Sou Motu Action On The News Regarding ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025

[Cites 89, Cited by 0]

National Green Tribunal

Sou Motu Action On The News Regarding ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025

Item No.04

                BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                    CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
                     (Through Video Conferencing)

                     Original Application No.20/2024(CZ)
                       (I.A.No.69/2025, I.A.No.70/2025,
             I.A.No.75/2025, I.A. No.96/2025, I.A. No.109/2025
                    I.A. No.110/2025 & I.A. No.111/2025)

Suo Moto action on the News regarding
blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District
of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024                                       Suo Motu

                                         Vs

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.                                         Respondent(s)


Date of Hearing: 16.10.2025

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
       HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER


For Applicant (s):                     Suo Motu,

For Respondent(s) :                    Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. for State of M.P.
                                       Mr. Parag Gupta, Adv. for R-4&5,
                                       Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. for R-8,
                                       Dr. Sapna Aggarwal, Adv. for MoEF&CC
                                       Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Adv. for R-2,
                                       Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Adv. for CPCB
                                       Ms. Parul Bhadoria, for MPPCB
                                       Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for R-6,
                                       Ms. Avani Bansal, Adv. with
                                       Mr.Aishwaraya Choudhary,Adv. for Intervener


                                     ORDER

(I.A. No.25/2024):

1. The matter was taken up by this Tribunal in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 17.09.2025 passed in W.P. No.36953 of 2025 which is quoted below:-

"ORDER Per. Justice Vivek Agarwal Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset and very fairly submits that in terms of the notice contained in Annexure-P/10 for 1 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

auction of his property, since no bidder appear, therefore, as on today no auction has taken place.

In view of such facts, we would like to reiterate our order dated 16.6.2025 and again make a request to the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal in Original Application No.20/2024 (CZ) to decide the pending Interlocutory Application expeditiously and not later than 10 (ten) days of receipt of certified copy of order passed today.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

2. The perusal of the first page reveals that the order of the Tehsildar dated 09.09.2025 in Revenue Matter No.001-76/2025-26, was challenged but the Hon'ble Court had directed to dispose of the matter in light of the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal, the Appellant/Petitioner, Shri Pradeep Goyal, moved a W.P. No. 20249 of 2025 and the Hon'ble High Court of Madhaya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed an order dated 16.06.2025 as follows:-

"ORDER Per. Justice Vivek Agarwal The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-18) passed by the learned National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal in Original Application No.20/2024(CZ), whereby the learned National Green Tribunal has observed that plea in regard to deletion of name of the petitioner herein from the array of respondents will be decided at the time of final hearing.

2. Petitioner's contention is that in an unfortunate incident, fire took place in the premises of one Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, who was running a firm in the name of Rajesh Fireworks. Petitioner has nothing to do with facilities and establishment of Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, yet he has been fastened with liability to pay interim compensation to the victims and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, learned National Green Tribunal had taken this matter in suo moto cognizance.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner moved an application for deletion of his name as he has nothing to do with said Rajesh Fireworks and has a separate entity, namely, Pradeep Fireworks, learned National Green Tribunal vide impugned order dated 2 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

29.05.2025 contained in Annexure P-18 directed to hear plea for deletion of name of Pradeep Fireworks at the time of final hearing. It is further submitted that by that time, substantial prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner who has nothing to do with Rajesh Fireworks and, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the learned National Green Tribunal to hear and decide plea of the petitioner to delete his name from the array of respondents.

4. Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Akash Malpani, learned counsel has no objection to such plea.

5. In view of such facts, we are of the opinion that if petitioner is guilty, then he should know that on what basis and material prima facie opinion is being formed about his guilt. If petitioner is not guilty and involved, then unnecessarily dragging him in the litigation will not be of any use. Therefore, we set aside the order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-18) passed by the learned National Green Tribunal and direct the learned National Green Tribunal to hear and decide the plea of culpability and involvement of the petitioner and decide it on its own merits.

6. Any observation or passing reference made by us in any manner, shall not prejudice the learned National Green Tribunal in deciding the application on its own merits.

7. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

8. In above terms, the writ petition is disposed of."

4. The contention of the Applicant is that his name should be deleted from the proceedings in this matter in which more than 13 persons died due to firecrackers bursting and the Hon'ble Court has directed to decide the following matters.

      i.          Whether the Petitioner is guilty,

      ii.         Prima facie opinion about his guilt,

      iii.        If the petitioner is not guilty, and involved then an unnecessary

dragging him in litigations will not be of any use iv. Plea of culpability and involvement of the petitioner,

5. Learned counsel for the State, the State PCB and the Intervener aggrieved, have submitted that the criminality of the matter or guilt of 3 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

the matter or prima facie opinion of the guilt of the matters with regard to criminal proceedings when charge-sheet has been filed against the accused person, is not within the domain of the National Green Tribunal. The cognizance has been taken by the Sessions Judge and the trial is going on in the competent court. Thus, the culpability, guilt or involvement of the person in any of the offence is subject matter of the criminal proceedings. However, the opposite party served with the notice for filing the objections.

6. Heard the arguments on the point of deletion of name in light of the order of the Hon'ble High Court quoted above.

7. I.A. No.25/2024 was presented by the Applicant through counsel on 02.04.2024 with the facts that the Applicant, Pradeep Goyal/Aggarwal, carries out the business of manufacturing and sale of firecrackers and on 06.02.2024 a fire incident took place in the firecrackers factory of Rajesh Fireworks and that the Applicant is maternal cousin of Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and Soumesh Aggarwal. It is further submitted that the distance between the two units are around 20 kilometers and 30 kilometers away and the First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged in the concerned Police Station against the accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that the Applicant is not the owner nor the employee, thus his name has been wrongly arrayed in the proceedings.

8. The submissions of the learned counsel for the State and the aggrieved are that it is an admitted fact that the Applicant carries out the business of manufacturing and sale of firecrackers and huge quantity of firecrackers which is more than the required capacity was recovered from the possession of the persons concerned and the authorities are proceedings according to rules. It is further submitted that the charge-

sheet has been submitted and matter is pending before Sessions Court.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

9. It is to be noted that when the Applicant moved the application before this Tribunal by means of I.A. No.25/2024 on 02.04.2024 the Session Judge has passed two orders on the different bail applications of the applicant which are quoted below:-

(B.A. No.72/2024):

आदे श की प्रतितिति 28.02.2024 पीठासीन अधिकारी महोदय के अवकाश पर होने से यह जमानत आवेदन कमाां क-

72/2024 मेरे समक्ष पेश।

सांबांधित धिधपक द्वारा बताया गया धक आरक्षी केन्द्र धसधवि िाईन हरदा के अपराि क्रमाां क- 42/2024 से सांबांधित अन्य अधियुक्त के धनयधमत जमानत आवेदन पत्र की सुनवाई इसी न्यायािय द्वारा की गई है ।

आरक्षी केन्द्र धसधवि िाईन हरदा से अपराि कमाां क-42/2024 की केस डायरी अांतगगत िारा 304, 308, 427, 429, 435, 436, 120बी, 34 िा.दां .धव. एवां िारा 3, 4, 6 धवस्फोटक पदार्ग अधिधनयम एवां िारा 5, 9ख धवस्फोटक अधिधनयम, मेरे समक्ष पेश। आवेदक/अधियुक्त की ओर से श्री राजेश दु बे अधिवक्ता एवां श्री राजेश तापध़िया अधिवक्ता उपस्थित ।

राज्य की ओर से श्री सांजय गौर, िोक अधियोजक एवां श्री ए.आर. रोधहत डी.पी.ओ. उपस्थित ।

आवेदक/अधियुक्त के आवेदन अांतगगत िारा 438 दां .प्र.सां. पर उियपक्ष को सुना गया। केस डायरी का अविोकन धकया गया।

आवेदक/अधियुक्त द्वारा यह अधिम जमानत आवेदन अांतगगत िारा 438 दां .प्र.सां. प्रस्तुत करते हुये मुख्यतः यह अधिकधर्त धकया गया है धक आवेदक/अधियुक्त की घटना िि वािे िान पर कोई फेक्ट्र ी नहीां र्ी। आवेदक/अधियुक्त के पास फटाका बनाने का िाइसेंस है , धजसकी फैक्ट्र ी घटना िि से 15 धक.मी. दू र है । प्रर्म सूचना ररपोटग में आवेदक का कोई नाम नहीां है ।

आवेदक/अधियुक्त को धववेचना के दौरान अधियुक्त बनाने का प्रयास धकया जा रहा है । आवेदक/अधियुक्त का चोयर्राम अस्पताि में िगातार इिाज चि रहा है। आवेदक/अधियुक्त पर आरोधपत अपराि मृत्युदांड एवां आजीवन कारावास से दां डनीय नहीां है । आवेदक / अधियुक्त न्यायािय के क्षेत्राधिकाररता में स्थित अचि सांपधि का माधिक है और उसके फरार होने की कोई सांिावना नहीां है । जेि जाने से उसकी प्रधतष्ठा िूधमि होगी। अांत में आवेदक/अधियुक्त को अधिम जमानत पर छो़िे जाने का धनवेदन धकया गया है । अधियुक्त को मामिे की कोई जानकारी नहीां है । आवेदक/अधियुक्त की प्लास्थिक सजगरी हुई है और उसे जेि िेजा जाता है तो उसे सांक्रमण होने की सांिावना है। आवेदक की ओर से अशोक कुमार का शपर्पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुये यह व्यक्त धकया गया है धक आवेदक का यह अधिम जमानत आवेदन है । इसी प्रकृधत का अन्य कोई आवेदन धकसी सक्षम न्यायािय से न तो धनराकृत हुये हैं और न ही धकसी सक्षम न्यायािय में िांधबत है ।

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

अधियोजन की ओर से आवेदन का धवरोि करते हुये यह व्यक्त धकया गया है धक आवेदक/अधियुक्त की घटना िि पर फैक्ट्र ी होने के सांबांि में इां कम टे क्स ररटनग, धबजिी धबि, जी.एस.टी. के दस्तावेज आधद प्राप्त हुये है तर्ा आवेदक/अधियुक्त िी घटना धदनाां क को घटना िि पर मौजूद र्ा। आवेदक/अधियुक्त अन्य सह अधियुक्त के सार् फटाका फैक्ट्र ी का िागीदार िी रहा है। आवेदक/अधियुक्त का कृत्य गांिीर प्रकृधत का है । अन्वेषण में उसकी आवश्यकता है । अांत में जमानत आवेदन धनरस्त धकये जाने का धनवेदन धकया गया। केस डायरी के सांपूणग अविोकन से यह प्रकट होता है धक धदनाां क 06.02.2024 को बैरागढ़ में स्थिधत फटाका फैक्ट्र ी में धवस्फोट हुआ और उसके कारण कई िोगोां की मृत्यु हुई तर्ा कई िोग घायि हुये और आसपास की सांपधियोां को िी क्षधत काररत हुई। केस डायरी के अविोकन से यह िी प्रकट होता है धक क्षधतिस्त धनमाग ण से 37,540 धकिोिाम धवस्फोटक िी बरामद हुआ। केस डायरी के प्रर्मदृष्टया अविोकन से यह प्रकट होता है धक फटाका फैक्ट्र ी के सांचािन में दाधयत्वािीन व्यस्थक्तयााँ द्वारा धवस्फोट धनयम 2008 के धनयमोां का घोर उल्लांघन धकया गया।

प्रकरण में आवेदक/अधियुक्त की ओर से मुख्यत : यह तकग धकया गया है धक घटना िि पर उसकी कोई फैक्ट्र ी नहीां है और इस सांबांि में अनुज्ञस्थप्तपत्र की प्रधत प्रस्तुत की गई है , धजसमें अनुज्ञप्त पररसर कांजरगाां व होना बताया गया है । वस्तुतः उक्त िाइसेंस के आिार पर यह धनष्कषग नहीां धनकािा जा सकता धक आवेदक/अधियुक्त का घटना िि वािे िान के सांबांि में कोई सांबांि नहीां र्ा।

केस डायरी के अविोकन से यह प्रकट होता है धक आवेदक/अधियुक्त द्वारा बैरागढ़ में स्थित फटाका फैक्ट्र ी से आय के सांबांि में ही इां कम टे क्स ररटनग िरा गया है तर्ा जी.एस.टी. आधद िी िरा गया है । केस डायरी में अब तक के अन्वेषण से यह िी प्रकट होता है धक आवेदक/अधियुक्त के फटाका िी उस गोदाम में रखे जाते र्े। प्रकरण में तकग के दौरान उियपक्ष द्वारा इस बात को व्यक्त धकया गया धक आवेदक/अधियुक्त को उसी घटना में चोटें आयी र्ी और वह घटना िि पर पहुां चा र्ा। आवेदक/अधियुक्त के द्वारा इस बारे में तकग धकया गया धक वह घठना के दौरान अपने कायाग िय में र्ा और उसने मजदू रोां को बचाया। वस्तुतः यधद आवेदक/अधियुक्त की फैक्ट्र ी का िाइसेंस कहीां अन्यर्ा तो वहाां ऑधफस खोिकर ऑधफस सांचािन का क्या कारण र्ा और धकस अधिकार पत्र के तहत ऑधफस वहाां से सांचािन धकया जाता र्ा, यह सब एक धवस्तृत धववेचना का धवषय है । प्रकरण में केस डायरी के पररशीिन एवां आरक्षी केन्द्र के प्रधतवेदन से यह प्रकट होता है धक आवेदक/अधियुक्त की प्रर्म दृष्टया सांधिप्तता घटनाक्रम में होनी प्रकट होती है । आवेदक/अधियुक्त की धजस कृत्य में सांधिप्तता प्रर्म दृष्टया होती है , वह गांिीर प्रकृधत का होकर िोक को प्रिाधवत करने वािा है ।

जहाां तक आवेदक/अधियुक्त के इिाज का सांबांि है , उस बारे में यह स्पष्ट है धक अधियोजन यधद बीमारी की हाित में आवेदक/अधियुक्त को अधिरक्षा में िेता है तो धनश्चय ही उस पर ही यह दाधयत्व है धक वह उसका समुधचत इिाज कराये। वस्तुतः इस पूरे मामिे में धजस प्रकार से जन, िन की हाधन हुई है , उसके दृधष्टगत िोकधहत के मुकाबिे आवेदक / अधियुक्त का व्यस्थक्तगत धहत कम मूल्य रखिा है ।

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

यह सुिाधपत है धक जमानत आवेदन के धनराकरण के समय न्यायािय को अपराि की गांिीरता एवां िोक घर उसके प्रिाव को िी धवचार में धिया जाना होता है तर्ा साक्ष्य की धवस्तृत धववेचना नहीां की जानी होती है। आवेदक/अधियुक्त पर 07 वषग से अधिक दां ड से दां डनीय अपराि का आरोप है । इस मामिे में आवेदक/अधियुक्त का कृत्य अत्यधिक गांिीर प्रकृधत का होना प्रकट होता है और प्रर्म दृष्टया उसकी सांधिप्तता के तथ्य एकधत्रत धकये गये हैं । धनश्चय ही इस प्रकरण की पररस्थिधतयोां में आवेदक/अधियुक्त से प्राप्त जानकारी के आिार पर िी वास्तधवक साक्ष्य की खोज सांिव होगी।

अतः प्रकरण की सांपूणग पररस्थिधतयााँ में अधियुक्त के कृत्य की गांिीरता, अन्वेषण हे तु उसकी आवश्यकता आधद को दे खते हुये अधियुक्त को अधिम जमानत का िाि धदया जाना उधचत प्रतीत नहीां होता है । अतः आवेदक/अधियुक्त प्रदीप गोयि की ओर से प्रस्तुत िारा 438 दां .प्र.सां. का अधिम आवेदन उधचत न होने से धनरस्त धकया जाता है । आदे श की प्रधत सधहत केस डायरी वापस हो।

जावे। आदे श की एक प्रधत सांबांधित न्यायािय को िेजी इस जमानत याधचका का पररणाम दजग कर सी. आई.एस. में उधचत प्रधवधष्ट कर तर्ा धनयमानुसार अपिोड कर धनयत समयावधि में अधििेखागार में िेजा जावे।"

"(B.A. No.93/2024):

21.03.2024 माननीय, सत्र न्यायािीश महोदय के न्यायािय से अांतरण पर यह जमानत आवेदन पत्र क्रमाां क-93/2024, र्ाना धसधवि िाईन हरदा के अपराि कमाां क-42/2024 की केस डायरी अांतगगत िारा 304, 308, 427, 429, 435, 436, 120बी, 34 िा.दां .धव. एवां िारा 3,4,6 धवस्फोटक पदार्ग अधिधनयम 1908, िारा 5, 9ख धवस्फोटक अधिधनयम 1884 सधहत मेरे समक्ष पेश।

आवेदक/अधियुक्त की ओर से श्री राजेश दु बे अधिवक्ता व श्री आर.सी. शमाग अधिवक्ता उपस्थित ।

राज्य की ओर से श्री सांजय गौर, िोक अधियोजक, श्री ए.आर. रोधहत डी.पी.ओ एवां ए.डी.पी.ओ. उपस्थित ।

आपधिकताग सांजयधसांह राजपूत की ओर से श्री प्रकाश टाक अधिवक्ता उपस्थित । आवेदक/अधियुक्त के आवेदन अांतगगत िारा 439 दां .प्र.सां. पर उियपक्ष को सुना गया। केस डायरी का अविोकन धकया गया।

आवेदक / अधियुक्त द्वारा यह जमानत आवेदन अांतगगत िारा 439 दां .प्र.सां. प्रस्तुत करते हुये मुख्यतः यह अधिकधर्त धकया गया है धक वह धनदोष है उसे जानबूझकर झूठा फसाने का प्रयास धकया जा रहा है । तर्ाकधर्त घटना िि वािी फैक्ट्र ी पर किी िी अधियुक्त का कोई ऑधफस, फैक्ट्र ी या गोडाउन नहीां रहा है । अधियुक्त ने किी कोई ऑधफस का सांचािन नहीां धकया है । अधियुक्त की फैक्ट्र ी कुांजर गाां व में है , धजसका उसके पास वैि िायसेंस है , जो घटना िि से काफी दू र है , इसी के दृधष्टगत अधियुक्त द्वारा एक प्लाट धिया गया र्ा, धजसका उल्लेख इन्कम टै क्स, जी.एस.टी. के कागजातोां में है । शासन के धकसी िी धविाग के कागजातोां में घटनािि वािी फैक्ट्र ी में अपने स्वत्व का अधियुक्त ने किी कोई 7 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

