Supreme Court Orders Re-adjudication of Stone Crusher Pollution Case: Tejinder Kumar Jolly vs. State of Uttarakhand (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 November 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 748
Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a regulatory body like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) close a case without a proper hearing, especially when it involves serious allegations of environmental pollution? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning stone crushers operating in violation of environmental norms. The Court emphasized that environmental concerns necessitate thorough scrutiny and substantive deliberation, ensuring that orders impacting the right to a clean environment are based on careful consideration of the facts. This judgment underscores the importance of environmental laws and the need for their strict enforcement, even for long-standing industrial units. The bench comprised Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The case revolves around two stone crusher units in Village Fatta Bangar, Haldwani, Nainital District, operated by respondents 4 and 5. The appellants, Tejinder Kumar Jolly and his father (now deceased), raised concerns about the units operating in violation of environmental norms, causing significant noise and air pollution, and being located near residential areas, schools, and agricultural fields. A complaint was filed on 10th November 2013 by the Principal of the Government Inter College, Moti Nagar, stating that the stone crushers’ operations were disrupting teaching and affecting the health of students and teachers. The Deputy Director, Mining, also acknowledged these concerns in a letter dated 26th March 2014, noting that the stone crushers were near residential houses and causing pollution. Reports from the Pollution Control Board indicated that the units lacked valid permissions under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and were operating beyond established norms.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the appellants filed O.A. No. 332 of 2017 before the NGT, seeking the closure or relocation of the stone crushers. The NGT passed an interim order restricting the operating hours of the units, which was later modified to allow loading and unloading until 8 p.m. Following a joint inspection, the NGT disposed of O.A. No. 332 of 2017 on 3.4.2018, directing the stone crushers to relocate by 30th November 2018. This order was challenged by the stone crusher operators in the Supreme Court, which set aside the NGT’s order and remitted the matter back to the NGT for fresh consideration. On 11.12.2018, after the Supreme Court remand, the NGT passed a fresh order disposing of the O.A. No. 332/2017 whereby the onus was shifted to the State Government to assess the functioning of the stone crushers and in the event, they are found violating any of the environmental norms, steps were to be taken for closure of the offending units. The appellants then filed an Execution Petition (EP No. 2/2018) when the NGT’s directions were not followed. The Uttarakhand Government submitted a report on 21.2.2019, highlighting several violations by the stone crusher units. This report was registered as a fresh O.A. No. 449/2019 by the NGT. The appellants withdrew their Execution Application No. 2/2018. Subsequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeal Diary No. 11823/2019, directing the State Government to take appropriate action based on the findings of the report. However, the NGT, on 27.08.2019, disposed of O.A. No. 449/2019 without adjudication, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several key environmental laws:

• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: This Act provides for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of the wholesomeness of water. The stone crushers were found to be operating without the necessary permissions under this Act.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: This Act aims to prevent, control, and abate air pollution. The stone crushers were also found to be operating without the necessary permissions under this Act and were exceeding permissible noise levels.
• The judgment also refers to the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which provides for the protection and improvement of the environment and the prevention of hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property.

These Acts collectively form the legal framework for environmental protection in India and are crucial for ensuring that industrial activities do not harm the environment or public health. The Supreme Court emphasized that these laws are socio-beneficial and enacted to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, thereby requiring strict compliance from all industrial units, irrespective of their age of establishment.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The appellants contended that the stone crushers were operating in violation of environmental norms, causing significant noise and air pollution, and were located near residential areas, schools, and agricultural fields.
• They argued that despite multiple reports from government authorities and the Pollution Control Board highlighting these violations, no concrete action was taken to shut down or relocate the stone crushers.
• The appellants submitted that the NGT should have adjudicated O.A. No. 449/2019 on its merits, especially after the State Government’s report revealed violations.
• They emphasized that the NGT’s order to dispose of the case without proper adjudication was a miscarriage of justice and went against the purpose of environmental laws.

Arguments of the Respondents (Stone Crusher Operators):

• The respondents argued that their stone crusher units were old, operating since 1985, and should not be forced to relocate due to later developments in environmental regulations.
• They contended that they had been operating legally under the permissions granted to them at the time of establishment.
• They argued that the environmental norms should not apply retrospectively to them, and they should not be penalized for complying with the laws as they existed when they started operations.

Arguments of the State Government:

• The State Government acknowledged the violations reported by its own authorities and the Pollution Control Board.
• They submitted that the NGT had directed them to assess the functioning of the stone crushers and take action if violations were found.
• They agreed that the NGT should have adjudicated O.A. No. 449/2019 on its merits, instead of closing the proceedings.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was correct in disposing of O.A. No. 449/2019 without adjudicating the matter on its merits, particularly when the State Government’s report had highlighted violations of environmental norms by the stone crushers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (O.A. NO. 123/2014) – National Green Tribunal: This case was cited by the NGT itself, emphasizing that environmental laws are for the benefit of the public and apply to existing units as well as new ones. The NGT had declared that existing mining mine holders would be required to comply with the requirements of environmental laws.

