M/S S.S. Bricks Industries vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 30 October, 2025

[Cites 57, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S S.S. Bricks Industries vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 30 October, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:44705]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 645/2025

M/s. Tata Bricks Company (Old Name Vip Int Udyog), Chakk-66
G.b., Tehsil - Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar Through Its
Proprietor Jitin Kumar S/o Amarjeet Kumar, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur.
2. Environment Engineer (Env. Comp.), Rajasthan State
Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4 Institutional Area,
Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.
3. Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board,
Plot No. Spl-33, Bichhwal Industrial Area, Bikaner
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. D.S. Thind
Mr. Harshvardhan Rathore
Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal
Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain
Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Sodha
Mr. Deepesh Birla
Mr. Amit Kumar
Ms. Sonika Punia
Mr. S.R. Godara
Mr. Hans Raj Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
Mr. Pravin Kumar Choudhary
Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi
Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal
Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Reportable

Reserved on : 23/09/2025
Pronounced on : 30/10/2025

1. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Manish Shishodia, appearing on

behalf of the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that he

proposes to make some preliminary submissions, which are

identical in the present writ petition, along with other writ

petitions mentioned in Schedule-A, attached with this order,

which may be treated as part of this order.

2. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the

present bunch of petitions have been filed feeling aggrieved of the

imposition of environmental compensation by the respondent -

Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board ("RSPCB"), pursuant to

the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal ("NGT").

2.1 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that his

preliminary submissions may be considered and decided first,

without going into the merits of individual writ petitions and if his

preliminary submissions are decided and are accepted, then the

entire bunch of writ petitions could be decided accordingly. It is

also submitted that if this Court is not inclined to accept the

preliminary submissions, then the writ petitions may be posted

again for deciding the same on merits.

2.2 Considering the submissions made above, the preliminary

submissions are being considered and decided first.

3. At this stage, although this Court is not deliberating the

factual aspects involved in this bunch of writ petitions, however, it

would be relevant to produce background of the matter for clarity.

Hence, for brevity, the facts of writ petition No.645/2025 are

considered.

3.1 The petitioner, to operate as a brick kiln, had applied to

RSPCB for grant of Consent to Operate on 26.11.2021 and the

same was granted on 13.02.2022 (Annex.3) for the period from

26.11.2021 to 31.10.2031. However, in the meanwhile, a show

cause notice dated 19.01.2022 (Annex.4) was issued by RSPCB in

pursuance of directions issued by the NGT vide order dated

10.11.2021 in the case of Hakam Singh & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.; O.A. No.262/2020 and imposition of

Environmental Compensation was sought alleging operation of unit

without obtaining Consent to Operate.

3.2 Thereafter, Environmental Compensation to the tune of

Rs.15,60,000/- was levied vide order dated 08.03.2022 (Annex.5)

passed by RSPCB. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner preferred

a writ petition being SBCWP No.7580/2022, which is pending and

is tagged with the present bunch of writ petitions.

3.3 The petitioner also approached the NGT seeking

impleadment as party in the aforesaid case pending before it. The

NGT, while disposing of the application for impleadment on

11.07.2022, directed that the order dated 08.03.2022 (Annex.5)

be treated a notice and granted time to the petitioner to file

response to the same.

3.4 The petitioner thereafter submitted a reply pursuant to the

aforesaid order passed by the NGT and thereafter the impugned

show cause notice dated 18.12.2024 (Annex.7) came to be passed

seeking to revoke consent to operate on account of non-deposition

of Environmental Compensation been imposed vide order dated

08.03.2022.

3.5 In similar manner, Environmental Compensation has been

imposed by RSPCB on the petitioners alleging operation of brick

kilns without Consent to Operate. The said imposition of

Environmental Compensation has been challenged in the present

bunch of writ petitions alleging the same to have been levied

without jurisdiction/authority.