उल्लेख नहीां धकया है । घटना िि के नजदीकी प्लाट के उल्लेख के आिार पर अधियुक्त को मुिधजम बनाने का प्रयास धकया जा रहा है । दे री से की गई प्रर्म सूचना ररपोटग में अधियुक्त का कोई नाम नहीां है । अधियुक्त पर आरोधपत अपराि मृत्यु दां ड से दां डनीय नहीां है , यद्यधप िारा 436 िा.दां .धव. का आरोप आजीवन कारावास से दां डनीय है , परां तु ऐसा दोषारोपण उन प्रकरणोां में धकया जाता है , जहाां घटना काररत करने वािोां' का आशय जानबूझकर िवन को नष्ट करने का हो। अधियुक्त घटना में अनेक िोगोां की सहायता करने के दौरान गांिीर रूप से घायि हो गया र्ा, धजसके कारण उसे उसी धदन चौईर्राम अस्पताि इन्दौर में िती करना प़िा तर्ा उसकी प्लास्थिक सजगरी करना बताया। अधियुक्त के धगरफ्तार होने के पश्चात् जेि में उसका ईिाज सांिव नहीां हुआ, इस कारण उसे हमीधदया अस्पताि िोपाि में िती धकया गया, जहाां उसके शरीर के घव एवां सांक्रमण को दे खते हुये बाद में सजगरी करने की सिाह दी गई। अधियुक्त का जीवन सांकटमय बना हुआ है । उसका योग्य अस्पताि में ईिाज नहीां धकया गया तो उसके जीवन को खतरा उत्पन्न हो सकता है। अधियुक्त इस न्यायािय के क्षेत्राधिकार मे स्थित अचि सांपधि का माधिक है , उसके फरार होने की सांिावना, नहीां है तर्ा साधक्षयोां को डराने-िमकाने की िी कोई सांिावना नहीां है । धवस्फोटक अधिधनयम के अांतगगत िी प्रकरण होना बताया गया है , वह मात्र केन्द्र सरकार की अनुमधत से ही पांजीबद्ध धकया जा सकता है , धकांतु इस प्रकरण में केंद्र सरकार द्वारा ऐसी कोई अनमधत प्रदान नहीां की गई। अधियुक्त 01.03.2024 से न्याधयक अधिरक्षा में है। प्रकरण के धनराकरण में समय िगने की सांिावना है । अधियुक्त ने अपने मािकीयत के प्लाट में दु कान एवां शोरूम बनाने की योजना बनाई र्ी, इसी जानकारी के आिार पर अधियुक्त को झूठा फसाया गया है । धवद् युत धविाग के दस्तावेजोां से राजेश एवां सोमेश अिवाि के नाम पर घटना िि वािी फैक्ट्र ी में धवद् युत कनेक्शन धदये गये र्े। अधियुक्त का अन्य अधियुक्तगण राजेश अिवाि एवां सोमेश अिवाि िि वािी के घटना फैक्ट्र ी / गौडाउन / व्यापार / बैंक एकाउां ट / िायसेंस में धकसी िी िागीदारी का उल्लेख नहीां रहा है । अधियुक्त का अधिमां जमानत आवेदन: धदनाक 28.02.2024 को इसी न्यायािय द्वारा धनरस्त धकया गया। अांत में आवेदक / अधियुक्त को जमानत पर छो़िे जाने का धनवेदन धकया गया है , धवकल्प में दो माह के अांतररम जमानत पर छो़िे जाने का धनवेदन धकया गया है ।

आवेदक की ओर से अमन गोयि का शपर्पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुये यह व्यक्त धकया गया है धक आवेदक का यह प्रर्म धनयधमत जमानत आवेदन है। इसी प्रकृधत का अन्य कोई आवेदन धकसी सक्षम न्यायािय से न तो धनराकृत हुये हैं और न ही धकसी सक्षम न्यायािय में िांधबत है ।

सहिागी रहा है । आवेदक/अधियुक्त का कृत्य गांिीर प्रकृधत का है । अन्वेषण में उसकी आवश्यकता है । अांत में जमानत आवेदन धनरस्त धकये जाने का धनवेदन धकया गया। आपधिकताग की ओर से श्री प्रकाश टाक अधिवक्ता द्वारा व्यक्त धकया गया धक आपधिकताग सांजयधसांह द्वारा उन्हें उसकी ओर से सांपूणग कायगवाही हे तु अधिवक्ता धनयुक्त धकया है । उनके द्वारा व्यक्त धकया गया धक घटना में आपधिकताग सां जयधसांह को चोट आई र्ी, धजसे बचाने हे तु उसका पुत्र आया र्ा, उसे िी चोट आई र्ी और इिाज के दौरान उसकी मृत्यु हो गई। अांत में मामिा गांिीर बताते हुये जमानत आवेदन पत्र धनरस्त धकये जाने का धनवेदन धकया गया।

केस डायरी के सांपूणग अविोकन से यह प्रकट होता - है धक धदनाां क 06.02.2024 को बैरागढ़ में स्थिधत फटाका फैक्ट्र ी में धवस्फोट हुआ और उसके कारण कई िोगोां की मृत्यु हुई तर्ा कई िोग घायि हुये और आसपास की' सांपधियोां को िी क्षधत काररत हुई। इस जमानत आवेदन में आवेदक की ओर से मुख्यतः यह तकग धकया गया है धक आवेदक का सांबांधित घटना में धकसी प्रकार से कोई योगदान नहीां है . आवेदक अन्य िान पर फैक्ट्र ी सांचाधित करने का अनुज्ञस्थप्तिारी है ।

वस्तुतः जहाां तक अधियुक्त के घटना िि के एवां घटना में सहिाधगता का सांबांि है , उस बारे में जी.एस. टी. पेपर, इां कम टे क्स में पता बैरागढ़ का है । अधियुक्त की ओर से यह तकग धकया गया धक यह सब साक्ष्य का धवषय है । धनश्चय ही यह सब साक्ष्य की धववेचना का धवषय है , धकांतु प्रर्म दृष्टया इस स्तर पर उनसे प्रार्धमक रूप से घटना िि पर अत्यधिक रूप से धवस्फोटक सामिी के िांडारण में अधियुक्त की सांधिप्तता प्रकट होती है । अधियोजन द्वारा केस डायरी में अन्य िानोां से प्रदीप फायर वक्सग बैरागढ़ के नाम से धवस्फोटक सामिी मांगाये जाने के सांबांि में िी दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत धकये गये हैं । धनश्चय ही इस स्तर पर दस्तावेजोां की सत्यता के बारे में इस स्तर पर कोई धनष्कषग नहीां धदया जा सकता, धकांतु इससे यह प्रकट होता है धक अधियुक्त द्वारा घटना िि पर ही अपने नाग रो धवस्फोटक सामिी मांगाई गई, धजससे प्रर्म दृष्टया उसकी सांधिप्तता के आिार प्रकट होते हैं । सुधमत सुिाषचांद गांगवाि धवरूद्ध महाराष्टर राज्य 2023 िाइव िा (एस.सी) 373 में यह व्यक्त धकया गया है धक जमानत के आवेदन का धनराकरण करते समय न्यायािय को साक्ष्य की धवस्तृत धववेचना से बचना चाधहये। जमानत आवेदन के धनराकरण के सांबांि में यह सुिाधपत है धक न्यायािय को अपराि की गांिीरता, समाज पर प़िने वािे प्रिाव, अधियुक्त के द्वारा साक्ष्य को प्रिाधवत करने की स्थिधत आधद पर धवचार करना होता है । वस्तुतः गांिीरता आधद के मूल्याां कन के धिये कोई कठोर मापदां ड धनिाग ररत नहीां धकया जा सकता। यह प्रत्येक मामिे के तथ्योां पर धनिगर करता है ।

अधियुक्त की ओर से न्यायदृष्टाां त सतेंदर कुमार अांधटि धवरूद्ध केन्द्रीय जाां च ब्यूरो एवां अन्य 2022 (3) जे.एि.जे. 417, अब्दु ि हधमत अांसारी एवां अन्य धवरूद्ध महाराष्टर राज्य 2000 धकधमनि िॉ जनगि 4660, रामधकशन उफग धकशना एवां अन्य धवरूद्ध म.प्र. राज्य 2000 (2) एम.पी.एि.जे., धजतेन्द्रधसांह धवरूद्ध म.प्र. राज्य एम.पी. व्हीकिी नोट् स 1999 (II) 109, सुकेश एवां रूपधसांह धवरूद्ध म.प्र. राज्य द्वारा पी.एस. धवजय नगर इां दौर 2011 धकधमनि िॉ ररपोटग (एम.पी), रमेश चौकसे धवरूद्ध म.प्र. राज्य एम.पी. व्हीकिी नोट् स 1989-1 प्रस्तुत करते हुये यह तकग धकया गया है धक अपराि की गांिीरता से इां कार करते हुये जमानत का 9 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

आिार नहीां माना जा सकता। िारा 41 का पािन न होना जमानत का अधिकारी बना दे ता है । वस्तुतः इस मामिे में अधियुक्त पर धजन िाराओां का आरोप है , उनमें कई 07 वषग से अधिक दां ड से दां डनीय है । ऐसी स्थिधत में दां .प्र.सां. की िारा 41ए इस मामिे में िागू नहीां होती है । जहाां तक गांिीरता का सांबांि है , इस मामिे के तथ्य प्रस्तुत न्यायदृष्टाां त के मामिे के तथ्योां से धिन्न है । इस प्रकरण में अधियुक्तगण के सकीय िागीदारी से इतनी ब़िी मात्रा में धवस्फोटक पदार्ग के सार् असुरधक्षत रूप से व्यवहार धकया गया है , धजसमें प्रर्म दृष्टया उनके आपराधिक दु राशय की उपिारणा की जा सकती है और इस प्रकार यह मामिा अत्यधिक गांिीर प्रकृधत का प्रकट होता है ।

इस मामिे में कई िोगोां की मृत्यु हो गई है । धनश्चय ही इस मामिे में अधियुक्त द्वारा िी घायि होना बताया जा रहा है , धकांतु मात्र उसके आिार पर इस स्तर पर उसकी आपराधिकता को कम करके नहीां आां का जा सकता। इस मामिे में यह प्रकट होता है धक अधियुक्त एवां अन्य सहअधियुक्तगण द्वारा धनश्चय ही धवधि के उल्लांघन में िारी मात्रा में धवस्फोटक के सार् सांव्यवहार धकया गया है , जो प्रिूम दृष्टया इस उपिारणा के धिये आिार प्रकट करता है धक अधियुक्त साक्ष्य को प्रिाधवत करने की स्थिधत में है । इस प्रकार प्रकरण की पररस्थिधतयोां में मैं यह पाता हाँ धक अधियुक्त पर आरोधपत अपराि गांिीर प्रकृधत का है तर्ा वह साक्ष्य को प्रिाधवत करने की स्थिधत में है , प्रकरण अिी अन्वेषणािीन है । अतः इस प्रकरण की सांपूणग पररस्थिधतयोां में मेरे मत में अधियुक्त को धनयधमत जमानत का िाि धदया जाना इस स्तर पर उधचत प्रतीत नहीां होता है । अतः आवेदक/अधियुक्त प्रदीप गोयि की ओर से प्रस्तुत िारा 439 दां .प्र.सां. का आवेदन उधचत न होने से धनरस्त धकया जाता है ।

जहाां तक आवेदक/अधियुक्त के इिाज का सांबांि है , उस बारे में यह स्पष्ट है धक जेि प्राधिकाररयोां पर यह दाधयत्व है धक वह अधियुक्त के समुधचत इिाज की व्यविा करें । अधियुक्त जेि प्राधिकारी के समक्ष सम्यक् रूप से अभ्यावेदन कर सकता है। अतः मात्र इस आिार पर अधियुक्त को अांतररम जमानत धदये जाने की िी आवश्यकता नहीां है । आदे श की प्रधत सधहत केस डायरी वापस हो।

आदे श की एक प्रधत सांबांधित न्यायािय को िेजी जावे। इस जमानत याधचका का पररणाम दजग कर सी. आई.एस. में उधचत प्रधवधष्ट कर तर्ा धनयमानुसार अपिोड कर धनयत समयावधि में अधििेखागार में िेजा जावे।"

10. Aggrieved by the orders of the Session Judge passed in the criminal proceedings, the Applicant, Mr. Pradeep Goyal, preferred the MCRC No.16230 of 2024 and vide order dated 04.07.2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed the following order as follows:-

"ORDER 10 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No. 42/2024 dated 6.2.2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Harda for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 308, 427, 429, 435, 436 read with Section 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5, 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.

2. The counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. On 6.2.2024, an explosion took place in the factory premises of Rajesh Fire Works, as a result of which, 13 persons lost their lives and many other sustained injuries. An investigation was conducted and during investigation, it was found by the Police that Rajesh Agrawal and Somesh Agrawal were running the manufacturing unit in respect of various explosive substances and it was also gathered that the quantity of explosives which were stored in the factory was much more than the statutory limit stipulated in the license in respect of said explosives. It is contended that the present applicant is also having license and his manufacturing units are situated at village Piplani, Tahsil Sirali, District Harda and at village Kunjargaon, Tahsil Handiya, District Harda. It is submitted that so far as village Bairagarh, District Harda is concerned, the present applicant does not own any factory, yet the present applicant has been implicated in this case. The applicant has no connection with the factory in which explosion took place. On the contrary, the applicant has office/shop adjacent to the factory and as a result of the explosion, the applicant also sustained grievous injuries and in order to demonstrate the same, the applicant has referred various documents. It is also contended that the applicant is a senior citizen and is suffering from various ailments and documents pertaining to those ailments have been brought on record as Annexures A-4 to A-6.

3. It is further contended by the counsel for the applicant that in order to implicate an accused under Section 304 of IPC, it is incumbent that the accused should have knowledge or intention within the meaning of Section 299 of IPC. In the present case, the applicant neither had any knowledge nor intention. In fact, the applicant was in no way connected with the factory, in which explosion took place. It is contended that there is a series of decisions by the Apex Courts as well as various High Courts, which specifically provide that in absence of any knowledge, the offence cannot be brought within the purview of Section 304 of IPC. It is contended that even negligence within the meaning of Section 304-A of IPC is also required to be established by the prosecution. But in the present case, none of the 11 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

allegations had any nexus with the provision of Section 304 of IPC. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant be released on bail. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions in Mahadev Prasad Kaushik Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2008) 14 SCC 479; Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC; Shamsher Khan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2000) 8 SCC 568; Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648; Criminal Petition No. 3721 of 2021 (Sri. Deepak Kumar Vs. The State) decided by High Court of Karnataka on 5.4.2022, Baldev Raj Kapur Vs. State 2009 (108) DRJ 520; Berjesh Goyal & another Vs. Daily Foods (India)-2009 (108) DRJ 527.

4. The counsel for the State as well as the objector have opposed the application and submitted that the present case arises out of an incident which came as a shock to the entire State. The said explosion resulted in death of 13 innocent persons and approximately 400 persons sustained injuries. Several injured persons have suffered permanent disability on account of amputation of limbs and at present at least 63 injured persons are still in critical condition. It is further contended that co-accused Rajesh and accused Pradeep Goyal are relatives. After investigation, it has come on record that both these accused persons were prosecuted in past as well. According to the information available on record, at least 9 cases were registered against accused Rajesh and in one of the case he was convicted as well. Later on, accused Rajesh preferred a criminal appeal wherein his custodial sentence has been suspended. An application was also moved in the said appeal for cancellation of bail in view of the incident dated 6.2.2024. It is also contended that against accused Pradeep Goyal four cases were registered under the Explosives Act and all cases were of like nature and in one of the previous incident, in which co-accused Rajesh Agrawal was accused, two persons had lost their lives. Despite the aforesaid incidents and registration of similar kind of cases, there was utter neligence on the part of the applicant which resulted in aforesaid unfortunate tragedy. The accused persons, who had knowledge of their lapses, failed to ensure the safety measures, which are required to be taken recourse to under the Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosive Substances Act, 1908. It is further contended that the statements of affected persons clearly reveal the involvement of the accused persons. It is further contended that even the witnesses are being threatened at the behest of accused persons in the present case. The statements of Sharad Marskole, Sandeep Bamne and Mangilal Saini recorded under 12 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Sections 164 of Cr.P.C. clearly reveal the involvement of the accused persons including the applicant. Therefore, looking to the nature of accusation against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail. PRAD

5. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the case diary.

6. On perusal of case diary, it reveals that on an unfateful day, the aforesaid incident took place and resultantly many persons lost their lives and many other sustained injuries and also suffered permanent disability for all life to come. The allegations so levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons reveal commission of offence by them under the aforesaid sections. There are specific allegations against the accused persons and their respective role is also mentioned in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Witness Sharad Marskole has mentioned the name of accused persons in Paragraphs 2 and 8. Simultaneously, witness Tufan Singh Ganjam and Sandeep Bamne also implicated the accused persons. The statement of witness Sandeep Bamner clarifies that earlier Rajesh Agrawal, Somesh Agrawal, Pradeep Agrawal and Aayush Agrawal used to work together but subsequently, three different sheds were constructed in the same factory. The role of accused Rafiq is also evident from the statement of witnesses Sheikh Firoze, Rukhsar Bano and Mangilal Saini.

7. In the present case, against accused Rajesh Agrawal in past as well offence of similar nature were registered and he was convicted as well. Simultaneously in respect of accused Pradeep Goyal, similar cases were registered, therefore, prima facie they were in the knowledge that there action would result in untoward incident in future. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that no case under Section 304 of IPC is made out in view of past antecedents of the applicants/accused persons including the conviction under the provisions of Section 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act of accused Rajesh.

RADE

8. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

9. The judgments so relied upon by the counsel for the applicant are of no assistance in view of particular facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed."

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

11. The facts which have been raised for deletion of the name from this proceeding were directly and substantially an issue before the Hon'ble High Court and the Sessions Judge and that was heard and decided in criminal proceedings by the Court having jurisdiction to pass an order and the application for bail was heard and rejected.

12. The submissions of the learned counsel for the State are that when the bail application of the Applicant was twice rejected by the Sessions Judge and again rejected by the Hon'ble High Court, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to delete the name from the above proceedings.

13. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in above Miscellaneous Criminal Petition, the Applicant, Mr. Pradeep Goyal, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and moved an application/petition for bail and the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.10.2024 passed the order quoted below:-

           "ITEM NO.8                 COURT NO.3                  SECTION II-A
                              SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                              RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11583/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-07-2024 in MCRC No. 16230/2024 passed by the High Court Of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur) PRADEEP GOYAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent (s) (IA No. 189339/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 189338/2024 -EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 11895/2024 (II-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.196269/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.196271/2024- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date: 14-10-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER 14 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

SLP(Crl.) No(s). 11583/2024

1. As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the respondent to file counter affidavit.

2. List this matter after two weeks.

SLP(Crl) No.11895/2024

1. We are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition on merits. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

2. a However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is suffering from a serious kidney ailment and is required to undergo transplant procedure and such procedure can be undertaken in the State of West Bengal, we are inclined to grant temporary bail to the petitioner. a

3. The petitioner is directed to be released on temporary bail for a period of six months from today in connection with FIR No. 42 of 2024 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, District Harda, Madhya Pradesh, subject to him executing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only), with one or more sureties in the like amount.

