Supreme Court on Liability for Highway Accidents Due to Environmental Damage: NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 July 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 586

Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian

Can a highway authority be held responsible for accidents caused by environmental damage near its roads? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a tragic accident on a national highway. This case explores the extent of liability of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other parties for environmental damage and its consequences on road safety.

The core issue revolves around a fatal accident caused by flooding on a highway, which was a result of illegal mining and subsequent blockage of water channels. The Supreme Court examined the responsibilities of NHAI, the mining operator, and the State of Maharashtra in ensuring environmental safety and preventing such incidents.

The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian. The opinion was unanimous.

Case Background

On June 6, 2013, Ms. Vishakha Wadekar and her daughter, Sanskruti Wadekar, tragically lost their lives when their car was swept away by floodwater on National Highway No. 4. This incident occurred due to the collapse of a portion of a hill adjacent to the highway, caused by excessive mining activities. The debris and water flow obstructed the road, leading to the fatal accident.

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had a concession agreement with M/s P.S. Toll Road (Pvt.) Ltd. for the maintenance and operation of the Pune-Satara section of the highway. The agreement included safety measures for highway users. Meanwhile, Mr. Rathod, had obtained a license to extract minor minerals near the highway, leading to the destabilization of the hill.

The Aam Aadmi Lokmanch, a registered organization, filed an application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking restoration of the natural contours of the destroyed hill. The NGT’s order, along with subsequent regulations by the Bombay High Court, became the subject of these appeals.

The key parties involved were:

• The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India (Appellant)
• Aam Aadmi Lokmanch (Respondent)
• M/s P.S. Toll Road (Pvt.) Ltd. (Concessionaire)
• Mr. Rathod (Mining Licensee)
• State of Maharashtra

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Pune, took up the matter based on an application by Aam Aadmi Lokmanch. The NGT found Mr. Rathod liable for illegal hill cutting and NHAI for failing to prevent it. The NGT directed them to pay compensation for environmental damage and to the legal representatives of the deceased.

Appeals were filed against the NGT order by NHAI, Mr. Rathod, and other parties. The Bombay High Court upheld regulations based on the NGT’s order, which restricted construction near hills. These appeals and special leave petitions were then brought before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several key legal provisions:

• National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, and Schedule II, which define the jurisdiction, powers, and procedures of the NGT.
• Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 48, which deals with illegal storage of debris.
• Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act): Section 154, which empowers the state government to issue directions for efficient administration, and Sections 14, 16, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, and 116, which outline the procedures for preparing regional and development plans.
• National Highways Act, 1956: Sections 4 and 5, which define national highways and the responsibilities for their maintenance.
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Sections 2 and 3, which define environment, environmental pollutants, and the powers of the Central Government to protect the environment.

The Supreme Court quoted the definition of “environment” from the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:

“environment” includes water, air and land and the inter- relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property”

The Court also referred to Section 17(1) of the NGT Act, which states:

“Where death of, or injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property or environment has resulted from an accident or the adverse impact of an activity or operation or process, under any enactment specified in Schedule I, the person responsible shall be liable to pay such relief or compensation for such death, injury or damage, under all or any of the heads specified in Schedule II, as may be determined by the Tribunal.”

Arguments

NHAI’s Arguments:

• The NHAI argued that it was not responsible for the environmental degradation that led to the accident. They stated that the illegal mining was not within the highway’s right-of-way.
• They contended that the accident was due to an act of God (heavy rains) and the blockage caused by debris from Rathod’s mining.
• NHAI highlighted that they had notified the local administration about the illegal mining, but no action was taken.
• They argued that they could not be held liable for damages or environmental restoration.

Rathod’s Arguments:

• Rathod argued that the NGT did not properly implead the legal representatives of the deceased.
• He claimed that the NGT’s findings were based on a one-sided view and that he was not primarily responsible for the degradation.
• Rathod stated that he had a mining license and any irregularities were cured by paying a fine.
• He also argued that the NHAI was responsible for maintaining the drainage system, which was the main cause of the flooding.

Third-Party Appellants’ Arguments:

• These appellants challenged the NGT’s directions to stop construction within 100 feet of hills, arguing that it was illogical and lacked scientific basis.
• They argued that the directions were vague and would have a devastating impact on hilly terrains.
• They stated that the state government’s notification was contrary to the MRTP Act, as it altered the master plan without following the prescribed procedure.

Lokmanch’s Arguments:

• The Lokmanch argued that NHAI, the concessionaire, Rathod, and the state government failed to take adequate measures to prevent the accident.
• They highlighted that the water channels were narrow and clogged with debris.
• They stated that Rathod exceeded his mining permit, causing hill destruction and environmental damage.
• They argued that the NGT had the jurisdiction to order compensation.

