State Pollution Control Board Can't Impose Environmental Compensation Upon Any Person Or Industry: Allahabad High Court

“The State Pollution Control Board has no power to impose environmental compensation upon any person or Industry and it can merely file an application before the NGT under Section 15 read with Section 18 of the NGT Act for issuance of a direction to the person concerned for payment of compensation,” it said.

Multiple petitioners approached the High Court challenging various orders passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board imposing environmental compensation on them on grounds that the jurisdiction for adjudicating claims for environmental damage is with National Green Tribunal. It was argued that the UP Pollution Control Board ought to have filed an application under Section 18 of the NGT Act before the Tribunal, rather than directly passing orders.

Counsel for Board however argued that direction issued by the Board under Section 33-A of the Water Act are appealable before NGT under Section 33-B of the Water Act and Section 16 of the NGT Act. It was argued that NGT does not have original jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such claims.

Perusing various provisions of the NGT Act, the Court observed,

“the NGT has been constituted as an expert body and it has been conferred with the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment is involved. Payment of compensation for causing damage to environment is a civil dispute and it involves a substantial question relating to environment. Therefore, the NGT has been conferred with the jurisdiction to decide the cases relating to award of compensation, including the compensation under the Water Act and the Air Act.”

The Court agreed with the decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Splendor Landbase Ltd. where it held that Section 33-A of the Water Act does not empower the Pollution Control Board to levy penalties. It held that penalties can only be levied by Courts who can take cognizance of offence. It held,

“Section 33-B of the Water Act and Section 31-A of the Air Act confer power upon the Board to issue directions of administrative nature and it does not confer any adjudicatory power on the Board, which power vests in the NGT only.”

The Court further held that there was no law enacted by the State to enable the Board to impose and recover environmental compensation from any industry. It held that the power to adjudicate on the issue of compensation was statutory in nature and was vested with the NGT by virtue of law.

It referred to Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India where the Apex Court had held that industries/ organisation which have complaints can approach the Pollution Control Board who has to act in accordance with law. The High Court held that once such direction had been issued, the Pollution Control Board can only act in terms of the provisions of the law and file an application for compensation before the NGT under Section 15 read with Section 18 of the NGT Act. It held that the Board cannot levy compensation on industries.

The Court also held that the NGT was not empowered to delegate the adjudicatory role of determining compensation on the State Pollution Control Board. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed.

Noting that the State Government had the power to enact laws regarding water pollution but the same had not been done in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed that it hoped that laws regarding pollution controls would be streamlined.

Case Title: Suez India Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra Mathpal v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman And 6 Others [WRIT - C No. - 4816 of 2024]