4. The petitioner shall also undertake that he shall surrender to the custody on expiry of six months.

5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

14. The Applicant, Mr. Pradeep Goyal, by means of filing another application/petition in SLP No.11583 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.01.2025 has passed the following order:-

           "ITEM NO.2                   COURT NO.2                 SECTION II-A
                               SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                               RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11583/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-07-2024 in MCRC No. 16230/2024 passed by the High Court Of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur) PRADEEP GOYAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent (s) 15 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

-(IA No. 247150/2024 APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 189339/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 189338/2024 -EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 271130/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 271127/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 257054/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 247153/2024 -EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 257096/2024 PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 257053/2024- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date: 07-01-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER

1. This Court will consider the bail application of the petitioner only after co-accused deposit the requisite amount as directed by the High Court before the National Green Tribunal.

2. List this matter after two weeks."

15. The submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondent/opposite parties and the State counsel are that in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the required amount was never deposited before the National Green Tribunal, which can be referred later on.

16. The Applicant, Mr. Pradeep Goyal, filed the third application/petition in SLP No. No.11583 of 2024, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed the following order as follows:-

            "ITEM NO.14                  COURT NO.2                  SECTION II-
                                             A
                              SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                              RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11583/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-07-2024 in MCRC No. 16230/2024 passed by the High Court Of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur) PRADEEP GOYAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent (s) (IA No. 247150/2024 APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 189339/2024 -EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, 16 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

IA No. 3798/2025 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 189338/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 271130/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 271127/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 257054/2024 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 247153/2024 -EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.Τ.

IA No. 17930/2025-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.Τ.

IA No. 3797/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 257096/2024 -PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 257053/2024 -PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 17932/2025 -PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date: 11-02-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER

1. We are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

17. Unfateful incident of fire in the factory of firecrackers took place on 06.02.2024 causing death of approximately 13 persons and grievous and simple injures to various persons and houses of the nearby persons were burnt or destroyed or damaged. The question of maintainability of the application was raised before this Tribunal.

18. This Tribunal is empowered to take cognizance of the cases involving questions relating to environment arising out of the implementation of enactments specified in First Schedule of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 suo moto as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai V/s. Ankita Sinha and others (2021), SSC Online SC 897, (Civil Appeal No. 12122-12123 of 2018 decided on 07.10.2021) as follows :-

"i. Explaining the purpose for constituting the special court to deal with environmental issues, in Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation15, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer writing for the three Judge Bench, made the following pertinent observations on the status of the NGT:-

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

"40. The Tribunal has been established under a constitutional mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the Constitution of India, to implement the decision taken at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The Tribunal is a specialised judicial body for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment. The right to healthy environment has been construed as a part of the right to life under Article 21 by way of judicial pronouncements.

Therefore, the Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights."

ii. During the course of its functioning, the NGT has been recognized as one of the most progressive Tribunals in the world. This jurisprudential leap has allowed our country to enter a rather exclusive group of nations which have set up such institutions with broad powers. To understand how the NGT is perceived globally, we may usefully refer to the views of Chief Justice Brian Preston of the Land and Environment Court of NSW Australia, "The NGT is an example of a specialized court to better achieve the goals of ensuring access to justice, upholding the rule of law and promoting good governance."

iii. The environmental impacts on climate change are gaining increasing visibility in the shape of uncertain rains, species extinction, loss of natural habitat and so on. These also have the propensity to diminish fresh water resources, reduce agricultural yields and impact public health, particularly in the cities. The flooding and erosion in riverine and coastal areas are matters of serious concern. Governmental assessment of India's increased vulnerability to such changes in the near future also exists with many countries declaring climate emergencies and many others being urged to follow suit. (United Nations. United Nations, December 12, 2020.) iv. Therefore, the nature of ecological imbalance which is visible even in our own times may cascade, and the unforeseen injustice of the future may not be capable of being handled within the frontiers set forth today. The long term and very often irreparable environmental damage which are expected to be arrested by the NGT, urge this Court to advert to what is termed as the „Seventh Generation‟ sustainability principle, or the „Great Law of the Iroquois‟ (as it originates from the Iroquois Tribe) which requires all decision making to withstand for the benefit of seven generations down the line.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

v. It is vital for the wellbeing of the nation and its people, to have a flexible mechanism to address all issues pertaining to environmental damage and resultant climate change so that we can leave behind a better environmental legacy, for our children, and the generations thereafter.

vi. In circumstances where adverse environmental impact may be egregious, but the community affected is unable to effectively get the machinery into action, a forum created specifically to address such concerns should surely be expected to move with expediency, and of its own accord. The potentiality of disproportionate harm imposes a higher obligation on authorities to preserve rights which may be waylaid due to such restrictive access. It is also noteworthy that the "global impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on minority and low-income communities". Thus, an affirmative role, beyond mere adjudication at the instance of applicant, is certainly required for serving the ends of environmental justice, as the statute itself requires of the NGT. We cannot validate an argument which furthers uncertainty to justify the role of a spectator, if not inaction, and would most assuredly result in injustice.

vii. The NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door. The forum itself has correctly identified the need for collective stratagem for addressing environmental concerns. Such a society centric approach must be allowed to work within the established safety valves of the principles of natural justice and appeal to the Supreme Court. The handsoff mode for the NGT, when faced with exigencies requiring immediate and effective response, would debilitate the forum from discharging its responsibility and this must be ruled out in the interest of justice."

19. After taking cognizance of the matter, the Tribunal observed as follows:-

"................x..................x......................x..........x......................

viii. It is undisputed that the unit is engaged in manufacturing of hazardous material covered by the 1989 rules and the 1996 Rules it has to prepare and follow onsite and offsite emergency plan which is required to be duly audited and overseen by the statutory authority including the Chief Inspector of the factories (CIFS), Department of Industries, the District Magistrate, the State PCB and the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation (PESO). Overall regulatory framework is under the MoEF&CC and the liability of the unit is strict and absolute for the loss caused by its activities. Dependents / heirs 19 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

of the deceased as well as the injured persons, the person displaced on account of the incident have to be duly compensated. The unit has also to bear the cost of restoration of environment. ..........x..............x.............x..............x............ x. While the comply and other concerned have to be given due opportunity an interim direction for compensation on the basis of available material cannot be delayed. Interim compensation can be awarded on conservative subject to final compensation being determined later. While no compensation for death or injury or displacement may be adequate and environment is priceless, having regard to fact and circumstances and on adhoc basis, we assessed interim compensation for death to be (i) Rs. 15 lakh each taking into account multiplier of around 16 and loss of earning of about Rs. 1 lakh a year, taking the minimum wage, apart from conventional sums, (ii) for grievous injury Rs. 5 lakh per person and for other injuries as noted above. The factory may make an interim deposit on the above criteria to be calculated by the District Magistrate excluding the deposit payment already made in pursuance of the order of State PCB or otherwise or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are any other statutory provisions or ex gratia in relation to the present incident Disbursement may be made by preparing an appropriate plan by the District Magistrate in consultation with the District Legal Service Authority. The amount may be deposited within 10 days from today. Disbursement may be made within one month thereafter. If the unit/factory fails to make the deposit, the State will be at liberty to recover the same by coercive methods but the disbursement may in such case be made out of the State funds within one month with right of the State to recover the amount from the unit.

xi. The committee as directed above will search out the facts and specifically the report (i) the sequence of events (ii) causes of failure and persons and authorities responsible therefore (iii) extent of damage to life human and non-human, public health and environment - including water, soil and air (iv) steps to be taken for compensation of victims and restitution of the damaged property and environment and the cost involved."

20. Order with regard to maintainability of the application before the Tribunal and taking cognizance was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradeesh at Jabalpur by means of filing W.P. No.5160 20 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

of 2024 and vide order dated 16.12.2024, the Hon'ble High Court finally disposed of the matter as follows:-

(Since matter which has been raised before this application has been fully discussed before the Hon'ble High Court, thus it is necessary to reproduce the whole order) "IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF WRIT PETITION No. 5160 of 2024 SOMESH AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ORDER Per: Justice Vinay Saraf:

1. Instant petition is preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

(i) Allow the writ petition and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by NGT in OA 20/24 (CZ)(Annexure -P/11), in the interest of justice.

(ii) Further be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 the Ld. Collector (Annexure -P/12)in the interest of justice.

iii) Further be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 the Ld. Collector (Annexure -P/ 13) in the interest of justice.

(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. Heard Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate with Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate General along with Shri H.S. Ruprah, Additional Advocate General, Shri Amit Seth, Additional Advocate General, Shri B.D. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri Vikram Johri, Advocate for the respondent No.6. Ms. Avani Bansal, Advocate for the intervener.

Facts in short -

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

3. Short facts sufficient for disposal of present writ petition are :-

3.1 Petitioners are brothers and were running four different factories producing fire crackers under the LE-1 & LE-5 licenses issued in terms of the Explosive Rules, 2008, which were renewed till 31.03.2026 and by order dated 26.09.2022, Collector, Harda suspended the licenses after issuance of show cause notices on the allegation of violation of explosive rules as also license conditions, however, in appeal Commissioner, Narmadapuram on 14.10.2022 stayed the order of collector. ADM and SDM reported due rectification of all the irregularities by petitioners in report dated 18.10.2022, thereafter, fresh show cause notices were issued by Collector on 16.10.2023 and 18.10.2023 on the basis of an inspection report dated 05.09.2023.

3.2. On 06.02.2024series of explosion occurred in the firecracker factory of the petitioners, which caused huge explosion and blast affecting several persons and houses and an FIR was registered against the petitioners on 06.02.2024 bearing crime no. 42/2004 upon the allegation that there was huge quantity of explosive material kept in the shop, which was not properly managed and there was no safety provision, which laid to the explosion and fire incident.

3.3. National Green Tribunal (NGT), Bhopal took suo motu cognizance on news regarding blast in the factory of petitioners and passed interim order directing payment of interim compensation to the victims on the same day i.e. 06.02.2024. NGT observed that more than 60 houses have been damaged due to fire incident and explosion in the fire crackers kept in the industry and more than 100 houses were forced to vacate. It was further observed by NGT in the order that as per reports 13 persons died and more than 50 persons were injured.

Accordingly owners of the industry are responsible to immediately pay and deposit amount as interim compensation to the victim. NGT awarded Rs. 15 lakh per death, Rs. 3 lakh per small injury case, Rs. 5 lakh burn injury case and grievous injuries, Rs. 5 lakh per damaged or burnt house and Rs. 2 lakh to each person, who has been forced to vacate his house.

3.4. In compliance of the order passed by NGT, Collector Harda calculated the liabilities against the petitioners to tune of Rs.15.80croreby order dated 12.02.2024 and ordered to deposit the amount with District Environment Compensation Fund and failing which coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. Further Collector Harda has calculated the liabilities against the petitioners to tune of Rs.2.43Croresby order dated 23.02.2024. Collector, Harda has initiated confiscation of the various properties of the petitioners 22 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

worth Rs. 9 crores for generating money by putting them to auction. These orders are under challenge in the instant petition.

Maintainability of writ petition -

4. Shri Prashant Singh learned Advocate General raised the issue of maintainability of the petition and submits -

4.1 Petitioners have challenged the order passed by NGT on 06.02.2024, which is appealable under Section 14 and 22 of the NGT Act and therefore the present petition is not maintainable as alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. 4.2 Respondent relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors. reported in (2022) 13 SCC 401 and submits that petitioners are having statutory remedy of Appeal as provided under the National Green Tribunal Act and thus present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

4.3 Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that present petition is filed assailing the action of NGT, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the petition is maintainable and availability of appeal is no bar. 4.4 Petitioners relied on the judgment of Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Veena Gupta &Ors vs. Central Pollution Control Board &Ors 2024 SCC online SC 103, wherein Supreme Court condemned the practice of NGT passing ex-parte orders without following principles of natural justice and verifying facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under :-

"4. The National Green Tribunal's recurrent engagement in unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review hearing and routinely dismissing it has regrettably become a prevailing norm. In its zealous quest for justice, the Tribunal must read carefully to avoid the oversight of propriety. The practice of ex parte orders and the imposition of damages amounting to crores of rupees, have proven to be a counterproductive force in the broader mission of environmental safeguarding.

5. Significantly, these orders have consistently faced stays from this Court, resulting in the unraveling of the commendable efforts put forth by the learned Members, lawyers, and other stakeholders. It is imperative for the Tribunal to infuse a renewed sense of procedural integrity, ensuring that its actions resonate with a harmonious balance between justice and due process. Only then can it reclaim its standing as a beacon of 23 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

environmental protection, where well intentioned endeavors are not simply washed away."

4.5 Similarly Apex Court in the matter of Jetpur Dyeing and Printing Association vs. Ramdevbhai Samatbhai Sanjva and Others, 2024 SCC online SC 689 set aside the order impugned, which was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard and remanded the matters back for reconsideration.

4.6 He further submits that NGT awarded interim compensation in arbitrary and unlawful manner in complete violation of principles of natural justice and the same cannot be justified as necessary information were not available with NGT. Permission to local administration to proceed with recovery of amount by conducting auction of the properties of the petitioners without affording any opportunity of hearing amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable despite having alternate remedy of appeal.

4.7 Senior counsel for petitioners further submitted that certain exceptions have been laid down to the general rule of non- entertainment of the writ petition when alternative remedy is available but present is a case which is covered by the exceptions referred to in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1998 (8) SCC 1. It is submitted that exceptions which have been laid down in the said case are, (i) when the order is without jurisdiction, (ii) when order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and (iii) when the vires of the statute under which the order has been passed itself is under challenge. In the present matter the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore writ petition is entertainable.

4.8 Issue of maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is no more res integra and maintainability of writ petition assailing the order passed by NGT before High Court is settled by Apex Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association Vs.UOI & others, 2022 SCC online SC 639, wherein it is held that National Green Tribunal under Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In the instant case main grievance of the petitioners are that ex-parte order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing by which liability of more than Rs. 15 crores have been saddled against the petitioners and the impugned order 24 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, consequently this court deemed it proper to entertain the writ petition and issued notices. In view of the judgment delivered by Apex Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association (supra), Veena Gupta (supra) and Whirlpool Corporation (supra) objection regarding maintainability of writ petition is overruled and writ petition is held maintainable.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners -

5. Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Counsel for petitioners submits inter alia -

5.1 NGT awarded ex-parte interim compensation in highly arbitrary and unlawful manner. At the time of passing the order, no material was available with NGT and the order was passed only on the basis of media reports.

5.2 NGT Act, 2002was created to provide for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and for matters connected thereto.

5.3 NGT passed the order in arbitrary manner without assessing the quantum of compensation and several ineligible persons have claimed the compensation. It is in dispute that how many persons were injured and out of them how many sustained grievous injuries. Rs. 3 lakhs awarded to a person who sustained simple injury. 5.4 Collector, Harda passed the orders without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who are in jail since incident.

5.5 Collector, Harda has also passed the orders arbitrarily in violation of principles of natural justice and without issuance of any notice to the petitioners and granting any opportunity of hearing and calculated the compensation to tune of Rs.15.80 crores by order dated 12.02.2024 and Rs. 2.43 crores by order dated 23.02.2024. Collector has initiated recovery proceedings attaching property of petitioners and their entire family members worth Rs. 9 crores for recovery of amount of compensation by putting them to auction on the basis of ex-parte orders. He further submits that NGT- does not have jurisdiction with regard to the Explosives Act and Rules. 5.6 Without Prejudice to the above, he submits that in so far as death cases are concerned, there is no issue, however in respect of injury cases and cases pertaining to damage to houses and displacement of persons from the houses is concerned, the collector has not correctly verified the medical records and other attending circumstances.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

5.7 This Court by order dated 26.07.2024 permitted the petitioners to examine and see the records pertaining to the aspect of award of compensation to the victims by Collector and the petitioners after going through the record submits that, there are proper record in so far as cases involving death of 13 persons, however so far as persons with serious/grievous injuries are concerned records show that many of them were discharged after initial treatment without any admission and some of them were referred to higher medical centers for further treatment, but no record is available to show that any further treatment was undertaken by such persons. 64 persons have been awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs each, whereas in respect of most of them there is no record of further medical treatment. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that as per records compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded to some persons treating them as grievously injured, however the symptoms recorded in MLC were body pain and the nature of injury shown as "simple" and the report further shows a handwritten note showing head-injury and the patient was discharged showing the note as referred to higher center and no further record of subsequent treatment was available. 5.8 It is argued that 64 persons were shown as grievously injured and have been awarded compensation under the category of grievously injured with an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, but many of them were not entitled for compensation under that category. Petitioners submit that the matter requires examination of individual medical records by an independent authority before being compensated. So far as 156+81 total 237 patients being awarded Rs. 3 lakhs each out of which no MLC record of more than 60 persons are not available. In respect of others also, there was no criteria with the authorities under which a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs could be awarded under minor injury category. Petitioners submit that figures are not realistic and unless there are some medical records, and there are genuine injuries, amount of Rs. 3 lakh cannot be awarded and scrutiny of individual case by independent authority is essential.

5.9 So far as cases of damaged houses are concerned, the Collector's affidavit shows different figure and the report shows different numbers. The houses in question were either made under P.M. Aawas Yojana Scheme or were small houses with 2-3 rooms with tin- sheds. Award of Rs.05 lakhs each without any identification of individual nature of house is also not proper. In addition to compensation for damaged house, the Collector's affidavit shows 201 persons have been awarded Rs. 2 lakhs each for having vacated their houses. This figure includes 39 houses also for which a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs per house has already been awarded. Learned senior 26 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

counsel for the petitioners submits that when compensation for house is stipulated and being distributed, then each individual of the house being compensated separately is not justified. Moreover, there are instances where the names of the family members who were not even living in the house in question and were living elsewhere, even in other cities, their names have also been included so as to take compensation of Rs.02 lakhs each.

5.10 Shri Nagrath further submits that compensation for damage to the house and also to the individual members should not have been awarded. Additionally, Collector has paid compensation under the PM Ex-gratia to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- each in addition to Rs. 4,00,000/- per death case as per Revenue Book Circular, a total of Rs. 6,00,000/- paid by Collector. Petitioners pointed out several examples to fortify their contention that the amount of compensation has been awarded without examining the nature of injury/ property and the loss caused to the victims. He prays for setting aside the orders passed by NGT and Collector, Harda.