State of Maharashtra’s Arguments:

• The state supported the NGT’s order and stated that it had the jurisdiction to issue general directions for environmental protection.
• They argued that the Bombay High Court correctly upheld the exercise of regulatory power under Section 154 of the MRTP Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. The jurisdiction of the NGT to award compensation.
2. The merits and soundness of the NGT’s decision to award compensation and the legal principles applicable.
3. The NGT’s wide directions with respect to the ban on construction in and around foothills.
4. The vires of the directions/notifications issued under Section 154, MRTP Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

On the jurisdiction and powers of the NGT:

• Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi [2001 (6) SCC 496] – Ponds are public utility and cannot be commercialized.
• Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1510] – Applied Hinch Lal in the context of NGT orders.
• State of Meghalaya and Ors. vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee & Ors. [2019 (8) SCC 177] – Affirmed NGT directions on mining’s adverse impact on the environment.
• Mantri Technozone Pvt. Ltd. v Forward Foundation [2019 (18) SCC 494] – NGT has special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights.
• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India [2019 (15) SCC 401] – Supported NGT’s power to issue binding directions.

On environmental protection and mining:

• State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone & Ors [1981 (2) SCC 205] – Natural resources are a nation’s wealth and must be conserved.
• Lafarge Umiam Mining (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [2011(7) SCC 338] – Environmental protection is a matter of degree, requiring choices.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2004) 12 SCC 118] – Mining operations are hazardous and require strict regulation.
• Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] – Mining of minor minerals needs strict regulatory parameters.

On the duty of care of highway authorities:

• Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum [(1997) 9 SCC 552] – Examined the duty of care of public authorities.
• Griffiths v. Liverpool Corporation [[1967] 1 Q.B. 374] – Highway authorities have an absolute duty to maintain highways.
• Burnside v. Emerson [[1968] 1 W.L.R. 1490] – Highways must be in good repair for ordinary traffic.
• Haydon v. Kent County Council [[1978] Q.B. 343] – Duty to maintain highways does not include ensuring that road surfaces are clean at all times.
• Stovin v Wise [1996 (3) All ER 801] – Statutory power cannot be converted into a common law duty.
• Gorringe v. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004 (1) WLR 1057] – Reiterated the principle that public duty does not extend to a private duty of care.
• Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2019 (2) All ER 1041] – Public authorities are generally subject to the same liabilities in tort as private individuals.
• Yetkin v. Mahmood [2011 QB 827] – Local authority has a duty of care to prevent obstruction of visibility on roads.
• Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Sushila Devi [(1999) 4 SCC 317] – Owner of a tree by the side of the road is liable for injury caused by its fall.
• Vadodara Municipal Corporation v Purshottam V . Muranji [2014 (16) SCC 145] – Statutory corporations can be liable for defective supervision.

On the nature of regulatory adjudication:

• Securities Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp [332 U.S. 194 (1947)] – Regulatory agencies can establish interpretations on a case-by-case basis.
• PTC India v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [2010 (4) SCC 603] – Regulatory bodies have both decision-making and regulation-making functions.

On town planning and development:

• T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member [(2006) 8 SCC 502] – Courts should not interfere with town planning legislation.
• Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Promoters and Builders Assn [(2004) 10 SCC 796] – Modification of development plans is a legislative function.
• Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao v. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority [(2011) 12 SCC 154] – Land use must conform to the master plan.
• MIG Cricket Club v. Abhinav Sahakar Education Society [(2011) 9 SCC 97] – Town planning requires expertise and is best left to the state government.

On administrative orders and natural justice:

• Shri. Sitaram Sugar Mills Company v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 223] – Delegated power must be exercised reasonably.
• Cellular Operators Association v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [(2016) 7 SCC 703] – Subordinate legislation can be set aside if it lacks rationale.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi [CITATION] and Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors [CITATION] to emphasize that environmental bodies like ponds are of public utility and must be protected.

✓ The Court cited State of Meghalaya and Ors. vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee & Ors. [CITATION], Mantri Technozone Pvt. Ltd. v Forward Foundation [CITATION], and Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India [CITATION] to support the NGT’s jurisdiction and power to issue binding directions for environmental protection.

✓ The Court referred to State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone & Ors [CITATION] and Lafarge Umiam Mining (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [CITATION] to highlight the importance of conserving natural resources and the principle of sustainable development.

✓ The Court cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [CITATION] and Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [CITATION] to emphasize the hazardous nature of mining and the need for strict regulation of both major and minor minerals.

✓ The Court used Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum [CITATION], Griffiths v. Liverpool Corporation [CITATION], Burnside v. Emerson [CITATION], Haydon v. Kent County Council [CITATION], Stovin v Wise [CITATION], Gorringe v. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [CITATION], and Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [CITATION] to discuss the common law and statutory duties of highway authorities and the limits of liability for omissions.