Statutes:

• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: The Court noted that the stone crushers were operating without the necessary permissions under this Act.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: The Court also noted that the stone crushers were operating without the necessary permissions under this Act and were exceeding permissible noise levels.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (O.A. NO. 123/2014)*: The Court followed the principle established in this case, emphasizing that environmental laws are for the benefit of the public and apply to all units, regardless of when they were established.
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: The Court noted that the stone crushers were operating without the necessary permissions under this Act, highlighting the violation of legal provisions.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: The Court also noted that the stone crushers were operating without the necessary permissions under this Act, further emphasizing the violation of environmental norms.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that environmental laws are strictly enforced, and that regulatory bodies like the NGT must carry out their duties diligently. The Court emphasized that:

• Public interest warrants action against polluting units, irrespective of how long they have been operating.
• Adherence to environmental and pollution norms cannot be compromised due to factual misunderstandings or cryptic determinations.
• Orders that have direct repercussions on the right to a clean environment must be the outcome of careful scrutiny and substantive deliberation.
• The NGT was required to address the grievance on the adverse health impacts on local populace by the stone crushers.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal framework and the need to protect the environment, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case, which were already established by the government reports.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered that the NGT should have addressed the grievance on the adverse health impacts on local populace by the stone crushers. The Tribunal itself had recognized that orders were necessary to resolve the issue. The factual determination had reflected the need to ensure heightened compliance with the environmental norms for the concerned area.

The Court rejected the argument that pre-existing units should be exempt from environmental laws, stating that even those units must comply with current regulations. The Court stated that:

“There can be no quarrel with the proposition that public interest would warrant action against polluting units. This is equally applicable to those industrial units which have been functioning since long. Adherence to the environmental and pollution norms cannot be compromised for factual misunderstandings or due to cryptic determination.”

The Court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny and substantive deliberation in cases that impact the right to a clean environment. It noted that the NGT had not taken the necessary steps to ensure compliance with environmental norms, despite clear evidence of violations. The Court also observed that the NGT had itself directed the State Government to assess the functioning of the stone crushers and take action if violations were found, but then failed to act on the report that confirmed those violations.

The Court cited its previous order in Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan, where it was made clear that even pre-existing units must fall in line with environmental regulations. The Court noted that the NGT itself had ordered registration of O.A. 449/2019 for consideration of the report furnished to the Tribunal, but then failed to act on it. The Court stated:

“At the very least, the Tribunal would be expected to ascertain whether substantial compliance of its earlier orders was made by the two stone crushing units of the respondents.”

The Court concluded that the NGT’s view that O.A. No. 449/2019 did not require adjudication was incorrect and set aside the impugned order, restoring the case for adjudication on merit.

The Court stated:

“We are therefore of the opinion that the view taken in the impugned order to the effect that the O.A. No.449/2019 does not require adjudication, does not appear to be in order and the same is therefore set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• Environmental laws apply to all industrial units, regardless of when they were established.
• Regulatory bodies like the NGT must ensure that environmental norms are strictly enforced.
• Cases involving environmental pollution must be adjudicated on their merits, with careful scrutiny and substantive deliberation.
• Public interest warrants action against polluting units, and adherence to environmental norms cannot be compromised.
• Orders impacting the right to a clean environment must be based on careful consideration of the facts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the NGT to restore O.A. No. 449/2019 and adjudicate the matter on its merits. The NGT was instructed to make its decision without being influenced by the observations made in the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that environmental laws apply to all industrial units, irrespective of their age, and that regulatory bodies must ensure strict enforcement of these laws. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the right to a clean environment is a fundamental right, and that any action that affects this right must be based on careful consideration and substantive deliberation. This judgment reinforces the principle that environmental protection is a paramount concern and that no industrial unit can claim exemption from environmental regulations based on its age of establishment. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Tejinder Kumar Jolly vs. State of Uttarakhand is a significant affirmation of the importance of environmental law and its enforcement. By setting aside the NGT’s order and directing it to adjudicate the matter on its merits, the Supreme Court has ensured that concerns about environmental pollution are taken seriously. The judgment reinforces the principle that all industrial units, regardless of their age, must comply with environmental regulations, and that regulatory bodies must act diligently to protect the environment and public health. This case serves as a reminder that the right to a clean environment is a fundamental right that must be protected through careful scrutiny and substantive deliberation.

Category

Parent Category: Environmental Law
Child Categories:

• Pollution Control
• National Green Tribunal
• Stone Crushers
• Air Pollution
• Water Pollution
• Right to Clean Environment
• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
• Environment Protection Act, 1986

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Tejinder Kumar Jolly vs. State of Uttarakhand case?
A: The main issue was whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was correct in disposing of a case regarding stone crushers causing pollution without a proper hearing.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s order and directed it to re-adjudicate the case on its merits. The Court emphasized that environmental concerns require thorough scrutiny.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for industries?
A: The judgment makes it clear that all industries, regardless of when they were established, must comply with environmental laws. No industry can claim exemption based on its age.

Q: What are the key environmental laws mentioned in the judgment?
A: The key laws mentioned are the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Q: What should regulatory bodies like the NGT do in cases of environmental violations?
A: Regulatory bodies must ensure that environmental norms are strictly enforced. They should adjudicate cases on their merits, with careful scrutiny and substantive deliberation.

Q: What does this judgment mean for the public?
A: This judgment reinforces the right to a clean environment and ensures that polluting industries are held accountable. It emphasizes the importance of environmental protection for public health.