5.11 It is submitted that no parameters have been laid down by NGT for determining as to which individual would fall in the category of grievously injured or having suffered simple injury so as to be entitled to the amount quantified by NGT. He further submits that examination of the record shows that the authorities have not correctly examined the individuals for the purposes of their classification and entitlement. He further submits that the quantification of amount for damage to property has also not been correctly appreciated by the NGT. He further submits since issue is already pending before NGT, he would be satisfied in case petitioner is permitted to raise before NGT the issue of classification of the injury as well as the quantification of compensation to be paid for loss to property and displacement.

5.12 Shri Nagrath, further without prejudice submits that as the impugned order was an interim order passed by the NGT and the proceedings are still pending before the NGT, the Petitioners would be satisfied if opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to place the objections as noticed hereinabove before the NGT with regard to the injury cases, damage to houses and displacements of individuals from houses. With regard to the death cases, he submits that the Petitioners have no objection to disbursement of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

Arguments of respondents & interveners -

6. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General has opposed the petition vehemently by submitting inter alia:-

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

6.1 Perilous and destructive incident took place due to negligence on the part of petitioners in running cracker factories wherein they were dealing with dangerous explosive material and causing damage to public life as well as public property in the vicinity of the incident. 6.2 On 06.02.2024 a blast occurred in a fireworks factory situated in Village Bairagarh, District Harda owned by Petitioners and NGT took suo motu cognizance of the matter and by order dated06.02.2024 directed the Owner of the factory to immediately pay compensation as directed by NGT.

6.3 By order dated 06.02.2024 NGT issued direction for calculation of amount of compensation by District Magistrate, Harda and 10days' time was granted to the Owners of the factory to deposit the said amount, failing which the State was directed to recover the same by 'coercive methods'.

6.4 In pursuance to the order of NGT District Magistrate gathered the statistics of number of affected persons and it was revealed that total 13 persons were died and over 64 persons are seriously injured. On the basis of the data gathered total amount of Rs. 15.80 crores was adjudged to be deposited by petitioners.

6.5 Notice dated 12.02.2024 was issued to the petitioners to deposit the said amount in District Environmental Compensation Fund on or before 16.02.2024. By letter dated 23.02.2024 an additional amount of Rs.2.43 crores was demanded in addition to the earlier amount as 81 more injured persons were reported. It is informed that in failure to deposit the said amount within stipulated time, State will recover the same by coercive methods.

6.6 On 15.02.2024 District Magistrate suspended the licenses issued to the petitioners. Petitioners are guilty of violating the conditions of license. 6.7 With respect to the objection raised by the Petitioner pertaining to the injury cases, damage to houses and displacement cases, he submits that the cases have been duly verified by the Collector and all documents and reports have been made available to the counsel for the petitioners. He however, submits that it is open to the Petitioners to raise such objections before the NGT and for the NGT to consider them in accordance with Law.

7. We may note that the NGT by its order dated 06.02.2024, issued the following directions -

"8. In the circumstances where more than 60 houses have been damaged due to fire incident due to explosive in the fire crackers industry, more than 100 houses were forced to vacate. There is a report of high number of human death and injuries to more than 50 persons. The minimum relief is required. Accordingly the owner of the industry is responsible to 28 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

immediately pay and deposit an amount as interim compensation to the victim - (i) @ Rs 15 lakhs per death cases and. (ii) @ Rs. 3 lakhs per small injury case. (iii) @ Rs. 5 lakhs burn injury case and grievous injuries. (iv) @Rs. 5 lakhs per damage burnt house. (v) @Rs. 2 lakhs payable to the persons who have been forced to vacate their houses 9. All these amount should be calculated by the District Magistrate, Harda, M.P. and deposited in the account of "District Environmental Compensation Fund" to be maintained by the District Magistrate, Harda. The amount to be deposited by the owner of the industry. Necessary and immediate relief should be given to the aggrieved, injured and the needy and affected by this incident immediately, with further assistance by the State Government."

8. The incident happened on 06.02.2024 and the impugned order was passed by the NGT on that very date. Clearly, at the time of passing of the impugned order, neither the injured had been identified nor the nature of injuries had been determined. Similarly, with regard to the damage to houses and displacement of persons is concerned, there was no identification or determination.

9. Objections have been raised by the Petitioners with regard to identification of the injured, nature of injuries sustained, type of houses damages and the extent and entitlement of persons displaced.

10. An application I.A. No.11554 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners contending that since the properties are being auctioned at an amount of about Rs.2 crores, which is on the lower side as per the petitioners, they be permitted to deposit the auction amount after securing loans from friends/relatives so that the properties of the petitioner may be released. During the course of hearing petitioners offered to deposit amount of Rs.3 crores for the purpose of release of the auctioned properties.

11. In view of above, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) It would be open to the petitioner to raise the objection with regard to classification, genuineness of claimants/victims in respect of the injuries; and the categorization, classification and quantum to be paid to individual for loss of property and destruction of houses and displacement.

(ii) In case, such an objection is raised by the petitioner, NGT shall consider the same in accordance with law.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

(iii) In so far as the offer of petitioner for making arrangement of a higher amount towards the auction of the property vis-a- vis the bid received, it is open to the petitioner to place such a proposal before the NGT and for the NGT to consider the same, in accordance with law.

(iv)The interim order dated 23.04.2024 staying disbursal of the amount is modified and vacated to the limited extent pertaining to the death cases. It would be open to the administration to disburse the death compensation as directed by the NGT.

(v) Further it would be open to the NGT to consider disbursal of the amount in respect of injury cases and cases pertaining to loss to property and displacement of individuals, taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner, if any raised before the NGT.

(vi) No order as to costs."

21. The submissions of the learned counsel for the State and aggrieved are that the proceedings are continuing before the Tribunal only for hearing the objection with regard to classification, genuineness of the claimants/victims in respect of injures and the categorisation, classification and quantum to be paid to the individuals for loss of property and destruction of houses and displacement. It is further argued that the Applicants were provided opportunity vide order of the Court quoted above for making any arrangements of the amount to be paid to the victims to be offered before the Tribunal but this was never done by the violators. It is argued by the opposite parties that when the matter of maintainability of the application and the veracity has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has passed the order to decide it according to rules after hearing the objections of the applicant, thus further proceedings cannot be challenged in view of the order quoted above.

22. The proceedings were taken up on 29.01.2025 and the Tribunal observed and directed the opposite parties as follows:-

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

1. The proceedings are further initiated in light of the order of Hon'ble the High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 5160/2024 with regard to disbursement of compensation in case of death and injuries and damage to houses caused due to unfortunate incident of fire in factory of firecrackers in village Bairagarh of the district Harda in Madhya Pradesh. There are categories of cases of death, grievous injuries, simple injuries, burnt houses, houses which have been evacuated.

2. In light of the order of Hon'ble the High Court, the amount of compensation in ratio of the order passed by this Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and in continuation of the order of the Hon'ble High Court have been paid to the family of the deceased to the relevant account and have been verified by the district administration.

3. Now, the question of disbursement of the compensation to the members of the family of grievous injuries, simple injuries, burnt houses and houses which have been evacuated are to be taken. The district administration has constituted a committee of experts' members to assess the actual damage for the repairing of the houses in ratio to the valuation as per Collector's guideline against the built-

up area and damage cost to the building in ratio of percentage of the damage. Since, the damage against the deceased which is annexure R-1 has been paid, thus the matter with regard to the payment of compensation against the deceased persons are disposed of and closed.

8. Learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Prashant M. Harne and learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board Ms. Parul Bhadoria have submitted that the incident took place due to carelessness, negligence and violation of environmental laws by the respondent-project proponent and reasonable compensation with interest is required to be paid by the violator of law on the principle of polluter to pay.

9. If the respondents-project proponent establish and operate their plant or unit contrary to law, flouting all safety norms provided by law, district administration and the State PCB is bound to act and it cannot be said that the district administration or the State PCB are acting out of animus or adopting a hostile attitude. Repeated and persistent violations call for repeated orders that is no proof of hostility. Moreover, the reports submitted by the State Administration and the State PCB are fully corroborated and affirmed by the expert report on account of the respondents continuous, persistent and insolent violations of the law and their non-implementation of the 31 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

orders and the rules. The unit has earned the dubious distinction of being characterized as rough unit.

10. They have inflicted untold misery upon the poor, unsuspecting villagers, despoiling their land, houses, tin shed, huts and entire environment and all in pursuit of private profit. The unit cannot say that there is no pollution or cannot be absorbed from the obligation to pay the damages caused to the private individuals against the death injuries and damage to the houses and for eco-restoration with damage caused to the life and health of the people as well as their property in the past. The polluters respondents recklessly destroyed the environment, surface and underground water and the soil and killed fruit trees, animals and vegetation apart from causing suffering and irreparable damages to the lands, property, life and health of the people in flagrant violation of environmental laws and direction given by various authorities including Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Tribunal.

11. The civil and criminal liability upon the respondents for the environmental crimes, irreparable damages caused to the environment, flora and fauna, life, health and property of innocent people living in the city and the area and surrounding villages cannot be condoned at any ornamental arguments. In several cases of environmental pollution, the courts have ordered for the payment of damages by the errant industries/individuals responsible for causing pollution in violation of environmental related issues and the money recovered be spent for remediation or eco-restoration and damages be paid to the victims or spent for their benefit. It is the duty of the government to ensure proper administration of this fund in a transparent and accountable manner.

12. The establishment of such a fund would ensure that polluters take responsibility for their action and that moneys derived from penalties, damages and settlement are directly invested towards remediating the environmental damages that has occurred.

13. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 makes it mandatory for industries handling hazardous material to be insured against environmental hazards. However, the legislation only provides relief to person affected by accidents while handling hazardous materials who are most likely to be workers.

14. Members of the local community who are adversely affected by hazardous industries are also entitled for the reasonable compensation against the life and property in case of damage.

15. The maxim, 'interest Republicae ut sit finis litium' says that it is for the public good that there be an end of litigation after a long hierarchy of appeals. It is rare that in an adversarial system, despite 32 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

the courts are doing their best, one or more parties may remain unsatisfied with the most correct decision. Opening door for a further appeal could be opening a flood gate which will cause more wrongs in the society at large at the cost of rights.

16. The controversy between the parties must come to an end at some stage and the judgment of the Tribunal or the Court must be permitted to acquire finality. It would hardly be proper to permit the parties to file application after application endlessly. In a State governed by the rule of law, finality of the judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment. Permitting the parties to reopen the concluded judgments or orders by filing the repeated interlocutory applications is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have far reaching adverse impact on the administration of justice on the cost of injured and deceased.

17. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka and others (2011) 3 SCC 408 on the principle of finality and on the principle of public policy observed as under:-

"That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the color and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties."

18. Constitution Bench judgment in M.C. Mehta and Another v. Union of India and Others (1987) 1 SCC 395 popularly known as Oleum Gas Leak Case, it was held :-

"We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has 33 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently. dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not....We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis- `-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. We would also like to point out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases referred to in the preceding paragraph must be corelated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise."

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

19. The court in M.C. Mehta's case (supra) further observed as under:-

31. "We must also deal with one other question which was seriously debated before us and that question is as to what is the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry, persons die or are injured.

Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher apply or is there any other principle on which the liability can be determined? The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was evolved in the year 1866 and it provides that a person who for his own purposes brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without that person's wilful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence. This rule laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the damage caused. Of course, this rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority. Vide Halsbury Laws of England, Vol. 45 para 1305. Considerable case law has developed in England as to what is natural and what is non-natural use of land and what are precisely the circumstances in which this rule may be displaced. But it is not necessary for us to consider these decisions laying down the parameters of this rule because in a modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry out part of the developmental programme, this rule evolved in the 19th Century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social structure. We need not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in this context of a totally different kind of economy. Law has to grow in order to 35 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country. As new situations arise the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot afford to remain static. We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialised economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country. We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build up our own jurisprudence and we cannot countenance an argument that merely because the law in England does not recognise the rule of strict and absolute liability in cases of hazardous or inherently dangerous activities or the rule as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher as is developed in England recognises certain limitations and exceptions. We in India must hold back our hands and not venture to evolve a new principle of liability since English courts have not done so. We have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous industries which are concomitant to an industrial economy, there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability merely because it has not been so done in England."

20. The Court applied the principle of Polluter pays and observed thus:-

"The polluter pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer. The 'polluter pays' principle was promoted by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development [OECD] during the 1970s when there was great public interest in environmental issues. During this time there were demands on government and other institutions to introduce policies and mechanisms for the 36 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

protection of the environment and the public from the threats posed by pollution in a modern industrialised society. Since then there has been considerable discussion of the nature of the polluter pays principle, but the precise scope of the principle and its implications for those involved in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been satisfactory agreed."

21. In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others (2000) 6 SCC 213, the court observed as under:-

"...pollution is a civil wrong. By its very nature, it is a tort committed against the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution, has to pay damages (compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. He has also to pay damages to those who have suffered loss on account of the act of the offender. The powers of this court under Article 32 are not restricted and it can award damages in a PIL or a Writ Petition as has been held in a series of decisions. In addition to damages aforesaid, the person guilty of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner."

........x................x...............x..............x........................'

41. Under section 15(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 the Tribunal has the power to grant relief and compensation to the victims of environmental damage. In terms of sub-section (2) of section 15, the relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred in various sub-clauses of sub-section (1) is in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. Under section 17(1) of the NGT Act, where death of, or injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property or environment results from an accident or the adverse impact of an activity or operation or process, under any of the scheduled enactment, the person responsible is 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 determined by the Tribunal. Schedule II of NGT Act includes death, permanent, temporary, total or partial disability or other injury or sickness. It also covers medical expenses incurred for treatment of injuries or sickness and expenses incurred by the Government or any local authority in providing relief, aid and rehabilitation to the affected persons.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

42. The Tribunal in OA No. 885/2022, In re: News item in India TV dated 02.12.2022 titled "Chhattisgarh: Seven dead as part of limestone mine collapse in Bastar Village" vide order dated 17.05.2023 has considered in detail the issue of awarding compensation to the victims of mining accident. In that order, the Tribunal has also considered the judgment on the issue of awarding compensation to the family members of deceased persons on account of illegal mining attracting the Principle of Absolute Liability. The Tribunal in the above matter in this regard has held as under:-

"7. It is clear from the report that death of six persons has taken place due to collapse of soil bed in the course of excavation of soil. The report mentions that accident site area has been fenced with sign board of restricted area. The excavation activities are prohibited in the area.

8. Though the Committee has failed to identify the violator, there is no dispute that death is in the course of illegal excavation. There is a failure on the part of State machinery in preventing such hazardous activities and also identifying the persons undertaking such activities. In such situation, there is no reason to deprive the heirs of the deceased from just compensation to be paid by the State with liberty to recover the same from violators. While primary liability for such deaths is of the persons undertaking illegal excavation activities, State cannot avoid its responsibility for safety of human lives for failure of its vigilance and regulatory mechanism. It appears that acknowledging this responsibility, the State has given some amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 4 lakhs in respect of each death which cannot by any standard be considered to be adequate. Even on adhoc basis and in absence of particulars of loss of earning, compensation in such cases has to be atleast Rs. 20 lakhs for each death.This is the view taken by this Tribunal in number of cases, including vide order dated 28.03.2023 in OA No. 204/2023, In re:News item published in Newspaper The Hindu dated 07.03.2023 titled "Three children die during illegal mining in West Bengal". The Tribunal held:

"xxx .................................xxx.......................................xxx

5. The Tribunal has dealt with number of cases of deaths and injuries to victims by failure to follow environmental norms and enforce right to environment which is part of right to life, heirs of the deceased and the victims have been held entitled to compensation on the principle of absolute liability arising out of doing hazardous commercial activity. Though such liability 38 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

basically is of violator of law, where law violator is not made to pay compensation, the State has also been held to be liable to pay compensation as per its duty as welfare State to protect the citizen and also for failure to take steps to protect the citizens against hazardous illegal activities to prevent which is duty of the State. The Tribunal has acted consistently with parens patriae duty of the State in terms of law laid down inter alia in MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 and Vadodra Municipal Corporation v. Purshottam v. Murjani & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 14. Some of the observations from Supreme Court judgements are:

"T.N. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. State of T.N., (2017) 6 SCC 734 The State stands on the position of a loco parentis to the citizens and when there are so many deaths of farmers in the State of Tamil Nadu, it becomes obligatory on the part of the State to express concern and sensitiveness to do the needful and not allow the impecunious and povertystricken farmers to resign to their fate or leave the downtrodden and the poor to yield to the idea of fatalism. The concept is alien in the welfare State and the social justice which is required to be translated in a democratic body polity. As is manifest from the assertions and the grievances that have been agitated, deaths are due to famine backdrop and other natural causes and also due to immense financial problem. The State, as the guardian, is required to see how to solve these problems or to meet the problems by taking curative measures treating it as a natural disaster. Silence is not the answer.

MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn., (2011) 14 SCC 481 The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compensation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations Compensatory damages are intended to provide the claimant with a monetary amount necessary to recoup/replace what was lost, since damages in tort are generally awarded to place the claimants in the position he would have been in, had the tort not taken place; which are generally quantified under the heads of general damages and special damages. Punitive damages are intended to reform or to deter the wrongdoer from 39 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

indulging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis for the claim. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the claimant which he can claim in an ordinary private law claim in tort. Punitive damages are awarded by the constitutional court when the wrongdoer's conduct was egregiously deceitful."

6. We may also refer to some earlier orders of the Tribunal dealing with industrial and other accidents on account of violation of environmental norms in the State of West Bengal1, where the Tribunal awarded compensation to the victims. Some extract from order dated 18.12.2020 in O.A. No. 272/2020, News item published in the "Times of India" dated 20.11.2020 entitled "Six killed as blast tears through Malda Plastic recycling factory" is reproduced below:-

"xxx..............................xxx..............................xxx

6. The Tribunal dealt with the issue by requiring payment of compensation to the victims, restoration of environment and adopting suitable safety measures to avoid such recurrence in the light of Expert Committee reports. In the present case, the State PCB has acknowledged that the activity was illegal and the unit has now been found to be demolished. This cannot be sufficient step for enforcement of law and for remedy to the victims. The Tribunal fixed minimum interim compensation in such cases at Rs. 15 Lakhs in case of death, Rs. 5 Lakhs in case of serious injury and Rs. 2.5 Lakhs for simple injuries as follows2: "6. ... we assess interim compensation for death to be 15 lacs each (taking into account multiplier of around 16 and loss of earning of about one lac a year, taking the minimum wage, apart from conventional sums), for grievous injury Rs. 5 lac per person, for other injuries of persons hospitalized Rs. 2.5 lac per person and for displacement at Rs. 25000/- per person."