4. The preliminary submission, which is common in all the writ

petitions, is that the RSPCB is not competent under the law to

impose Environmental Compensation. In support of such

submission, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Shishodia, made the

following submissions:-

4.1 The RSPCB has exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing

Environmental Compensation upon the petitioner as it has no

authority under the law to do so and has relied upon the judgment

passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court

(Lucknow Bench) in the case of Suez India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttar

Pradesh Pollution Control Board & other connected

matters, decided on 17.07.2025. While relying on the aforesaid

judgment, the learned Senior Counsel has referred to para Nos.2,

13, 39, 43, 44, 47, 51, 54, 63, 66, 67, 78, 70, 80, 82 and 83 and

while taking this Court to the above referred paragraphs of the

judgment, he argued that the State Pollution Control Board has no

power to impose Environmental Compensation on any person or

industry and it can merely file an application before the NGT under

Section 15 read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal

Act, 2010 ("NGT Act") for issuance of a direction to the person

concerned for demand of the same.

4.2. He also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli

Samaj Parivartan Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2023) 13

SCC 525] and referred to para Nos.3, 5, 6 and 14 to 17 of the

aforesaid judgment and submitted that the NGT could not abdicate

its jurisdiction and could not entrust judicial function to any

administrative expert body. Such function is not delegable. He

argued that Section 15 of the NGT Act empowers the NGT to

award compensation to the victim of pollution and the

environmental damages to provide for restitution of property,

which has been damaged and for the restitution of environment.

He also argued that it is the NGT alone, who has been entrusted

by the Act and it is rather core adjudicatory function, which cannot

be delegated to any administrative expert body.

4.3. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P.C.C. Vs. Lodhi

Property Co. Ltd. & other connected matters, [2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1601] while contending that power to impose or

collect restitution or compensatory damages can be imposed only

after detailing the principle and the procedure incorporating basic

principles of natural justice in the subordinate legislation.

He further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly

opined that without there being any legislative regulatory

mechanism, the State Pollution Control Board cannot demand

Environmental Compensation.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment in the

case of Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (supra), has laid down that

guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, in its

document "General Framework for Imposing Environmental

Damages" which were issued in December, 2022, are required to

reviewed thoroughly and issued in form of Rules & Regulations as

this will enable declaration of law and ensure its recognition and

easy implementation. While elaborating his submission, learned

Senior Counsel has referred to para Nos.2, 3, 6, 12, 30, 31, 33,

35, 37 and 39 of the aforesaid judgment and while taking this

Court to the above referred paragraphs of the said judgment, he

submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in concluding para, has

specifically observed that the State Pollution Control Board, shall

impose or collect restitutionary or compensatory damages only

after detailing the principle and procedure incorporation basic

principles of natural justice in the subordinate legislation. That

being so, unless the necessary Rules & Regulations are framed

and are incorporated and declared as a law, the State Pollution

Control Board has no authority to impose Environmental

Compensation upon the petitioners, based on the guidelines which

have no legislative competence.

4.4. The Environmental Compensation has been calculated

without any formula and there is no transparency as to on what

basis the figure mentioned as Environmental Compensation has

been arrived at by the RSPCB. He submitted that the alleged

mechanism does not carry any statutory force as it has not been

notified in the official gazette. There is no material available on

record nor any impugned orders to reflect as to who has suffered

damages or harmed. The impugned orders have been passed in

cyclostyled manner without due application of mind.

Based on the above, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shishodia

submitted that the present bunch of petitions deserves to be

allowed on the above preliminary submissions and the impugned

orders passed in the present bunch of petitions are required to be

quashed and set aside on this count alone and any amount

recovered towards Environmental Compensation from the

petitioners, during pendency of the present bunch of petitions, is

required to be refunded.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, appearing in

SBCWP No.6090/2022 while adopting the arguments as advanced

by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shishodia, submitted that appeal

against the impugned order is not maintainable as they are

composite orders passed under both the Air (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ("Act of 1981") and the Water

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ("Act of 1974"). He

submitted that there is no provision provided under the Act of

1981 to appeal against the directions issued under Section 31 of

the said Act. The remedy available under the Act of 1974 cannot

be availed to appeal against the composite impugned orders and,

therefore, the objections as raised by the respondents in their

reply with regard to the maintainability of the present writ

petitions deserve to be rejected.

5.1. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs.

Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. & Ors. [(2019) 19 SCC 479].

5.2. He also submitted that brick-kilns work on different scale and

level, meaning thereby, the capability and investment, therefore,

mechanism to impose Environmental Compensation, without any

prescribed mode of calculation, is also not comprehensible.

