild

Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which reads as under:

3

“33. Control of sanctuaries – The Chief Wild Life Warden shall be the authority who shall control, manage and maintain all sanctuaries and for that purpose, within the limits of any sanctuary, -

(a)may construct such roads, bridges, buildings, fences or barrier gates, and carry out such other works as he may consider necessary for the purposes of such sanctuary:

Provided that no construction of commercial tourist lodges, hotels, zoos and safari parks shall be undertaken inside a sanctuary except with the prior approval of the National Board.

(b)Shall take such steps as will ensure the security of wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and wild animals therein;

(c) may take such measures, in the interests of wild life, as he may consider necessary for the improvement of any habitat;

(d)may regulate, control or prohibit, in keeping with the interests of wild life, the grazing or movement of 2 live-stock.”

2.2 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has

allowed the aforesaid two writ petitions and set aside the order/notice

imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores, by holding that under the

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest Department/ State has no

jurisdiction and/or authority to impose damages. The High Court has

also observed that imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores was in

breach of principles of natural justice as before imposing such

damages, no opportunity of being heard was given to the original writ

petitioners and as such there was no material to impose damages of

Rupees Ten Crores.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common judgment and order passed by the High Court in setting aside

4 the order imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores for discharging the

effluent flowing out of the premises of the college in the national

sanctuary and consequently endangering the environment as well as

the wild life in the sanctuary, the State has preferred the present

special leave petitions.

3. We have heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the State. We have gone through the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court. At the outset, it is

required to be noted that the order/notice imposing damages of Rs.

10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) has been found to be in gross

violation of the principles of natural justice. Nothing is on record to

indicate that before imposing damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees

Ten Crores) any show cause notice was issued upon the original writ

petitioners to show cause as to why the damages may not be imposed

or for any violation of any of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection)

Act and/or the Environmental Protection Act and/or any other law.

Neither the respondent was given any opportunity of hearing by the

authorities concerned. There was no material on record to impose

damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores). Imposing

damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores), thus can be said

to be without any basis and/or material and the extent of damages

5 caused to the environment and/or wild life sanctuary. Therefore, it

cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting

aside the imposing of damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten

Crores) which, as observed hereinabove, was found to be in breach of

the principles of natural justice.

4. On merits and on jurisdiction and/or authority of the Forest

Department/Environment Department to impose damages, heavy

reliance is placed on Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,

which is reproduced hereinabove. It is the case on behalf of the

Department that right from the year 2003, all efforts were made by the

Department to see that the original writ petitions stop discharging the

effluent in the sanctuary area. However, the original writ petitioners

have continued to discharge the effluent and have caused the

environmental damage and have endangered the environment as well

as wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the

Department that thereafter when the original writ petitioners have

continued to act detrimental to the environment and wild life in the

sanctuary, the authority was justified in imposing the damages while

exercising the powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection)

Act, 1972.

6

5. On a fair reading of Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,

1972, reproduced hereinabove, the appropriate authority shall have

wide powers to take such steps as well as to ensure the security of

wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary

and wild animals therein. The Chief Wild Life Warden also may take

such measures, in the interests of wild life, as he may consider

necessary for the improvement of any habitat and may also regulate,

control or prohibit, in keeping with the interests of wild life, the grazing

or movement of livestock. Therefore, in exercise of powers under

Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Chief Wild Life

Warden/appropriate authority may even pass an order of closure of the

institution, if the institution continues to discharge the effluent in the

sanctuary which may affect and/or damage the environment as well as

wild life in the sanctuary. Mere issuance of notice is not suffice. There

can be further steps, may be of closure of an institution in case of

repeated breaches and/or the action in discharging the effluent which

may damage the environment and wild life in the sanctuary, after

following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law.

To that extent, the authority is not helpless.

However, at the same time, the authority cannot impose damages

and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before

7 the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages.

However, straightway in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the authority could not have imposed

damages.

6. Be that as it may, as observed hereinabove, before imposing

damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores), admittedly, no

show cause notice was issued to the original writ petitioners calling

upon them to show cause as to why damages may not be imposed for

discharging effluent in the sanctuary, which damages/affects the

environment and wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, setting aside the order of damages does

not call for any interference of this Court. However, at the same time,

if the authorities are very serious and are the opinion that the original

writ petitioners have continued to discharge the effluent in the national

sanctuary area which ultimately damages/affects the environment as

well as wild life in the sanctuary, it will always be open for the

department/authority to take steps as provided under Section 33 of the

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as observed hereinabove

including the closure of the institution and even stop discharging the

effluent in the national sanctuary, however, of course, after following

the principles of natural justice. The authorities may not stop taking

8 any further action and be satisfied by issuing notice only. If the

discharge of the effluent is a threat to the environment and/or wild life

in the national sanctuary, the authorities have to take further steps to

stop such use and/or threat to the environment and wild life in the

national sanctuary, in accordance with law.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the present special leave petitions

stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

of.

………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J. JULY 12, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

9