7. The State is under obligation to secure atleast this amount of compensation to the victims and if it is not able to do so, the State must pay this much amount of compensation out of its own funds, with liberty to recover the same from the persons responsible for the situation. 8. Accordingly, we direct the District Magistrate, Malda to give compensation in above terms to the victims within three months out of the State funds, excluding the amount already paid. It will be open to the District Magistrate to recover the amount from the concerned violators by taking coercive measures, as per law. The victims will be at liberty to seek any other relief in appropriate proceedings. This 40 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

direction is without prejudice to the criminal liability of the management and the operators of such activities."

7. In the present case, death of the children is patently due to violation of established norms. The State Authorities failed to enforce the law and prevent the incident. Apart from illegal engagement of children, the mining in the river bank is not shown to be by any Authority of Law, such as, mining lease, replenishment study, DSR and Environment Clearance. No safeguards have been used in the process. Thus, the State cannot escape liability for violation of environmental norms. While primary liability is of the persons engaged in illegal mining on 'Absolute Principle' laid down in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 395, when the violators have not been made to pay, it is the liability of the State to pay the compensation and recover the same from the violators. Liability for compensation is in addition to liability under the Criminal Law.

8. Further, vide order dated 11.06.2021 passed in O.A. No. 44/2021 titled as In re: News item published in The News Indian Express dated 12.02.2021 titled "At least 19 dead in Virudhunagar firecracker factory blast, more than 30 injured"

the Tribunal held:-

"xxx...........................xxx................................xxx

9. ...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."

9. The Tribunal had dealt with series of industrial and accidental matters directing environmental compensation for deceased and injured in recent past.

10. In view of above, we direct the District Magistrate, Siliguri/Darjeeling to ensure payment of compensation @ ₹20 Lakh each to the heirs of the deceased and ₹5 Lakh to the injured, after deducting the amount already paid. The 41 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

payment may be made within one month and make the violators accountable under Environmental Law be taken simultaneously at the earliest.

11. The State PCB may exercise its regulatory authority under the environmental laws - the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules 1986, in coordination with any other concerned authority."

9. Accordingly, we direct that the District Magistrate, Bastar may disburse further amount of Rs. 16 lakhs to the heirs of each of the deceased and Rs. 2 lakhs each to the injured within one month from today. It will be open to the District Magistrate to identify the violators and proceed against them in accordance with law, including for recovery of compensation. The State may review its vigilance and regulatory regime to prevent such incidents in future."

43. In the above matter, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of ₹20 lakhs to the family members of the deceased and ₹2 lakhs to the injured persons finding that the originally awarded compensation amount of ₹4 lakhs in respect of each death could not be considered to be adequate by any standard, even on adhoc basis and in absence of particulars of loss of earning, compensation in such cases has to be at least ₹20 lakhs for each death. The Tribunal has also noted its earlier judgments taking the same view.

44. The Tribunal in OA No. 66/2022 in the matter of K. Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, vide order dated 16.01.2023 had taken note of the norms of payment of compensation in para 7(b) as under:-

"...... b. Norms for compensation

1. The compensation that is payable for victims of the tragedy could never be arbitrary. The need to compensate or right to secure compensation could themselves be not a matter of debate at all. Only the scale of compensation and the persons who would become liable to pay the compensation will require to be appraised.

2. There are several compensation regimes for deaths and injuries and different enactments which are dis-similar and grossly variant. The Workmen Compensation Act, which is 42 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

surely applicable, provides compensation that will have scales of compensation determined on the age and the income of the workman. The liability shall be on the principal employer. Here the problem is that the licensee has subleased the premises to three different persons whom we have named above but have not gathered statements from any one of them since they appear to be in judicial custody after arrest, pending investigation into criminal offences instituted against them.

3. The Public Liability Insurance Act casts an absolute liability, caps the entitlement to a paltry sum of Rs.50,000/- for death and Rs.25,000/- for grievous injury. It cannot be efficacious to look for relief under the said Act.

4. The scales of compensation under different enactments for transport accidents as in Carriage by Air Act, Railways & Motor Vehicles Act are different. In the first three enactments set out, there is absolute liability and the compensation ranges between Rs.8 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs. The Motor Vehicles Act contemplates three regimes: absolute liability under Section 140, prescribing Rs.2 lakhs for death, Rs.50,000/- for grievous injuries and compensation up to Rs.800,000/- under a structured formula of strict liability norm under Section 163A. Just compensation under Section 166 is what is most scientific and driven essentially through two decisions in Sarla Varma Vs. DTC - (2009) 6 SCC 121 and as modified by National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi - (2017) 16 SCC 680. The compensation is determined based on a multiplier formula which will be applied against the multiplicand that is quantified as the likely contribution to the family by the deceased victim. The conventional heads of claims, such as, loss to estate, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium towards spouse, funeral expenses are all added. In the amendment contemplated by Amendment Act 32 of 2019, the minimum threshold amount that will become payable shall be not less than Rs.5 lakhs for fatal accident and Rs.2 lakhs for grievous injuries.

5. In traumatic accidents such as bomb blasts or fire accidents due to electrocution or terrorist activities, public law remedies have been resorted to, where the compensation shall not always be made to depend on the age of the victims and the number of dependents. They are invariably fixed sums within the broad age brackets, such as persons less than 20 years of age and above the said age limit. In MCD Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association - (2011) 14 SCC at page 481 - the compensation was fixed at Rs.10 lakhs in the case of those aged more than 20 43 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

years and Rs.7.5 lakhs to those aged less than 20 years and compensation of Re.1 lakh was awarded to each of the injured victims. The amount carried interest at 9%.

6. In Dabwali Fire Tragedy Victims Vs. Union of India & Others, a Division Bench of the P & H High Court provided compensation by examining the recommendations of the One- man Commission that elicited details about the age of the victims, the number of dependents of each of them, the income of the deceased persons, in amounts ranging between Rs.1 lakh and Rs.15 lakhs. The decision of the Division Bench passed in CWP 13214 of 1996 through its decision on 09.11.2009, was confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in - (2013) 10 SCC at page 494. In Sanjay Gupta v State of UP (2015)5 SCC 283, the Supreme Court was dealing with an incident of devastating fire that broke out in a Consumer Show held at Victoria Park, Meerut. It was organised by a private company through contractors engaged by them after seeking permission from the State Government. It resulted in death of 64 persons and grievous injuries to several others. The Commission of Enquiry found the State and its authorities to be prima facie responsible for statutory violations while granting permission and during the show. No doubt, in this case there was no violation of any law in the grant of licence, but there had been a lack of care to see that the premises had been used only by the persons who held the licence.

7. In Sanjay Gupta (Supra) the Supreme Court had taken note of the compensation awarded in Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association case, decided in 2011 as well as Dabwali fire tragedy case, decided in 2013. They observed that the State Government should see that the victims did not remain in a constant state of suffering and despair and interim compensation of Rs.30 lakhs was directed to be paid, which subsequently through a direction issued in the same case and reported in (2018) SCC 634, to be distributed on pro-rata basis through the Jurisdictional District Judge.

8. There have been other earlier decisions of the Supreme Court when fixed sums have been awarded through public law remedy. In what was referred as boat tragedy case dealing with deaths of children due to boat capsize in MS Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood (2001) 8 SCC 151, the court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 5 lakhs for each child and on the recommendations of former Chief Justice Chandrachud's report in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar in (2001) 8 SCC at page 44 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

187-the compensation ranged between Rs.2 lakhs per child and an amount upto Rs.5 laksh per adult. To persons who had burn injuries to the extent of 10% or below, the Supreme Court awarded, in modification of the Chief Justice's Report, a minimum amount of Rs.2 lakhs.

9. In all the cases before us, we do not have data of the number of dependents for the deceased persons. In respect of injuries, a few have been treated as outpatients and immediately discharged while some persons are still undergoing treatment. The percentage of burns have varied from 5% to 75%. Unfortunately, among the injured victims, there have been casualties during the treatment, for on as late as 05.04.2021, the tally of dead was 27. In this accident, there is no report of any child as having been injured or dead. We confronted only a few persons who are injured and who are less than 18 years of age. We do not think it would be proper for us to assess compensation for everyone by eliciting the age, income, etc. It will be appropriate to take the examples of lumpsum amounts awarded through public law remedies and allow for independent rights to be pursued by any victim through statutory forums prescribed under the Workmen Compensation Act, if so advised. The Workmen Compensation Act itself does not recognise any payment other than through the Commissioner and any compensation that we will recommend could be directed to be paid to the party under notice to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner so that they are not treated as amounts awarded by 'contracting out'. In the decisions which we have referred, the ex-gratia payment made by the government will not be required to be deducted. On the other hand, we believe that the State Government shall take responsibility for 10% of liability for lack of effective supervision through Inspector of Factories and 10% on the Central Government for their failure to implement the safety laws. Rest of the 80% shall be levied on the licensee and his lessees jointly and severally and the 10% each as we have fixed on the Central and State Governments shall be several. One of us, (Kulkarni) is of the view that on account of the quoted provision of immunity, the payment by the State and the Centre shall be by way of contribution in gratis rather than responsibility by default. Further, as per rule 2(37) of the aforesaid rules, the occupier who has the control and who is responsible for managing the affairs of premises is solely responsible for the accident for the violations of rules and conditions of the licence.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

10. Taking note of the fact that in the Uphaar tragedy victims case the maximum compensation was Rs.10 lakhs, but it related to an incident that took place in 1997, almost 25 years back, we will double the compensation for death at Rs.20 lakhs per family 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. The amounts shall be directed to be paid within the time the Tribunal may set and direct a further liability of interest at 12% p.a. for default of payment. The compensation is not merely a financial reparation for the loss of lives and injuries that have restitutive attributes but also designed to be punitive for the criminal negligence in carrying out hazardous activities in brazen violation of several laws that we have outlined above. The compensation amounts must necessarily therefore, be higher than what could occasion in a straightforward case of granting compensation as a welfare measure such as under the Workmen's (Employees') Compensation Act

11. The amounts on the same scales could be made also to victims of accidents in the same district just before and after our visit XIII. REMEDIAL MEASURES TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS Sl. No. Activity At whose instance

1. Video clips of safety through Central Government-

whatsApp and mobile devices Explosives experts apart from periodical workshops State government- imparting norms of safety to be Industrial safety circulated to all employees

2. Strict vigilance to ensure PESO and District conformity as regards working only Revenue Authority in sheds and not in open spaces

3. Drone surveillance of various PESO and District sheds Revenue Authority

4. Submit the compliance of the Manufacturer/ occupier once in a six months or Licensee quarterly basis and mandated to be uploaded on the public domain on the website of the respective regulatory agency.

5. Permanent closure of sheds which Licensing authority have in the past been found guilty of breaches.

6. Punitive fines of not less than Rs. Licensing authority 50 lacs for instances of violations of conditions of license such as 46 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

                   grant      of     lease,     sublease,
                  employment of more personnel
                  than authorised, use of banned
                  chemicals etc
            7.    Public liability insurance for all       Collector
                  factories to be made obligatory.
            8.    Group insurance providing for            Licensing authority
                  higher compensation of not less
                  than Rs. 5,00,000 than the limit
                  hitherto observed for Rs. 50,000.
            9.    Existing manpower of the various         Central government
                  regulatory      authorities    to   be   State Government
                  strengthened in order to have
                  periodical        post       clearance
                  monitoring and ensure better
                  compliance
            10.   Defaulting industries need to be         Revenue Division of
                  immediately        inventoried     and   the Collectorate
                  regulated within a time frame
            11.   Firecrackers' manufacturing and          Tamil Nadu Pollution
                  bulk storage facilities under the        Control Board
                  ambit of Consent Management
                  within specified time frame as
                  mandated
            12.   Fire-fighting facilities such as dry     State Fire Services
                  powder extinguisher, soda ash,
                  limestone etc. are in place to
                  handle the accident in the
                  Fireworks      Industry/metal-based
                  fire accident.
            13.   Provision for appropriate clothing,      Licensee
                  gloves, and footwear
            14.   Increased automation that avoids      Industrial
                  physical handling of dangerous        Entrepreneurs/Dept.
                  chemicals and substances              of    Industries   &
                                                        Commerce

15. Through CSR funds of the Licensing authorities industries located in the district, For MSMEs & more focus should be given to the Factories Ministry of development of education to the Commerce/Company local communities and their Affairs upliftment.

16. Crisis Management System and Central Government, Co-ordination Committee State Government constituted shall meet periodically and District Collector and review effective monitoring mechanism and suggest measures for prevention and recurrence of such accidents.

17. As per section 9B of Explosive Act Legislature 1884 punishment for certain offences given is very moderate.

The same requires legislative review for greater stringency.

18. Since the unit in which the accident The respective occurred is no more in a state to licensing authorities take manufacturing activity, the licence granted by PESO, NOC granted by District Authorities, Arms Act license for sulphur, factories Act license shall be cancelled.

19. The workers who are engaged in Licensees/ most hazardous operations viz. employers 47 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

mixing, filling of chemicals, colour pellets making shall be certified after training and those alone shall be employed. The unit shall not functional unless these workers are certified.

20. To monitor the ambient air quality Tamil Nadu Pollution in all clusters of firework factories, control Board minimum of two Continuous Ambient Air Quality Stations shall be installed, through which impact on environment due to incidental explosion can be quantified.

45. On the basis of above versions, Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 604/2023(PB) took the cognizance of the matter in Hussain Ahamad Vs. State of Up & Ors. and vide order dated 18.04.2024 ordered as follows:-

"Having regard to the criteria which has been laid down by the orders of the Tribunal and considering the fact that in the present case also death of five children has taken place on account of the drowning in the pits dugup by the respondent nos. 5 & 6 while illegally extracting soil beyond the permissible limit, the said respondent nos. 5 & 6 are liable to pay compensation to the extent of ₹20 lakhs to the family members of each deceased children and ₹2 lakhs to the injured. In the incident involving the respondent no. 5, M/s Maa Bhagwati Brick Kiln, three children had died, therefore, respondent no. 5 is liable to pay compensation of ₹ 20 lakh to family members of each deceased children. In the incident involving the respondent no. 6, M/s. Shree Ram Brick Kiln, two children had died. M/s. Shree Ram Brick Kiln has provided ₹1 lakh compensation each to the family of two deceased children, therefore, now it is liable to pay ₹19 lakhs each to the family members of each deceased children.

We are to direct that in terms of the above judgement, the amount will be disbursed at the first instance by the State Government then it will be open to the State Government to recover the same from the respondent nos. 5&6, respectively."

46. In the matter of suo moto and jurisdiction of NGT was taken up by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Municipal Corruption of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-12123/2018 dated 07.10.2021 and held that the NGT has jurisdiction to take suo moto cognizance. The history and relevant part of the order are quoted below:-

"'Prima facie', says Halsbury, 'no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the 48 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court [Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 9, p. 349] '.

13.2 The precursor to the NGT Act was the 186 Report of the Law Commission of India dated 23.9.2003 where the Law Commission had made the following pertinent observation espousing the case for the creation of a specialized Court to deal with environmental issues:-

"It is true that the High Court and Supreme Court have been taking up these and other complex environmental issues and deciding them. But, though they are judicial bodies, they do not have an independent statutory panel of environmental scientists to help and advise them on a permanent basis. They are prone to apply principles like the Wednesbury Principle and refuse to go into the merits. They do not also make spot inspections or receive oral evidence to see for themselves the facts as they exist on ground. On the other hand, if Environmental Courts are established in each State, these Courts can make spot inspections and receive oral evidence. They can receive independent advice on scientific matters by a panel of scientists.

These Environmental Courts need not be Courts of exclusive jurisdiction. However, the High Courts, even if they are approached under Art. 226 either in individual cases or in PIL cases, where orders of environmental authorities could be questioned, may refuse to intervene on the ground that there is an effective alternative remedy before the specialist H. Environmental Court. As of now, when we have consumer Courts at the District and State level, the High Courts have consistently refused to entertain writ petitions under Art. 226 because parties have a remedy before the fora established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have also the example of special environmental courts in Australia, New Zealand and in some other countries and these are manned by Judges and expert commissioners. The Royal Commission in UK is also of the view that if environmental courts are established, the High Courts may refuse to entertain applications for judicial review on the ground that there is an effective alternative remedy before these Courts. It is for the above reasons we are proposing the establishment of separate environmental courts in each State. In Chapter IX, we propose to give the details of the constitution, power and jurisdiction of these Courts."

13.4 The NGT, therefore, was intended to be the competent forum for dealing with environmental issues instead of those 49 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

being canvassed under the writ jurisdiction of the Courts. It was explicitly noted that the creation of the NGT would allow for the Supreme Court and High Court to avoid intervening under their inherent jurisdiction when an alternative efficacious remedy would become available before the specialized forum. The 186th Law Commission Report provided the following reasoning, "Likewise, we have not thought it fit to enable the Environmental Courts, to have judicial review powers exercised by the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. We have felt that it is sufficient to vest original civil jurisdiction as exercisable by a Civil Court, in the Environmental Courts. If we vest powers of Judicial review as under Art. 226, then there may be need to subject the orders to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts as held in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261.

No doubt, the Environment Court exercising powers of a Civil Court or as an appellate Court in civil jurisdiction, may be technically amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court but inasmuch as we are providing an appeal to the Supreme Court, the High Courts may decline to interfere on the ground that there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal on law and fact to the Supreme Court, as explained later in this Chapter,"

...........x.................x..............x........x..................

3. The right to healthy environment has been construed as a part of the right to life under article 21 of the Constitution in the judicial pronouncement in India. The National Environment Tribunal Act was enacted to A provide for strict liability for damages arising out of any accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for the establishment of a National Environmental Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from such accident, with a view to giving relief and compensation for damages to persons, B property and the environment. However, the National Environment Tribunal, which had a very limited mandate, was not established. The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was enacted to establish the National Environment Appellate Authority to hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations C or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to 50 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The National Environment Appellate Authority has a limited workload because of the narrow scope of its jurisdiction.

5. Taking into account the large number of environmental 1) cases pending in higher courts and the involvement of multidisciplinary issues in such cases, the Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to consider the need for constitution of specialize specialized environmental courts. Pursuant to the same, the Law Commission has recommended the setting up of environmental courts having both original and appellate jurisdiction E relating to environmental laws.

6. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, a need has been felt to establish a specialized tribunal to handle the multidisciplinary issues involved in environmental cases. Accordingly, it has been decided to enact a law to provide for the establishment of the National F Green Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of civil cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment."

.............x..............x...........x...........x....................

