| Headnote |
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14, 15, 17 and Schedules – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Jurisdiction of the NGT – Victim was driving a car with her young daughter on the Highway – An over-mining resulted in the destruction of a small hill by the side of the National Highway – The resultant debris and a part of the hill collapsed and slid down to the road, claiming the lives of the victim and her daughter – The NGT imposed a joint penalty of Rs.50 lakhs for causing environmental damage on NHAI and the persons who carried out the cutting of the hill – Further, they were also directed to pay jointly and severally amount of Rs. 15 lakhs towards compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased and her daughter – Also, an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was ordered to be deposited for plantation of trees in order to restore damage caused to environment – It was contended that NGT has narrow and circumscribed jurisdiction in regard to issuing directions as well as ordering compensation – Held: A conjoint reading of ss. 14, 15, and the Schedules would lead one to infer that the NGT has circumscribed jurisdiction to deal with, adjudicate, and wherever needed, direct measures such as payment of compensation, or make restitutionary directions in cases where the violation (i.e. harm caused due to pollution or exposure to hazards, etc.) are the result of an infraction of any enactment listed in the first schedule – However, the wide language of s.15(4) enables the Tribunal (NGT) to direct, inter alia, payment of compensation,”having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment” – This interpretation is borne out by a reading of s.17(2) regarding the apportionment of liability for payment of compensation – Under ss.15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c), the NGT has the power to make directions and provide for “restitution of property damaged and for restitution of the environment for such area as the Tribunal may think fit” – Further, s.17(1) refers to first schedule enactments, it talks of death of, or injury to, any person “or damage to any property or environment” which “has resulted from an accident or the adverse impact of an activity or operation or process, under any enactment” in Schedule I – One of the enactments is Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Environmental clearance is necessary even for minor mineral extraction where the area of operation is less than 5 hectares – In the instant case, there was violation of EPA, because there was mining lease covered an area in excess of 5 hectares – There is nothing on record to show that the relevant clearance was obtained – Therefore, the facts of the present case disclose violation of the EPA – This means that the NGT’s jurisdiction u/s. 15(1)(a) and s.17 cannot be disputed and NGT correctly assumed jurisdiction, having regard to the nature of the accident in the facts of the case. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – National Highways Act, 1956 – National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 – An over-mining resulted in the destruction of a small hill by the side of the National Highway – The resultant debris and a part of hill collapsed and slid down to the road, claiming lives of a woman and her daughter – National Green Tribunal directed payment of compensation towards death and damages towards restitution – Propriety of – Held: A statutory corporation or local authority can be held liable in tort for injury occasioned on account of omission to oversee, or defective supervision of its activities contracted out to another agency – In the instant case, having regard to the duty imposed on the NHAI by virtue of ss. 4 and 5 of the Highway Act r/w. s. 16 of the NHAI Act, there can be no manner of doubt that the NHAI was responsible for the maintenance of the highway, including the stretch upon which accident occurred – The report of Sub-Divisional Officer highlighted the deficiencies, also NHAI’s correspondence with the person carrying out extraction of minor minerals by cutting hills, reveal that authorities were aware of the danger and likelihood of risk to human life – The failure of the NHAI to ensure remedial action and likewise failure by person carrying out mineral extraction, to take measures to prevent the accident, prima facie disclose their liability – Therefore, the directions in this regard by the NGT, making NHAI and the person carrying out extraction of mineral to pay Rs. 15 lakhs to legal representatives of the deceased is justified – Further, the restitutionary order by the NGT, cannot be faulted. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – National Green Tribunal concluded that no development and construction should be carried out within 100 feet of a ‘lowest slope i.e., incline of any hill within its territorial limits, as well as hill-tops’ – Propriety of – Held: The decisions of the Supreme Court in All Dimasa Students Union case, Mantri Technoze Pvt. Ltd. Case, the Hanuman Laxman Aroskar case and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board case all show that the NGT resorted to the appointment of technical and scientific experts in the relevant field, who studied the issue, made site inspections, and furnished reports – Such reports were subjected to discussion by the parties before the NGT, who were also given the opportunity of objecting to or making representations against such reports – Based on a final consideration of all these materials, and the submissions of parties before it, the NGT proceeded to issue directions – However, in the instant case, what NGT had before it was the report of the SDM and a report commissioned about the nature of the incident – Based on these limited inputs, without any rationale and based on no scientific or technical evidence, or experts’ opinion, the Tribunal concluded that development and construction should not be carried out within 100 feet of ‘lowest slope i.e. incline of any hill within its territorial limits, as well as hill-tops’ – As a result, the directions issued by the Tribunal were improper and procedurally indefensible – Therefore, the said directions are set aside. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – The order/ notification dated 14.11.2017 of the State of Maharashtra, issued u/s. 154 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Legality of – Held: The State of Maharashtra has not shown any material or file containing the reasons behind the directive of 14.11.2017 – These directions were consequential to, and solely based on the directions of the NGT – The NGT directions with regard to no development and construction within 100 feet of a ‘lowest slope i.e., incline of any hill within its territorial limits, as well as hill tops’, were not based on any scientific evidence or report of any technical expert – The impugned notification does not specify what constitutes ‘hills’ – This makes the directions not only vague but also makes them arbitrary as they can be applied at will by the concerned authorities – These directions in the notification, only underlines the lack of any application of mind on the part of the State – Consequently the directions issued under the notification u/s. 154 (dated 14.11.2017) are quashed. |
