National Green Tribunal
Silventa Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board ... on 29 April, 2026
Item No.2 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
APPEAL NO.92 OF 2026 (WZ)
Silventa Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd.
.....Appellant
Versus
GPCB
....Respondent
Date of hearing: 29.04.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant : Mr. KK Sharma Law Offices, Advocate for Appellant
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed praying for quashing of the Order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Respondent-GPCB directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.28,62,425/- by way of final Environmental Damage Compensation. On the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice as the copy of the Expert Committee Report was not given to the appellant despite repeated requests for the last six years. The said order is in contravention of the NGT's Order (date is not disclosed nor has copy of the same been annexed, therefore, we direct the learned counsel for the appeal to annex a copy of the same forthwith).
2. The impugned order does not state the legal provision, under which the final damage compensation is proposed to be imposed.
3. The impugned order is contrary to the jurisprudence established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Prabha Shukla, (2018) 12 SCC 85; Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Page 1 of 3 Power Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Gujarat Maritime Board Vs. Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd., (2022) 19 SCC 765. We may make it clear here that the copies of these Judgements have not been annexed by the appellant, therefore, we direct the appellant to annex the copies of these judgments for our perusal.
4. The impugned order is passed ignoring the entire data about operations of each industry over a period of time in the form of inspection reports in possession of GPCB. The impugned order does not provide any basis, calculation and reason for imposition of the Final EDC. The impugned order is against the principles of doctrine of proportionality in as much as, there is proportional imbalance between penalty directed by the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed without assessing the damage to the environment and public health. The impugned order has been passed mechanically treating every unit in Morbi as the same. The Expert Committee Report has been obtained by disregarding the exact data available with GPCB. The impugned order does not give any basis of arriving at a figure of Rs.122.05 crores of damage to the environment and public health. The impugned order is passed presuming that all units are using coal gasifiers, while the appellant was not using the same. The impugned order is not in conformity with any of the formula for calculation of EDC formulated by CPCB.
5. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. We and admit this appeal.
6. Registry is directed to issue Notice to the Respondents, returnable within 04(four) weeks.
7. Appellant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the Respondents by both ways (Dasti as well as by Registered Post) and also Page 2 of 3 on available e-mail/WhatsApp., and submit service affidavit within one week.
8. Appellant is also directed to supply copy of the appeal and relevant documents to the Respondents within a week.
9. Respondents are directed to submit their reply affidavits within four weeks through e-filing and also circulate the same to the appellant and also the other Respondents by available e-mail.
10. Rejoinder, if any, is directed to be submitted within one week thereafter.
11. Put up this matter for further consideration on 11.06.2026.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM April 29, 2026 APPEAL NO.92 OF 2026 (WZ) SAR Page 3 of 3