28.7 Analyzing the concept of the functioning of the NGT and its role within the broader broader concept of the environmental rule of law, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud speaking for a three judges Bench in H.P. Bux Stand Management & Development Authority vs. Central Empowered Committee (2021) 4 SCC 309 so succinctly said that, "40. The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools-conceptual, procedural and institutional to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understand nding of environmental challenges of how they have been shaped by humanity's interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with 51 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction which humanity's actions have charted. The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between. science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognizes that the "law element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of lawyers and judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts."

47. Learned Counsel for the State has further submitted that any action and accident in handling any hazardous substance resulting in continuous or intermittent or repeated exposure to death or injury, the person affected are entitled for damage to the person or property according to rules and the collector has jurisdiction to pass an order and decide it according to rules. It is further submitted that the Collector has jurisdiction to realize the fine according to the rules prescribed in the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. The relevant portions are quoted below:-

"(a) "accident" means an accident involving a fortuitous or sudden or unintended occurrence while handling any hazardous substance resulting in continuous or intermittent or repeated exposure to death of, or injury to, any person or damage to any property but does not include an accident by reason only of war or radio-activity;] [(g) "owner" means a person who owns, or has control over handling, any hazardous substance at the time of accident and includes,-

(i) in the case of firm, any of its partners;

(ii) in the case of an association, any of its members; and

(iii) in the case of a company, any of its directors, managers, secretaries or other officers who is directly in charge of, and is responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company:] 52 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

[(ha) "property" includes any private property or public property affected or damaged by any unit or undertaking, due to manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, transfer or such other processes of hazardous substance;].

3. Liability to give relief in certain cases on principle of no fault ---- [(1) Where death or injury to any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property has resulted from an accident, the owner shall be liable to reimburse such amount, or provide such other relief as may be prescribed, for --

(a) death due to fatal accident

(b) medical expenses incurred due to total or partial disability,

(d) other injury or sickness,

(e) damage to private property;

(f) such other loss or damage, as may be prescribed.] (2) In any claim for relief under sub-section (7) (hereinafter referred to in this Act as claim for relief), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of any person.

Explanation For the purposes of this section, --

(i) "workman" has the meaning assigned to it in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923),

(ii) "injury" includes permanent total or permanent partial disability or sickness resulting out of an accident.

4. Duty of owner to take out insurance policies. [(1) Every owner of any undertaking shall take out, before he starts handling any hazardous substance, one or more insurance policies for such undertaking or unit providing for contracts of insurance whereby he is insured against liability to give such relief or reimburse such amount referred to in sub-section (1) of section 3.

Explanation For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that any undertaking having separate consent to operate under--

(i) the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974); and 53 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

(ii) the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981), shall be treated as a separate unit:

Provided that any owner handling any hazardous substance immediately before the commencement of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 shall take out such insurance policy or policies as soon as may be and in any case within a period of one year from commencement of that Act.] (2) Every owner shall get the insurance policy, referred to in sub-

section (1), renewed from time to time before the expiry xpiry of the period of validity thereof so that the insurance policies may remain in force throughout the period during which such handling is continued (2A) An insurance policy taken out or renewed by an owner for any undertaking or unit shall be for an amount which shall not be less than the amount of the paid-up capital of that undertaking or unit handling any hazardous substance owned or controlled by that owner and may extend to such amount as may be prescribed but not exceeding five hundred crore rupees.

5. Verification and publication of accident by Collector -- Whenever it comes to the notice of the Collector that an accident has occurred at any place within his jurisdiction, he shall verify the occurrence of such accident and cause publicity to be given in such manner as he deems fit for inviting applications under sub-section (7) of section 6.

6. Application for claim for relief (1) An application for claim for relief may be made--

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury;

(b) by the owner of the property to which the damage has been caused,

(d) by any agent duly authorised by such person or owner of such property or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for relief, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

[(1A) Where any damage has been caused to any public property or private property due to manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, transfer or such other processes, of such hazardous substance, an application for claim for restoration of the property may be made by the owner of the property or such other person, as may be prescribed, to the Collector.] (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed.

(3) No application for relief shall be entertained unless it is made within five years of the occurrence of the accident.

7. Award of relief (1) On receipt of an application under sub- section (7) of section 6, the Collector shall, after giving notice of the application to the owner and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, each of the claims, and may make an award determining the amount of relief which appears to him to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom such amount of relief shall be paid.

(2) The Collector shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award [(3) When an award is made under this section,--

(a) the insurer, who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award and to the extent specified in sub-section (28) of section 4, shall, within a period of thirty days of the date of announcement of the award, deposit that amount in such manner as the Collector may direct,

(b) the Collector shall arrange to pay from the Relief Fund, in terms of such award and in accordance with the scheme made under section 7A, to the person or persons referred to in sub-section (1) such amount as may be specified in that scheme,

(c) the owner shall, within such period, deposit such amount in such manner as the Collector may direct.] (4) In holding any inquiry under sub-section (1), the Collector may, subject to any rules made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as he thinks fit.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

(5) The Collector shall have all the powers of Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed: and the Collector shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes. of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6) Where the insurer or the owner against whom the award is made under sub-section (1) fails to deposit the amount of such award within the period specified under sub-section (3), such amount shall be recoverable from the owner, or as the case may be, the insurer as arrears of land revenue or of public demand.

(7) A claim for relief in respect of death of, or injury to, any person or damage to any property shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour shall be made to dispose of such claim within three months of the receipt of the application for relief under sub-section (7) of section 6.

(8) Where an owner is likely to remove or dispose of his property with the object of evading payment by him of any amount of award, the Collector may, in accordance with the provisions of rules 1 to 4 of Order XXXIX of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act.] (9) Where the environment is affected or damaged due to manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, transfer or such other processes, of such hazardouss substance, the Central Government may, on an application made by the Central Pollution Control Board or the State Pollution Control Board, as the case may be, allocate the fund from the Environmental Relief Fund for restoration of the damage so caused in the manner as may be prescribed.] 7A. Establishment of Environmental Relief Fund (7) The Central Government may, by notification, establish a fund to be known as the Environmental Relief Fund.

(1A) There shall be credited to the Relief Fund established under sub-section (1) -

(a) the amount referred to in sub-section (20) of section 4;

(b) the amount of penalty imposed under this Act, 56 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

(d) any other amount from such sources, as may be prescribed.] (2) The Relief Fund shall be utilised for paying, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the scheme made under sub-section (3), relief under the award made by the Collector under section 7. (3) The Central Government may, by notification, make a scheme specifying the authority in which the Relief Fund shall vest, the manner in which the Relief Fund shall be administered, the form and the manner in which money shall be drawn from the Relief Fund and for all other matters connected with or incidental to the administration of the Relief Fund and the payment of relief therefrom].

8. Provisions as to other right to claim compensation for death, etc.-(1) The right to claim relief under sub-section (1) of section 3 in respect of death of, or injury to, any person or damage to any property shall be in addition to any other right to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other law for the time being in force.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (7), where in respect of death of, or injury to, any person or damage to any property, the owner, liable to give claim for relief, is also liable to pay compensation under any other law, the amount of such compensation shall be reduced by the amount of relief paid under this Act.

15A. Adjudicating officer. (1) The Central Government, for the purposes of determining the penalties under sections 14 or 15, may appoint the District Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area or an officer not below the rank of Director to the Government of India or an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the State Government, to be the adjudicating officer, to hold an inquiry and impose penalty in the manner, as may be prescribed:

Provided that the Central Government may appoint as many adjudicating officers as may be required.

(2) The adjudicating officer may summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any document, which in the opinion of the adjudicating officer, may be useful for, or relevant to, the subject matter of the inquiry and if, on 57 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person concerned has failed to comply with the provisions of sub-section (J), sub-section (2), sub- section (24) or sub-section (2C) of section 4 and section 12, he may determine such penalty as he thinks fit under the provisions of sections 14 and 15:

Provided that no such penalty shall be imposed without giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

15B. Appeal (1) Whoever aggrieved by the order, passed by the adjudicating officer under section 15A, may may prefer an appeal to the National Green Tribunal established under section 3 of the National Green Tribunal 1 Act, 2010 (19 of 2010).

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (7) shall be filed within sixty days from the date on which the copy of the order made by the adjudicating officer is received by the aggrieved person.

(3) The Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being beard, pass such order as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against.

(4) Where an appeal is preferred against any order of the adjudicating officer under sub-section (1), such appeal shall not be entertained by the Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Tribunal ten per cent of the amount of the penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer.]"

49. In view of the above provisions, the collector/district magistrate having jurisdiction over the area as to decide after holding the inquiry and calling the report from the competent expert with regard to cause of death and injuries and damage to the property and assess the compensation and to realize it and to distribute among the persons affected and anyone aggrieved by the order of the collector may file an appeal before the National Green Tribunal under Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 as provided under Section 15B of the Act.

50. The contention of the learned counsel for the State Mr. Prashant M. Harne are that the Collector has jurisdiction to assess the compensation, to award the order and to realize it according to rules and the collector is proceeding according to rules, thus, this Tribunal cannot interfere in the statutory duty and function of the Collector and if the project proponent is aggrieved by the order of the Collector, he may file an appeal according to the rules provided and quoted above.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

.............X................X................................X..............X.................

66. Additionally, the victims of the blast have lost their lives, livelihoods, and houses which has forced them to survive in temporary camps in dire conditions without substantial relief being received from the Respondents No. 04 and 05. The auction of the seized Property is necessary for providing aid to the victims and further enhanced compensation is also required to be paid for the extent of damage caused to the victims, thus the Property cannot be released. It is averred that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 07.01.2025 refused to hear the bail matter of Pradeep Goyal, until the accused persons deposit the pending interim, specifically 3 crores that the accused persons offered to deposit in lieu of their seized factory site, which was also auctioned off by the district administration. Therefore, the insensitive behaviour of the Respondents is evident in their continuous efforts to avoid the payment of legally sanctioned compensation and instead oppose the justly adopted means of ensuring their compliance with the procedure of law to enforce strict and absolute liability on them for destroying hundreds of lives and further that due to negligence, carelessness and violation of environmental laws and local laws by the respondent no. 4 and 5 this immense devastation took place causing death of several persons and damaging and burning houses of the local residents.

67. Learned counsel for the state has submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has directed that the (i) clause with direction as follows :-

(i) It would be open to the petitioner to raise the objection with regard to classification, genuineness of claimants/victims in respect of the injuries; and the categorization, classification and quantum to be paid to individual for loss of property and destruction of houses and displacement.

(ii) In case, such an objection is raised by the petitioner, NGT shall consider the same in accordance with law.

68. In compliance of the above order the state administration has submitted calculation of list as at annexure R-2 and R-3 with the details of exact amount of damage separately after examining every matter taking assistance of expert of relevant field. Six members committee submitted the report as follows :-

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

And the Tribunal observed as follows:-

71. In compliance of the above order learned counsel for the state has submitted that the calculation done by the six members committee including Executive Engineer, RES Division, Executive Engineer building PWD, Executive Engineer PWD (B&R), Sub Division Officer PWD have been calculated and filed, copy of the same has been provided to the opposite parties and presented before this tribunal on 14.01.2025 but no objection has been filed against this calculation. In the interest of justice, we further provide an opportunity to file objection against Annexure-R/2 and R/3 with the details clarifying individual cases from sl. No. 1 to the last with the facts and calculation, so that exact amount of restitution can be taken out. Additional District Magistrate participating the proceeding through V.C. expressed the problems being faced by the district administration that more than 200 persons are residing in tented house and fooding and 68 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

lodging of these persons are being provided by the District administration and these persons have been evacuated from their houses for the reasons that their houses have been burnt and damaged due to explosion in the factory of fire crackers owned by the respondent. Approximate cost of the expenditure is approximately 7 to 8 lakhs per month. He has further submitted that this expenditure is also required to be realized from the violators of the law. District Administration of the State is at liberty to proceed to realize the amount of damage and expenditure for fooding and lodging of the affected persons from the violators from the seized/auctioned property."

23. The matter of payment of just compensation in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court and the matter of reasonable compensation according to the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various matters, were taken up on 11.02.2025 and this Tribunal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned passed the following orders as follows:-

"1. Issue No. - I The matter of payment of compensation in the case of fire incident in factory of fire crackers in District - Harda is pending for more than a year and after interim order the PP approached to Hon'ble the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 5160/2024. The collector concerned was proceeding with the disbursement of the amount of compensation to recovered from the property of the PP and the PP made an offer before the Hon'ble the High Court and the court passed an order as follows :-

"In so far as the offer of petitioner for making arrangement of a higher amount towards the auction of the property vis-a-vis the bid received, it is open to the petitioner to place such a proposal before the NGT and for the NGT to consider the same, in accordance with law."

In compliance of the above order this Tribunal passed repeated orders but no offer application has been made before this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Prashant M. Harne and the ADM, Harda participating the proceedings have submitted that no offer has been made to the tune as narrated in the order. Accordingly, we are of the view that since the undertaking submitted before the Hon'ble the High Court and the order of the Hon'ble High Court has not been complied with by the PP thus, the Collector, Harda is at liberty to 69 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

proceed according to law with the property which has been attached and the auction proceedings.

2. Issue No. - II Learned counsel for the State has raised the issue of para 4 of the order dated 07.01.2025 which is as follows :-

"iv. Learned Counsel for the State has put two questions (1) for the delay of payment of compensation the project proponent is responsible to pay the interest @ 6% per annum to the family of the deceased (2) the administration is regularly expending approximately 7 to 8 lakhs per month for the fooding and lodging of the persons, who have been rescued from the site and houses have been damaged. The respondent/project proponent is responsible for payment of the amount of expenditure incurred by the District Administration @ of 7 to 8 lakhs per month or actual expenditure incurred by the district administration per month from the date of occurrence till the date of restitution of the damaged property."

It is submitted that no objection has been made by the PP and nothing has been contributed for the fooding and lodging for the persons who have been rescued from the site and the houses, thus, accordingly, the Collector is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law to realise the amount as narrated in para 4 quoted above as per revenue act applicable.

3. Issue No. - III Learned counsel for the aggrieved/injured/deceased Ms. Avni Bansal and Ms. Aishwarya Choudhary have submitted the copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, Aryavart Foundation v. Yashasvi Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. & Anr (2020) SCC OnLine NGT 2509, MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395, MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481, K. Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu OA No. 66/2022, at Principal Bench of New Delhi and requested that the amount of compensation must be paid for the reasons that no objection has been filed by the PP against the calculation filed by the Collector by constituting Six Members Expert Members Committee Team.

The question was raised by the PP that all the injured should have to file the petition or application and in reply thereof learned counsels Ms. Avni Bansal and Ms. Aishwarya Choudhary has raised the issue that they have no livelihood and means to engage any lawyer or to 70 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

file any application. Since the objection against the Collector's report has not been filed by the respondent /project proponent and the allegations with regard to papers or ownership or the matter of encroachment of the land are concerned, the District Magistrate has submitted the report that the documents are more than 500 pages and the same has been discussed with the project proponent and they can see it in the office or take the copy. No details have been filed by the project proponent as to how the calculation submitted by the District Collector is not acceptable or not tenable or what is the error in the calculation. Accordingly, the project proponent is further provided an opportunity to file objection against the individual claim failing which the report of the collector shall be treated as final. The matter of calculation of final compensation against the death or the injuries or the damage of houses shall be open to the parties subject to their evidences which shall be filed by them on affidavit or by other documents.

The fees of the Learned Advocate appearing for the aggrieved deceased/injured/whose houses have been damaged Ms. Avni Bansal and Ms. Aishwarya Choudhary will be paid from the amount recovered from the Project Proponent for the reasons that the injured or whose houses have been damaged have no means to engage any lawyer. Since they are suffering for the reasons of fire incident of the factory of the project proponent, thus, the amount of this legal fee shall also be recovered from the project proponent and the advocate shall be entitled to recover the amount from the PP."

24. 10th Judicial Proceeding was initiated by one of the respondents by means of filing a W.P. No.1037 of 2025 and vide order dated 06.05.2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed an order as follows:-

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 10371 of 2025 SOMESH AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ORDER Per. Justice Vivek Agarwal 71 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

This petition raises a simple question that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024 passed in W.P. No.5160/2024 while considering the proposal of the petitioner in regard to auction of his certain properties to settle the claims of the victims, whereby petitioner had offered that the auctioneers are going to auction his property for a sum of Rs.2 crores, whereas after arranging certain sums from his friends and relatives, he is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.3 crores as is mentioned in paragraph 10 of the said order, vide paragraph 11(iii) ordered that "In so far as the offer of petitioner for making arrangement of a higher amount towards the auction of the property vis-a-vis the bid received, it is open to the petitioner to place such a proposal before the NGT and for the NGT to consider the same, in accordance with law."

The grievance which has been raised by the petitioner now is that petitioner had deposited said amount before the Collector totalling Rs.2,12,00,000/- and, thereafter, certain more amounts were deposited, but NGT has not taken cognizance of it, has come to this High Court.

We are of the opinion that when there was a categorical direction by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.5160/2024 vide order dated 16.12.2024 to place such a proposal before the NGT, then in our opinion petitioner was not justified in depositing it or putting it at the disposal of the Collector.

Therefore, this petition can be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to place the offer supported with the demand drafts of Rs.3 crores in favour of the Registrar of the NGT within 7 days from today and then move a fresh application for consideration before the NGT, which NGT shall consider and decide on its own merits, without getting prejudiced with its earlier order.

In above terms, the writ petition is disposed of. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

(It is to be noted that nothing was offered in compliance of the above order for depositing the amount of Compensation in the registry of the Tribunal)

25. Now, 11th petition in the form of a Review Petition No.847 of 2025 was filed by the violators before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and vide order dated 16.05.2025 it was disposed of by rejecting the said application. The order of the Hon'ble High Court is quoted below:-

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA ON THE 16th OF MAY, 2025 REVIEW PETITION No. 847 of 2025 SOMESH AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ORDER Per. Justice Vivek Agarwal This Review Petition is filed seeking review of order dated 06.05.2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 10371/2025, whereby, this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.03,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores), before the Registrar of NGT within seven days through a demand draft.

Shri Prashant M. Harne, Standing counsel of State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted status/compliance report dated 18.03.2025, to show that some amount has already been credited in the account of Government and they have disbursed it.

However, the fact was already in the knowledge of the petitioner as he is also a party before the NGT and, therefore, an event which took place prior to the order dated 06.05.2025, cannot be treated to be a ground for review.

Accordingly, Review Petition is. rejected.

However, it is left to the wisdom of the NGT to take a call of the facts and decide the matter on its own."

