Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Registrar National Green Tribunal on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjay Kumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2963 OF 2022
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR,
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
By way of this appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the appellant- State of Tamil Nadu through its District Collector, Virudhunagar has questioned the order dated 03.03.2022, as passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘The Tribunal’) with the grievance, essentially, to the effect that the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order without hearing them and squarely contrary to the order passed by this Court on 21.01.2022.
2. Having regard to the position that the matter was dealt with by the Tribunal suo motu and there had Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.04.21 19:06:29 IST not been any impleaded respondent as such, the Reason: appellant herein has filed this appeal only while impleading the Registrar of the Tribunal as party- 2 respondent.
3. Nobody has appeared for the respondent-Registrar despite service and, in our view, rightly so. But, having regard to the circumstances, we had requested the learned senior counsel Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde to assist us in the matter while providing that Mr. Ankit Yadav, learned Advocate-on-record, shall be assisting him.
4. We have heard the learned senior counsel Mr. Jaideep Gupta for the appellant and the learned senior counsel Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, ably assisted by Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate-on-record.
5. The learned amicus has also placed a detailed note for consideration.
6. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 remains unsustainable for being in violation of the principles of natural justice as also being not in conformity with the order passed by this Court in relation to the same matter on 21.01.2022. In the given set of circumstances, we are constrained to adopt the course of setting aside the impugned order and re-relegating the parties to the Tribunal for 3 reconsideration of the entire matter afresh. For the course so proposed to be adopted, we are not elaborating on all the factual aspects; only a brief reference to the background would suffice.
7. In the wake of a fire accident that took place in SreeMariyammal Fireworks factory functioning at Achankulam Village, Vembakkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District on 12.02.2021, wherein about 27 persons died and 26 persons were injured, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Tribunal on the basis of a media report. The proceedings so initiated by the Tribunal were registered as Original Application No.44 of 2021. A Committee consisting of eight members and headed by a former High Court Judge was constituted by the Tribunal to ascertain the cause of death and extent of damage as also to suggest the remedial measures. The Committee submitted its report dated 22.04.2021 before the Tribunal.
8. Acting on the said report, the Tribunal passed a detailed order on 11.06.2021 and, while applying the principles of absolute liability, issued a slew of directions.
9. While questioning the aforesaid order dated 11.06.2021, two appeals were filed in this Court: (i) 4 by Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufacturers Association (‘TANFAMA’), being Civil Appeal No.423 of 2022; and (ii) by the present appellant-State of Tamil Nadu, being Civil Appeal No.6118 of 2021. These appeals were considered together and were disposed of by this Court by the common order dated 21.01.2022.
10. This Court took note of the fact that the order impugned was passed by the Tribunal ex parte against the parties concerned, including the appellants; and, in the interest of justice, this Court considered it appropriate to set aside the orders so passed by the Tribunal and to relegate the parties before the Tribunal for reconsideration of entire matter afresh ‘after giving opportunity to the concerned parties including the appellants.’ The said order dated 21.01.2022 reads as under:
“Permission to file appeal(s) is granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, who had appeared pursuant to notice issued in the concerned appeals.
The appeals assail the decision of the National Green Tribunal, dated 11.06.2021 in Original Application No. 44/2021.
The primary question raised in the appeals about the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal to initiate suo motu proceedings stands concluded in terms of the decision of this Court in “Municipal Corporation of Greater 5 Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors.” reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 897.
As has been mentioned in the said judgment, the Tribunal, even if were to initiate suo motu action, must put every person likely to be affected by its decision, to notice and give opportunity of hearing before passing final orders.
In the impugned judgment, it is noted that in spite of notice, the authorities and concerned parties did not enter appearance. In that sense, the matter proceeded ex parte against the concerned parties including the appellants.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate the parties before the National Green Tribunal for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh after giving opportunity to the concerned parties including the appellants, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
All contentions available to the parties are left open.
The parties appearing through learned counsel before this Court shall appear before the National Green Tribunal on 14.02.2022, on which date the Tribunal may proceed with the matter or assign a suitable date for hearing, as may be convenient to it.
The appeals and pending applications are disposed of accordingly.”
11. Pursuant to the order so passed by this Court, the said other appellant-TANFAMA filed one application before the Tribunal, which was registered as I.A. No.49 of 2022, stating therein that the order passed by the Tribunal would be affecting about 1100 6 factories functioning in the country.
12. The learned amicus has taken pains to examine the relevant aspects of the case and has also placed before us a copy of the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Tribunal. From the contents of the said order, it is apparent that the Tribunal proceeded as if TANAFAMA was the only appellant in this Court and that Association alone was to be heard.
13. It appears that the Tribunal took up the matter on 03.03.2022 when none of the other parties, including the present appellant-State, were present.