✓ The Court relied on Yetkin v. Mahmood [CITATION] and Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Sushila Devi [CITATION] to establish that public authorities have a duty of care to prevent foreseeable dangers on roads and adjacent areas.

✓ The Court referred to Vadodara Municipal Corporation v Purshottam V . Muranji [CITATION] to highlight that statutory corporations can be held liable for defective supervision.

✓ The Court cited Securities Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp [CITATION] and PTC India v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [CITATION] to support the idea that regulatory bodies can establish interpretations and directions through both individual orders and general rules.

✓ The Court used T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member [CITATION], Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Promoters and Builders Assn [CITATION], Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao v. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority [CITATION], and MIG Cricket Club v. Abhinav Sahakar Education Society [CITATION] to emphasize that town planning is a specialized function best left to the expertise of the state government and that courts should not interfere in such matters.

✓ The Court referred to Shri. Sitaram Sugar Mills Company v. Union of India [CITATION] and Cellular Operators Association v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [CITATION] to underscore the principle that delegated powers must be exercised reasonably and that subordinate legislation can be set aside if it lacks rationale.

Reasoning of the Court:

The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s jurisdiction to award compensation, emphasizing its role in environmental protection and the enforcement of environmental laws. The Court noted that the NGT is empowered to provide relief for environmental damage and violations of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

The Court found NHAI and Rathod liable for negligence and environmental damage. NHAI was held responsible for failing to maintain the highway and prevent foreseeable dangers, while Rathod was liable for illegal mining and its environmental consequences. The Court directed the revival of the civil suit for final determination of liability.

The Court set aside the NGT’s directions regarding a blanket ban on construction near foothills. The Court found these directions to be too broad, lacking in scientific basis, and procedurally flawed. It emphasized that such restrictions must be based on expert opinion and scientific evidence, and must be implemented through a proper planning process.

The Court quashed the State of Maharashtra’s notification issued under Section 154 of the MRTP Act. It found the notification to be arbitrary, lacking in reasons, and not preceded by proper consultations. The Court held that the notification was solely based on the flawed directions of the NGT and was thus unsustainable.

The Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach between environmental protection and development. It stressed that while environmental concerns are paramount, restrictions must be reasonable, based on scientific evidence, and implemented through a proper legal process.

The Court highlighted that both public authorities and private individuals have a duty of care to prevent foreseeable dangers and environmental damage. It also emphasized that public authorities are generally subject to the same liabilities in tort as private individuals, and they cannot evade responsibility by claiming lack of resources or statutory limitations.

Sentiment Analysis:

The overall sentiment of the judgment is one of strong emphasis on environmental protection and the need for accountability from both public and private actors. The Court shows a critical view of arbitrary and sweeping measures that lack scientific basis and procedural compliance. It demonstrates a balanced approach, acknowledging the importance of both environmental protection and the need for reasonable development. The Court also shows a firm stance against negligence and a commitment to ensuring justice for the victims of environmental damage. The Court is critical of the State’s actions in issuing a notification based on a flawed order of the NGT.

Final Order

The Supreme Court’s final order was as follows:

• The appeals filed by NHAI and Rathod were partly allowed and partly dismissed.
• The NGT’s order was modified.
• The directions of the NGT regarding the ban on construction within 100 feet of hills were set aside.
• The notification issued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 154 of the MRTP Act was quashed.
• The civil suit was revived for final determination of liability and compensation.
• NHAI and Rathod were held liable for negligence and environmental damage.
• The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Implications

This judgment has several significant implications:

• Liability of Highway Authorities: Highway authorities like NHAI cannot evade liability for accidents caused by environmental damage near their roads. They have a duty to maintain highways and prevent foreseeable dangers.
• Environmental Responsibility: The judgment reinforces the principle that both public and private entities are responsible for preventing environmental damage. Illegal mining and other activities that harm the environment can lead to liability for damages.
• Importance of Scientific Evidence: Restrictions on construction or development must be based on scientific evidence and expert opinion, not arbitrary decisions.
• Procedural Compliance: Regulatory measures must be implemented through a proper legal process, including consultations and reasoned decision-making.
• NGT Jurisdiction: The NGT’s jurisdiction to award compensation for environmental damage is affirmed, emphasizing its crucial role in environmental justice.
• Balance between Development and Environment: The judgment underscores the need for a balanced approach between development and environmental protection, ensuring that both are given due consideration.
• Duty of Care: The judgment reinforces the concept of a duty of care for public authorities to prevent foreseeable dangers and environmental damage.

Flowchart