(Again the learned counsel for the parties repeated that the above order has not been complied with by the petitioner)

26. It is to be noted that a team of expert members of the MPPCB officials visited the accident site at firecrackers factory at Harda on 08.02.2024 to take stock of the situation and assessed post-accident environmental implications at the affected site. A report was prepared and has been submitted as follows:-

"Inspection Report on Firecracker Factory Accident at Harda, M.P. 73 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

An incident of blast at a firecracker factory at Khasra No. 9/11 and 99/11, Magardha road, Bairagarh in Harda city, creating havoc and killing 11 people, was reported by media on February 6, 2024. Taking cognizance of the report a team of M.P. Pollution Control Board (MPPCB), rushed on the spot on 07.02.2024 and inspected the site.

Another team of MPPCB, comprising following members, visited the accident site on 08.02.2024 to take stock of the situation and assess post accident consequences on the environment. The team also collected samples of soil, air, water and vegetation as part of investigation.

1. Shri Abhay Saraf, Regional Officer, MPPCB, Mandideep, Dist. Raisen

2. Shri P.C. Uchariya, Sr. Scientific Officer, Regional Office, MPPCB, M'deep

3. Shri S.P. Jha, Executive Engineer, MPPCB-HQ, Bhopal

4. Dr. Rajendra Chaturvedi, Scientist, Env. Surveillance centre, MPPCB-HQ

5. Dr. Praveen Kothari, Jr. Scientist, Regional Office, MPPCB, Mandideep

6. Shri Ravishankar Bharti, Jr. Scientist, Regional Office, MPPCB, Mandideep Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Zonal bench Bhopal took the Suo Motu cognizance, OA No. 20/2024 (CZ), to the explosion at firecracker factory in Harda district and directed the concerned authorities for interim relief to the affected families and to establish a high level committee for investigation into the incident, including ecological imbalance and impact on environment due to devastating fire and explosion.

The firecrackers manufacturing & Bulk storage factories are listed in the Red Catgory of industries vide M.P. Gazette notification no. 678 dated 01.04.2015 and subsequent Central Pollution Control Board letter No. B-29012/ESS(CPA), dated 07.03.2016. It is mandatory for such industries to obtain Consent/authorization under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016. The factory under question has neither approached the MPPCB nor has obtained mandatory consents for establishment and operation, therefore, constituting gross violation of environmental norms. As per available record the existence of factory was not in the notice of MPPCB till the date of accident. It appears that the concerned departments that have granted licenses to the factory, viz. district administration and PESO, 74 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

have also not posed any pre-requisite of Board's consent from the said Unit.

The inspection team noticed devastating impact of accident in the vicinity of factory which was located in the populated area and surrounded by agricultural field from nearly three sides. The magnitude of the blast might have been huge which reduced the factory to rubble. The concrete and iron splinters, gravels etc. were seen spread all around. Some burnt motorized vehicles were also seen at the accident site, as shown in the attached photographs. Few of the residents at the accident site, including owner of one of the damaged cars Shri Arun Chouhan, mob. 9399736096 and car registration no. MP-09/CH-6179, and Smt. Rambai, Ward No. 31, Beldar Mohalla narrated their sad story about severe damage to their house due to intermittent explosions on the accident day. The houses in the close-by location were gutted and turned into debris, perhaps due to intense blast and massive blaze, as evident from the attached photographs.

Teams of State Disaster Management Force, Police department, Fire tenders, Ambulances and Earth machineries were all pressed into service by the district administration, as seen on the inspection day, for rescue and rehabilitation of the survivors. Quantity of semi- finished firecrackers, gunpowder etc. could be seen clearly on the heaps of rubble at the site. The fire at accident site was completely doused but the fire tenders were in alert mode at the site. The earth movers were seen in full swing at the inspection time. The rubble material was being cleared and the land in the factory premises was being levelled, as can be seen in the attached photographs. Land clearing operations at the accident site resulted in heaps of debris all-around. Trash material from the factory basement was being cleared by machineries on the inspection day. Samples of scattered trash were collected for analysis. Water used by the fire tenders to douse the inferno at site was seen filled in several small pits in the premises. Samples of pits water were collected at the time of inspection. There was storage of live firecrackers in a building inside the premises which was which was guarded by fire personnels to meet any eventuality. A good quantity of semi-finished firecrackers were also seen at the site. Samples of these semifinished firecrackers were collected for laboratory examination. The team contacted officials of district administration, including Shri Rohit Sissoniya, CEO Zila Panchayat & District Collector, to get feedback about the accident and other related information. Some key information, including details of raw material used by the factory, inventory of chemicals/raw material at factory premises, raw 75 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

material supply chain to the factory etc., could not be made available by the district office on the inspection day.

As per the information received from the district administration the factory was granted license by PESO to Shri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, Harda for possession and sell from a shop. The licence for possession and sell of firecrackers from a shop was granted by PESO also to Shri Somesh Garg, Harda. The licences for Manufacture of Atishbazi & Fireworks was issued by the district administration to Shri Rajesh Nandlal Agrawal, Harda and Shri Somesh Garg, Harda. These licenses can be referred at Annexure - IV.

As per record provided by district administration the licence No. 02/2010, issued to Shri Rajesh Agrawal for the manufacture and sell of any firecracker, was suspended vide DM office letter no. 7207/Licence dated 02.06.2021 due to accident that occurred in the year 2021.

The MPPCB team, during inspection, carried out ambient air moitoring and collected samples of soil, water and vegetation in and around the factory premises for laboratory analysis. The findings would be helpful to know the degree of toxic contaminants and eventually in taking up the environmental remediation measures at the accident affected site. The following is the description of samples collected on the inspection day :

Soil samples -

1. Debris waste 50 meter from point of accident

2. Shallow soil from 200 meter point of accident

3. Debris waste 100 meter SE of point of accident

4. Debris waste 100 meter East of point of accident

5. Shallow soil 50 meter from point of accident

6. Burnt waste 100 meter NE of point of accident

7. Semi finished firecrackers from site of accident

8. Outside of factory premises South direction distance approx 100 meter

9. Outside of factory premises South direction distance approx 50 meter

10. Outside of factory premises NE direction distance approx 50 meter

11. Outside of factory premises East direction distance approx 50 meter

12. Outside of factory premises SE direction distance approx 50 meter Water samples from pits -

1. Impounded water 100 meter SE from point of accident.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

2. Impounded water 100 meter ENE from point of accident.

3. Stagnant water 50 meter adjacent to point of accident.

4. Well water inside premises of Shri Sanjay Badar, in front of accident site.

5. Hand pump water, Sharma colony, in front of Prince green nursery, Bairagarh.

Ambient air samples -

1. Outside factory premises in Windward direction

2. Outside factory premises in Leedward direction Vegetation samples

1. Leaf sheaths of wheat plant from adjoining agricultural field

2. Plant leafs collected from opposite to the factory site

3. Wheat leafs collected from agriculture field opposite to factory The findings of analytical results of the soil samples at core accident site indicate substantial presence of toxic heavy metals. Overall observations of laboratory analysis, carried out at the Central Laboratory, M.P. Pollution Control Board, presents a mixed trend. The findings are discussed as follows:

The Ambient air monitoring was carried out at accident site and the samples were drawn for the key parameters, viz. Particulate matter (PM10), Sulphur dioxide (SO₂) and Nitrogen oxide (NO₂) to determine the status by assessing the actual concentration. Two respirable dust samplers were installed for this purpose at Windward and Leeward direction near factory premises for 24 hours. The findings of the monitoring show that the ambient concentration of NO2 was <35 ug/m³ at both the monitoring locations which is much below the prescribed limit of 80 ug/m³ set for this parameter. Similarly the ambient level of SO₂ has been observed to be <15 ug/m³ at both the locations which is again significantly low as compared to the standard norms of 80 ug/m³ set for this gaseous parameter. The analytical results for PM10 reveal that the ambient concentration at both the locations is above the prescribed norms of 100 ug/m³ on 24 hour basis. The observed ambient concentration has been reported to be 245.3 and 147.3 at windward and leeward locations respectively. The elevated level of PM10 at site at the time of monitoring could be attributed to incessant movement of heavy earth machineries and rescue/relief vehicles for necessary site operations. Other local traffic in and around the area could also be one of the contributors to it. In continuation to gaseous and particulate monitoring, determination of toxic metals presence in the ambient air is also underway. The site samples have already been collected and further 77 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

analysis is on. Possible toxic substances used in firecrackers manufacturing have been taken into consideration for this purpose. It is pertinent to mention here that the information about raw material and inventory of chemicals at accident site, used at factory for firecrackers production, could not be available from any of the sources, including district administration, on the inspection day. The water samples collected from hand pump and the well were analyzed for parameters of potable water interest. In addition to this, the water samples collected from pits and trough inside the premises were analysed to assess the toxic constituents, specially the heavy metals, present there in. The parameters in well water and hand pump water, viz. pH, Turbidity, Chloride, Nitrate and sulphate, were found to be well within the prescribed desirable limit of potable water as per IS-10500-2012. The results of Total dissolved solids (TDS) were noticed just on the margin of prescribed desirable limits. The alkalinity of water has, however, exceeded the norms with a value of 346 mg/l and 380 mg/l respectively reported in well water and hand pump water, against the standard norms of 300 mg/l. Similarly the findings of toxic constituent reveal that Copper, Nickel, Cadmium, Manganese and Barium were found to be well within the stated limits. The Aluminium has been reported to have exceeded the limit in both the samples. A detailed report can be referred at Annexure - VII.

The analysis results of water samples collected from the pits, as per description given on the previous page, indicate the presence of copper in the range of 0.12 to 0.35 mg/l, nickel as BDL to 0.26 mg/l, chromium 0.03 to 0.11 mg/l, cadmium as BDL, Manganese 1.14 to 1.89 mg/l which confirm to the parameters limits prescribed in Schedule IV of Environment (Protection) Rules 1986 for the discharge of environmental pollutants/effluents in inland surface water. The presence of lead is noticed in the range of 0.37 to 1.32 mg/l which is quite above the prescribed limit of 0.1 mg/l. Annexure - VIII & XI. The presence of Barium in water samples has been noticed in the range of 1.97 to 7.85 mg/l which is an alarming indication. Owing to toxicity, the use of Barium in firecracker is banned by an order issued by H'ble Supreme Court earlier.

The soil samples were analyzed to determine the concentration of toxic metals. The observed analytical values reveal the concentration of Copper in the range of 37.2 mg/Kg to 4974.0 mg/Kg, Lead 14.0 to 60.0 mg/Kg and Nickel 28.0 to 50.0 mg/Kg. The presence of Cadmium was not noticed in any of the soil/solid samples collected by the team. Among other toxic metals analyzed, the manganese showed concentration in the range of 123 to 1194 mg/Kg, Aluminium 13.1 g/Kg to 105 g/Kg and Strontium in the range of 30.4 to 229.8 78 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

mg/Kg in soil samples. The Sodium and Potassium were reported to be in the range of 0.056 to 1.42 mg/Kg.

The presence of Barium in soil/Solid samples shows an alarming sign. This is a banned chemical, owing to its toxicity, for use in firecrackers manufacturing. This chemical is considered as non- essential element for organisms and plants. The concentration of Barium has been observed in the range of 118.4 mg/Kg to 899.1 mg/Kg with an average value of 412.18 mg/Kg.

The process of carrying out analysis of vegetation samples for the target parameters, specially toxic constituents, is already underway. Communication has been established with ICAR - Indian Institute of Soil Sciences (IISS), Bhopal for carrying out analysis of possible toxic metals that are used in firecrackers manufacturing, viz. Cadmium, Nickel, Barium, Zirconium, Lead, Titanium, Manganese, Copper, Vanadium, Aluminium etc. The IISS has confirmed the availability of facility for Aluminium, lead, copper, chromiun, cadmium, nickel and manganese.

The considerable presence of toxic constituents and heavy metals is evident from the analytical results as stated above. The discussed toxicants can significantly affect the soil fertility and can be responsible for food crop contamination and may pose risk to the groundwater resource users in the area. The toxic soil at the factory accident site can contaminate the ground water through percolation and leaching of contaminants. The magnitude of risk can even be higher if the contaminants lead to a confined or an unconfined aquifer system. The presence of excessively high concentration of Nitarte in water samples at the accident site raises an alarm as it can lead to contamination of subsoil as well as ground water. This can render the groundwater unreliable for drinking in the area due to risk of formation of carcinogenic nitroso compounds. An expert agency may be consulted for opinion regarding site remediation and other related issues."

27. The above report shows that there are environmental damage in addition to death of the persons and injury to the persons.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

28. The matter of liability to pay compensation on the principle of Polluter Pays and determination of compensation and responsibility of the Government has been taken up and discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP No.23633-23634 of 2010 (Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep. by its Secretary Vs. The District Collector, Vellore District & Others) vide order dated 30.01.2025 passed the following orders:-

"POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE

71. Coming to the aspect of liability, it would be relevant to discuss the "polluters pay principle" which is the universal principle followed for fastening liability on the polluter for the proportionate damage caused to the environment, resulting in violation of right to clean and healthy environment as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India", it was noted that when an activity is inherently hazardous or dangerous, the individual or entity engaging in such activity bears absolute liability for any harm caused, regardless of the care exercised. Polluting industries, therefore, are under an obligation to fully compensate for the damage caused to affected communities. More importantly, the Court clarified that the Polluter Pays Principle extended beyond compensating victims of pollution; it included the cost of reversing environmental degradation, in other words, they are required to undertake all necessary remedial measures to remove pollutants and restore the environment. This principle, along with the Precautionary Principle, has been recognized as part of the law of the land, drawing strength from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It underscores that environmental protection is not merely a regulatory obligation but a constitutional imperative aimed at safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals and preserving ecological balance. The relevant paragraphs are as under:

"65.....We are convinced that the law stated by this Court in Oleum Gas Leak case [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395: 1987 SCC (L&S) 37] is by far the more appropriate one apart from the fact that it is binding upon us. (We have disagreed with the view that the law stated in the said decision is obiter.) According to this rule, once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other 80 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on. In the words of the Constitution Bench, such an activity: (SCC p. 421, para 31) "... can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not".

The Constitution Bench has also assigned the reason for stating the law in the said terms. It is that the enterprise (carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity) alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and not the person affected and the practical difficulty (on the part of the affected person) in establishing the absence of reasonable care or that the damage to him was foreseeable by the enterprise.

67. The question of liability of the respondents to defray the costs of remedial measures can also be looked into from another angle, which has now come to be accepted universally as a sound principle, viz., the "Polluter Pays" principle. [ (Historic Pollution Does the Polluter Pay? by Carolyn Shelbourn Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, Aug. 1974 issue.)] "The Polluter Pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of Government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer. The 'Polluter Pays principle was promoted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) during the 1970s when there was great public interest in environmental issues. During this time there were demands on Government and other institutions to introduce policies and mechanisms for the protection of the environment and the public from the threats posed by pollution in a modern industrialised society. Since then there has been considerable discussion of the nature of the Polluter Pays principle, but the precise scope of the principle and its implications for those involved in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been satisfactorily agreed.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Despite the difficulties inherent in defining the principle, the European Community accepted it as a fundamental part of its strategy on environmental matters, and it has been one of the underlying principles of the four Community Action Programmes on the Environment. The current Fourth Action Programme ((1987) OJC 328/1) makes it clear that 'the cost of preventing and eliminating nuisances must in principle be borne by the polluter', and the Polluter Pays principle has now been incorporated into the European Community Treaty as part of the new articles on the environment which were introduced by the Single European Act of 1986. Article 130-R(2) of the Treaty states that environmental considerations are to play a part in all the policies of the community, and that action is to be based on three principles: the need for preventive action; the need for environmental damage to be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay."

72. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, this Court in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum (supra) held in paragraph 12, as under:

"12. The Polluter Pays Principle" has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India ((1996) 3 SCC 212: JT (1996) 2 SC 196). The Court observed: (SCC p. 246, para 65) "... we are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country."

The Court ruled that: (SCC p. 246, para 65) "... once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on".

Consequently, the polluting industries are thus "absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas". The "Polluter Pays Principle" as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable 82 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Development" and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology."

73. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, it was observed by this Court as follows:

"8. Apart from the above statutes and the rules made thereunder, Article 48-A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. One of the fundamental duties of every citizen as set out in Article 51- A(g) is to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. These two articles have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely, air, water and soil, which are necessary for "life", would be hazardous to "life" within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.

9. In the matter of enforcement of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court, besides enforcing the provisions of the Acts referred to above, has also given effect to fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and has held that if those rights are violated by disturbing the environment, it can award damages not only for the restoration of the ecological balance, but also for the victims who have suffered due to that disturbance. In order to protect "life", in order to protect "environment" and in order to protect "air, water and soil" from pollution, this Court, through its various judgments has given effect to the rights available, to the citizens and persons alike, under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment for removal of hazardous and obnoxious industries from the residential areas, the directions for closure of certain hazardous industries, the directions for closure of slaughterhouse and its relocation, the various directions issued for the protection of the Ridge area in Delhi, the directions for setting up effluent treatment plants to the industries located in Delhi, the directions to tanneries, etc., are all judgments which seek to protect the environment.

10. In the matter of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 21, under public law domain, the court, in exercise of its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, has awarded 83 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

damages against those who have been responsible for disturbing the ecological balance either by running the industries or any other activity which has the effect of causing pollution in the environment. The Court while awarding damages also enforces the "polluter-pays principle" which is widely accepted as a means of paying for the cost of pollution and control. To put in other words, the wrongdoer, the polluter, is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the environment."

Therefore, the industries are liable to not only compensate but also bear the costs for restoring the river. Needless to point out that the remedial action would not stop at restoration, but it is a continuous process, to sustain the river, pollution free and a fresh cause of action would commence again if the industries and the local bodies fail in their duty.

          (E)      EXTENT          OF   LIABILITY      DEEMING        FICTION     AND
          PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

74. The idea of the Polluter Pays Principle, though seemingly progressive, must be carefully examined to ensure it does not result in the emergence of a "right to pollute" for those who are financially capable or willing to pay. One key question that arises is the extent of liability for the pollution caused, specifically, whether the liability ends once compensation, as determined by the Court or other authorities, is paid, or whether it is a continuing liability that persists until the actual pollution is curbed and its effects reversed. This Court has recognized that the Polluter Pays Principle, when applied absolutely, has not yet sufficiently mitigated the harm caused to the environment, yielding below-average results. The tanneries have clearly exploited this system, discharging effluents, assuming that payment of compensation grants them the right to pollute. This issue is not limited to the Vellore tanneries alone; it is a broader problem seen across industries in developing countries, where it is often seen as more cost-effective to pay the relatively low compensation than to invest in cleaner technologies that would reduce pollution. Industries, when faced with a choice between the marginal damage cost and the marginal cleaning cost, often opt for the former, thus perpetuating the cycle of environmental degradation. Few examples to illustrate the same as under:

(a) Kanpur Tanneries: Despite the Court's order, it was revealed that the tanneries in Kanpur were operating illegally for all 30 days instead of the Government-mandated 15 days per month. These 84 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

tanneries have also been discharging contaminated water into the river Ganga, continuing their harmful practices despite legal orders.