The said applicant/appellant-TANFAMA merely stated that the order passed by the Tribunal might be a bad precedent for future and that the said factory, where the incident took place, was not its member. It appears that a submission was also made on behalf of TANFAMA questioning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the issue of compensation to the victims when there was, otherwise, no case for damage caused to the environment. After having heard the submissions made on behalf of TANFAMA, the Tribunal proceeded to reproduce various passages from the report submitted by the Committee constituted by it and, inter alia, issued the directions in the 7 following terms:
“10. From the report, it is clear that 27 persons have died and 26 injured on account of fire incidents which were result of unscientific handling of hazardous chemicals in violation of law. We also find that scale of compensation based on restitution principle needs to be awarded. Procedure of this Tribunal is summary and akin to public law remedy. Compensation can be assessed on reasonable basis guided by restitution principle atleast at floor level, leaving other remedies of the victims open. Thus, broadly agreeing with the Committee, we direct that the scale of compensation should be Rs.20 lakhs in respect of each of the deceased victims and Rs.15 lakhs to persons who have burns in excess of 50% and Rs.10 lakhs for persons who have burns from 25 to 50% and Rs.5 lakhs for persons who have injuries between 5 to 25%. Victims who were treated as outpatients and who had but minor degree of burns or other forms of simple injuries shall be paid Rs.2 lakhs.
11. Accordingly, we hold that the compensation assessed has to be paid by the State of Tamil Nadu through the District Magistrate, Virudhunagar. Compliance will be responsibility of the Chief Secretary. Payment be ensured within one month from today. Ex gratia amount already paid may be deducted. We request the TN State Legal Services authority to provide legal aid to ensure that payment is made to genuine heirs of the deceased and to the injured without undue hassle.”
14. The Tribunal also made various other directions in regard to the remedial measures to be taken and for that purpose, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu was directed to hold a meeting and after necessary deliberations, remedial 8 measures be identified and implemented through the District Magistrate. Other directions were also issued to the State Pollution Control Board.
15. On a perusal of the record, it would appear that the substantial part of directions aforesaid had been the same as were issued in the earlier order dated 11.06.2021. Be that as it may, grievance of the appellant-State of Tamil Nadu is that various findings have been recorded and directions of far-
reaching implications have been issued by the Tribunal but, without extending an opportunity of hearing to them.
16. It is but evident that this Court had passed the order dated 21.01.2022 in relation to two appeals where one was filed by the present appellant. This aspect seems to have escaped the attention of the Tribunal altogether. As per the observations occurring in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal took note only of the appeal filed by TANFAMA in this Court, but not the other appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.6118 of 2021 filed by the present appellant. Even from the other passages of the impugned order, it does not appear if the Tribunal at all took note of the fact that the 9 appellant-State was required to be heard in the matter, particularly in view of the order passed by this Court.
17. In fact, apart from containing the description of both the appeals, the contents of the order passed by this Court was clear and explicit that the matter was to be reconsidered after giving opportunity to the parties concerned including the appellant.
18. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the impugned order dated 03.03.2022, having been passed without hearing the appellant and several directions having been issued against the appellant-State, cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of this case and looking to the subject-matter, we deem it appropriate that the matter be re-examined by the Tribunal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
19. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The impugned order dated 03.03.2022 is set aside and the matter involved in Original Application No.44 of 2021 stands restored for reconsideration of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
20. Having regard to the circumstances of the case 10 and for what has been observed hereinabove, we would request the Tribunal to reconsider the entire matter afresh and for that purpose, to extend adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, including the appellant-State of Tamil Nadu.
21. The appellant through its counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the Tribunal on 16.05.2023.
22. While concluding on the matter and extending thanks and compliments to the learned amicus and his associate, on the proposition of honorarium, the learned senior counsel Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, in all fairness, has declined to accept any honorarium. His submissions are taken on record. However, so far learned Advocate-on-record, Mr. Ankit Yadav is concerned, for his assistance to learned senior counsel Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde as also to this Court, in our view, he should be adequately remunerated for his services. Therefore, it is directed that the appellant-State of Tamil Nadu shall make payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) towards services rendered by Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate-on- record in this matter within two weeks from today.
23. With the observations and requirements foregoing, this appeal stands disposed of. 11
24. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
....................,J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI) ....................,J.
(SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;
APRIL 18, 2023.
12
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2963/2022
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR, NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL Respondent(s)
(IA No. 58593/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 58596/2022 - STAY APPLICATION) Date : 18-04-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv.
Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv.
Ms. Manicka Priya. S, Adv.
Ms. Bano Deswal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Mr. Shahrukh Ali, Adv.
Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Gajjala Bhaskar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (RANJANA SHAILEY) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file.)