(b) Bicchri Industrial Cluster: The Court passed a verdict in 1999, ordering the company to pay Rs 37.4 crore for remediation. However, the company filed multiple interlocutory applications to delay the payment. In 2011, the Court directed the company to pay the fine along with compound interest at 12% per annum from November 1997 until the amount was fully paid or recovered. Despite this, the village continues to suffer from water contamination and scarcity, impacting drinking water availability, livestock, and agricultural yields. The community, which won the case, has been waiting for over three decades for justice, but compensation has not reached them, and the water crisis persists.

(c) Perundurai: In this case, although the Court directed industries to comply with the ZLD system, many units continue to violate the norms. They discharge untreated effluents into open places, borewells, wells, and rainwater, and bury sludge in the earth. The TDS levels reportedly reached as high as 20,000 ppm per liter, highlighting a continued disregard for environmental norms.

75. Further, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (supra), this Court endorsed the application of the absolute liability principle as an integral component of the polluter pays principle, so long as the polluting activity results in harm or damage.

"12.... Consequently the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas. The Polluter Pays Principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of Sustainable Development and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology."

76. We may also refer to the following decisions, regarding this aspect:

(i) Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action (supra) "60.... Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that even if it is assumed [for the sake of argument] that this Court 85 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

cannot award damages against the respondents in these proceedings that does not mean that the Court cannot direct the Central Government to determine and recover the cost of remedial measures from the respondents. Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 expressly empowers the Central Government [or its delegate, as the case may be] to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of environment Section 5 clothes the Central Government [or its delegate] with the power to issue directions for achieving the objects of the Act. Read with the wide definition of environment in Section 2(a), Sections 3 and 5 clothe the central Government with all such powers as are necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment. The Central Government is empowered to take all measures and issue all such directions as are called for the above purpose. In the present case, the said powers will include giving directions for the removal of sludge, for undertaking remedial measures and also the power to impose the cost of remedial measures on the offending industry and utilize the amount so recovered for carrying out remedial measures. This Court can certainly give directions to the Central Government/its delegate to take all such measures, if in a given case this Court finds that such directions are warranted. We find that similar directions have been made in a recent decision of this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action and Ors. [supra). That was also a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. Following is the direction:

It appears that the Pollution Control Board had identified as many as 22 industries responsible for the pollution caused by discharge of their effluents into Nakkavagu. They were responsible to compensate to farmers. It was the duty of the State Government to ensure that this amount was recovered from the industries and paid to the farmers. It is, therefore, idle to contend that this Court cannot make appropriate directions for the purpose of ensuring remedial action. It is more a matter of form."

(ii) Bajri Lease Lol Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan "16. The CEC has recommended imposition of exemplary penalty of Rs. 10 lakh per vehicle and Rs.5 lakh per cubic metre of sand seized, which would be in addition to what has already been ordered / collected by the State agencies as compensation.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to the value of illegally-mined minerals. The cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of the compensation. The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology".

77. When there is a violation in compliance with the environmental laws, be it by engaging in activities directly involved in causing pollution or failure to take steps to curb the pollution and restore the environment or violating any terms of licence granted by any State or central authority and acts in a manner detrimental to the environment, the effect of which causes or is likely to cause degradation of the environment, then the deeming fiction of polluting the environment becomes applicable and the polluter is not only liable to payment of compensation but also to restore the environment. As we have already seen, there is a persistent duty on the State to ensure that all steps are taken to ensure the protection of the environment. The State, even in the absence of any law, must put in place a mechanism to address the issue of degradation by taking preventive measures. The measures should lean towards protection and preservation rather than facilitation of economic activity by reliance upon lack of scientific details for adverse effects. The State must endeavour through its research wings to identify the industries and activities which impacts or can impact the environment before permitting such activities as there is a possibility that the damage could not only be irreversible but also the effects of such damage could be far more threatening the human race than the commercial benefits arising out of such activity. This precautionary principle, that has been recognized in various judgments as seen above and in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum's case (Supra) was reiterated by this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, In re v. Union of India", the relevant passage of which reads as under:

"43. The approach of the Court in dealing with complaints of environmental degradation has been laid down by this very Bench in this writ petition itself in an order passed on 9-5-2022 [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2022) 9 SCC 87 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

306] in connection with another set of applications. In this order, it has been observed and held: (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2022) 9 SCC 306], SCC pp. 315-16, paras 16-19) "16. Adherence to the principle of sustainable development is a constitutional requirement. While applying the principle of sustainable development one must bear in mind that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, courts are required to balance development needs with the protection of the environment and ecology [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (104) v. Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC 222]. It is the duty of the State under our Constitution to devise and implement a coherent and coordinated programme to meet its obligation of sustainable development based on inter-generational equity [A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718). While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment [Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281].

17. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India [Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647), this Court held that the "precautionary principle" is an essential feature of the principle of "sustainable development". It went on to explain the precautionary principle in the following terms:

(SCC p. 658, para 11)

11. (i) Environmental measures by the State Government and the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.

(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

               (iii)    The     "onus      of   proof"      is    on     the    actor          or    the
               developer/industrialist            to     show          that    his        action       is
               environmentally benign.
                                                       88

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ)           Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker

factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

18. The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity. It is based on scientific uncertainty. Environmental protection should not only aim at protecting health, property and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own sake. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but also by justified concern or risk potential (A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718].

19. A situation may arise where there may be irreparable damage to the environment after an activity is allowed to go ahead and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118]. This Court held that in case of a doubt, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. It was further held that precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm and that harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. Further, this Court emphasises in the said judgment that it is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment."

While dealing with the applications in the present set of proceedings, we shall follow the same principles."

78. To tackle this issue, the NGT has adopted the above principles in the following cases:

"(i) Court on its own motion v. State of HP.

"36. The liability of the polluter is absolute for the harm done to the environment which extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but is also aimed to meet the cost of restoring environment and also to remove the sludge and other pollutants. [Ref: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India supra). The Supreme Court held that the person causing pollution by carrying on any hazardous or dangerous activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his commercial or industrial activity. In the light of these principles, it is clear that the persons who are causing pollution in the eco-sensitive areas resulting in environmental hazards must be required to compensate for the damage resulting from their activity. A large number of tourists and vehicles which are using the roads and are carrying on 89 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

such other activities for their enjoyment, pleasure or commercial benefits must be made to pay on the strength of the 'Polluter Pays' principle. It will be entirely uncalled for and unjustified if the tax payers' money is spent on taking preventive and control measures to protect the environment. One who pollutes must pay. We have already discussed at some length that the high tourist activity, vehicular pollution and deforestation attributable to acts of emission require to be compensated. restored and maintained in a manner that there is minimum damage and degradation of the environment. Such an approach can even be justified with reference to the doctrine of sustainable development,"

(ii) Saloni Ailawadi v. Union of India:

"23. We may also observe that Precautionary Principle and "Sustainable Development principle are part of Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. "Polluter Pays' principle does not mean polluter can pollute and pay for it. It would include environmental cost as well as direct cost to people. Environmental cost is not restricted to those which is immediately tangible but full cost for restoration of environmental degradation. If cheat devices leading to pollution are ignored only on account of absence of a procedural protocol, it will be against the said accepted principles of environmental jurisprudence. Accepted global procedural norm can be accepted unless prohibited in India expressly or impliedly.

24. The law has to encourage honesty and fair dealing in business transactions and certainly business considerations cannot override environmental protection...."

(F) DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION

79. Now that we've discussed the aspect of liability, let us turn our attention to the determination of compensation for pollution-related damage. As highlighted earlier, polluters bear the absolute liability for the harm they cause to the environment. However, it is well known that quantifying the extent of that damage is never an easy task and is usually quite complex. Unlike tangible property damage, the harm inflicted upon ecosystems such as the destruction of flora, fauna, aquatic life, and the disruption to micro-organisms is not easily measurable in monetary terms. Additionally, the impact on local communities, particularly their livelihoods, is difficult to assess.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

The loss of biodiversity, degradation of natural resources, and long- term socio-economic consequences extend beyond the realm of financial valuation. Therefore, while the liability is clear, the process of determining an equitable compensation amount is fraught with challenges, as it must account for both the tangible and intangible damage inflicted on the environment and the affected communities. However, we can refer to past environmental cases, both Indian and international, to grasp the principles made therein relating to this aspect."

Responsibility of the Government:

82. It is also apposite to state that while polluters bear absolute liability to compensate for environmental damage, the Governments (both Union and State) share an equally significant responsibility to prevent environmental degradation and ensure the implementation of effective remedial action. Moreover, Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, empower the Central Government to issue directions. Thus, the Central Government, with the assistance of the State Government, RPCB or any other agency or authority, authorized, empowered or constituted by it, if so required, is entrusted with determining the amount required for remedial measures, ensuring its recovery, and overseeing their execution. In fact, in Tata Housing Development Company Ltd v. Aalok Jagga and others it was observed as follows:

"35. In Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 5 SCC 281, this Court has made the following observations:

'41. With rapid industrialisation taking place, there is an increasing threat to the maintenance of the ecological balance. The general public is becoming aware of the need to protect environment. Even though, laws have been passed for the protection of environment, the enforcement of the same has been tardy, to say the least. With the governmental authorities not showing any concern with the enforcement of the said Acts, and with the development taking place for personal gains at the expense of environment and with disregard of the mandatory provisions of law, some public-spirited persons have been initiating public interest litigations. The legal position relating to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts for preventing environmental degradation and thereby, seeking to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, is now well settled by various decisions of this Court. The 91 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

primary effort of the court, while dealing with the environmental-related issues, is to see that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws. The courts, in a way, act as the guardian of the people's fundamental rights but in regard to many technical matters, the courts may not be fully equipped. Perforce, it has to rely on outside agencies for reports and recommendations whereupon orders have been passed from time to time. Even though, it is not the function of the court to see the day-to-day enforcement of the law, that being the function of the Executive, but because of the non- functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts as of necessity have had to pass orders directing the enforcement agencies to implement the law."

83. Furthermore, we are also well aware that mere imposition of liability might not have much impact unless it is accompanied by strict enforceability. As mentioned earlier, in India, despite laws like the Water Act, 1974, and Environment Protection Act, 1986, enforcement mechanisms remain weak, as evidenced by persistent pollution in the river, 28 years after a court judgment in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (supra). We are conscious of the fact that normally the government cannot be held liable for the action of third parties. But, the State, which is entrusted with the duty to protect not only its citizens but also the environment, cannot absolve itself from its failure in implementing the laws and allowing the activities that continue in violation of the laws. The role of the State is not restricted to initial verification but also extends to continuous inspection and to ensure compliance of all laws and orders. It is pertinent to mention that the States could enforce the compliances of all the laws and the orders even during renewal of any licences. Therefore, it is equally important to recognize the role of the Government and other regulatory bodies as well to impose upon them, a responsibility with penalizing consequences in ensuring strict compliance with the orders and directions given by the Courts as well as the applicable environmental laws and principles. In other words, while the "Polluters Pay Principle" focuses on directly penalizing offenders, its effectiveness is inherently tied to the vigilance and enforcement mechanisms of the Government and regulatory bodies, and thus, in situations where authorities fail to regulate polluters adequately, the resultant environmental degradation underscores a shared responsibility. The 'Government Pay Principle' emerges from this 92 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

context, aiming to hold governments accountable for regulatory and enforcement lapses. Examples from countries like South Africa, and Chile demonstrate how holding governments accountable can drive proactive environmental protection measures:

(a) In the late 1980s, South Africa witnessed a shift towards government compensation for environmental harm caused by private injurers, which led to legislative intervention. Section 19 of the Environmental Conservation Act, 73 of 1989 empowers the government to take the necessary steps to repair the damage and to recover the cost from the polluter for its failure to take adequate measures .

(b) In Chile, the Framework Law contains provisions for citizen-suits to address environmental harm. The law allows individuals to initiate legal actions against local governments to recover the compensation for environmental damage. It provides that victims of environmental harm may require the municipality in which the activity damaging the environment occurred to take action on their behalf, holding the municipality jointly and severally liable for the environmental damage suffered by the petitioner in cases of government inaction.

(c) In Fundación Natura contra Petro Ecuador case, an Ecuadorian court, when approached by an environmental activist NGO, ordered the state agency to assess the damage and to compensate the community, holding that the state could sue the corporation once the assessment was completed.

Thus, by holding the Governments accountable, the approach ensures a dual-layered system of responsibility, fostering more stringent oversight and proactive environmental governance. In fact, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has already adopted similar approaches by ordering Governments to compensate victims and recover costs from polluters in the decision cited supra."

29. The pathetic situation of the incident where number of deaths are 13 persons, grievous injuries are of 64 persons, simple injury of 156 persons, burned houses 39 and the number of persons displaced due to this fire incident was reported to be 201. We are bound to say that poverty everywhere in the world is danger to prosperity anywhere. Poors' are not born to die or work to die. Though not necessary but due to various litigations which raised upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court for more than three times and for more than five times to the Hon'ble High 93 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Court, we may say that poverty is a curse upon humanity due to its devastating impact on individuals and societies. It traps people in a cycle of deprivation, robbing them of basic human needs like food, healthcare, and education. Poverty leads to widespread suffering, malnutrition, and preventable deaths. It limits access to opportunities, hindering personal growth and potential. Moreover, poverty perpetuates social inequalities, leading to unrest and political instability. Breaking free from poverty requires concerted efforts to address its root causes, provide support systems, and empower marginalized communities. Only by eradicating poverty can we create a more just and compassionate world for all.

Health Consequences:

• Malnutrition and Hunger: Poverty often leads to a lack of access to nutritious food, resulting in malnutrition and chronic hunger, which weakens the immune system and stunts growth.

• Lack of Access to Healthcare: Individuals facing poverty struggle to afford and access proper healthcare services, leading to untreated illnesses and increased health risks.

• Higher Vulnerability to Diseases: Poverty-stricken communities often live in unsanitary conditions with limited access to clean water and healthcare resources, making them more susceptible to diseases and epidemics.

Psychological Effects:

• Stress and Anxiety: Constantly struggling to meet basic needs and facing uncertain futures can lead to chronic stress and anxiety.

• Low Self-Esteem and Hopelessness: The lack of opportunities and support can diminish self-esteem and in still a sense of hopelessness among individuals living in poverty.

O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

30. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have further submitted that after the investigation the charge-sheet has been filed in which the present Applicant was also found to be in illegal operation of the firecrackers factory and he has supported this contention on the basis of paperbook (1460-1461). Since these are the matters of criminal proceedings, thus we are not repeating it. Paperbook 1495 (Annexure R-

4) is the Registration Certificate in the name of Pradeep Goyal, Trade Name 'Pradeep Fireworks' proprietorship at the same place and the details are Wholesale Business, Retail Business, Warehouse Depo and the attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the State which finds place in the order quoted above by the Sessions Judge while disposing the bail application.

31. It is further argued that there are electricity connection and there is a business of more than 4 lakhs kilograms of highly explosive substance beyond the permissible quantity and without the authority and the rule is polluter to pay and thus the matter of ownership is not under question in this application.

32. In view of the above facts, our conclusions are as follows:-

1. In accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, where there is a death, injury and damage to property due to any pollution as per Air Act causing injury to the person concerned or damage to the property, the National Green Tribunal has jurisdiction to proceed in accordance with rules.

2. Explosions through hazardous articles and prohibited articles or regulated articles and through fire and firecrackers, if there is pollution in air causing breath problem and due to non-

availability of the oxygen in the area, there are death and injury due to fire, thus it is within the definition of environmental 95 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

matter and comes within the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

3. There are presence of toxic constituents and heavy metals evident from the analytical results as stated above, causing pollution affecting the soil fertility responsible for food crop contamination, posing risk to the ground water resource users in the area, percolation and leaching of contamination, contaminating the ground water, presence of excessively high concentration of nitrate in water samples at the accident site, raises an alarm as it can lead to contamination of sub-soil as well as ground water, which can render the ground water not fit for drinking in the area due to risk of formation of carcinogenic

- nitroso compounds. Thus, there are damages to the environment and this Tribunal has rightly proceeded as discussed in the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

4. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.12122-12123 of 2018 decided on 07.10.2021, this Tribunal has competence to take cognizance of the matter

5. Cognizance of the matter and proceedings were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by filing the WP No.5160 of 2024 and it was disposed of with direction to proceed to classify the genuineness of the claimants/victims in respect of the injuries and categorization, classification and quantum to be paid to the individuals for loss of property and destruction of houses and displacement and the proceedings are further going in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

6. The question as to whether the petitioner/applicant is guilty, on the basis of material, prima facie, opinion about his guilt, if 96 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

petitioner/applicant is guilty and involved, are the matter of criminal nature and only the criminal court has jurisdiction to decide the above questions. Since the matter has been investigated by the investigating agency, charge-sheet has been filed, cognizance has been taken by the Sessions Judge, bail applications have been rejected by the Sessions Judge twice, the bail applications have been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court, bail applications have been turned down, rejected and disposed of three times by means of above SLPs by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the criminal proceedings and not competent to pass any order with regard to the guilt of the person concerned and thus, the name of the person cannot be deleted by this Tribunal, though the Applicant/Petitioner has liberty to approach before the Criminal Court/Session Court where the matter is pending by means of filing appropriate application.

7. Present I.A. No.25/2024 was filed after the disposal of the bail application by the Sessions Judge where the Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of the person concerned in a criminal proceeding and after that prayer to delete the name from the proceedings is neither justified nor within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

8. By means of filing this I.A. the prayer to delete the name from the proceedings is not tenable and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to intervene or interfere in the criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge. The judicial system is to subserve the justice not to subvert the justice.

9. With all humbleness and regard to the Hon'ble High Court, we are of the view not to interfere in the order of the Sessions Judge or orders quoted above in the criminal proceedings and 97 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

thus, the application to delete the name of the Applicant of I.A. is beyond the purview and scope of this Tribunal being a criminal matter. However, the Applicant has proper and efficacious remedy to move the application before the Sessions Judge for deleting his name from the proceedings.

10. With these observations as above, the directions of the Hon'ble High Court are complied with and the I.A. No.25/2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

33. For the next proceedings, main matter be listed on 27th November, 2025.

1. Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 16th October, 2025, O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) (I.A.No.69/2025, I.A.No.70/2025, I.A.No.75/2025, I.A. No.96/2025, I.A. No.109/2025 I.A. No.110/2025 & I.A. No.111/2025) AK 98 O.A. No.20/2024(CZ) Suo Moto action on the News regarding blast in the Fire cracker factory in Harda District of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2024 Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Green Tribunal

Sou Motu Action On The News Regarding ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025