6. Learned Counsel Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain, appearing in

SBCWP No.3088/2023 while adopting the arguments as advanced

by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shishodia and Mr. Vijay Kumar

Aggarwal, further submitted that even if appeal is to be preferred,

the same cannot be done as the Appellate Authority at Jaipur is

not functioning and, therefore, writ petitions are required to be

heard on merit.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the RSPCB as well as the

State, made the following submissions:-

7.1 The respondent-RSPCB was right in imposing Environmental

Compensation upon the petitioner as an inspection was carried out

in view of the direction issued by the NGT and during inspection, it

was noted that the brick kilns, being operated by the petitioners,

were running without Consent to Operate or in some cases,

without seeking necessary conversion.

It is submitted that the Environmental Compensation is

calculated for the period in which the petitioners-industries were

found to be running without Consent to Operate and, therefore,

the RSPCB was fully justified in imposing environmental

compensation.

It is submitted that penalty for violation and environmental

damages are two different subjects and as far as penalty is

concerned, the same is for the purpose of penalizing the person

for not adhering to the norms and the guidelines under which he is

supposed to run brick-kilns and environmental compensation is a

compensation, which is levied on the default for causing

environmental pollution and the environmental compensation is

recovered as to restore the damage caused on account of such

environmental damage.

7.2 The State Pollution Control Board is under obligation to

consider the direction issued by the Central Pollution Control

Board as per Section 18(1)(b) of the Act of 1981. Thus, in view of

the same and considering the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Ors.

Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2017) 5 SCC 326], the mechanism

of calculation, imposition and recovery of environmental

compensation has been formulated, which under clause (2)

provides the procedure for calculating amount of environmental

compensation. That being so, the action of the respondent-RSPCB

in imposing Environmental Compensation cannot be held to be

illegal or arbitrary in any manner.

7.3 The NGT, vide its order dated 11.02.2021, has delegated to

the State Pollution Control Boards, the authority to assess and

recover compensation from brick kilns, therefore, the impugned

orders were rightly passed.

7.4 While responding to the submission made with regard to

direction issued in the case of Lodhi Properties (supra), it is

submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Hon'ble Apex

Court has not declared the method of calculating as

unconstitutional and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that there

is anything wrong in the formula for calculation, rather, the

direction has been given only to give statutory colour to the

guidelines.

7.5 While responding the submissions with regard to damage

suffered, it is submitted by the respondents that compensation

has been imposed on the petitioners on account of non-

compliance with requisite of obtaining/renewing Consent to

Operate and, therefore, the question as to who has suffered

damage does not arise.

7.6 The petitioners have not challenged the order dated

11.02.2021, passed by the NGT, pursuant to which, the impugned

orders/notices have been issued to the petitioners imposing

Environmental Compensation. The said order of NGT is the whole

genesis in this litigation as every action ranging from site

inspection to issuance of the impugned orders has been carried

out as per direction issued in the said order and, therefore,

without challenging the same, the present writ petitions are not

maintainable. In support of this submission, learned counsel has

placed reliance on the judgment of the Meghalaya High Court

rendered in the case of Dayanidhi Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board & Ors. [WP(C)

No.338/2021, decided on 16.12.2021].

7.7 The judgment rendered in the case of Lodhi Properties

(supra), does not help the petitioners as the impugned

communications, passed due to the non-compliance of possessing

Consent to Operate. Further, the Court has, in no manner, denied

the authority of State Pollution Control Boards to levy

environmental compensation.

7.8 The action of the RSPCB cannot be said to be arbitrary or

unreasonable as show cause notices were issued to which

respective replies were filed by the petitioners and subsequent

thereto, the impugned communications were issued. The 'Polluter

Pays Principle' not only applies to emission of actual pollution but

also to non-compliance of requisite permissions to maintain the

environmental law compliance concerning pollution and Consent to

Operate comes within the ambit of such compliance as action plan

as to how the work will be carried and emissions would be

maintained has to be submitted before NOC can be issued.

7.9 The Allahabad High Court, in the case of M/s. Ramesh

Dyeing and Washing, Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. [Writ(C)

No.7305/2025, decided on 21.08.2025], dismissed the writ

petition while relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Lodhi Properties (supra) and observed that Pollution

Control Board has jurisdiction to impose Environmental

Compensation.

7.10 In response to the submission made by Mr. Vijay Kumar

Aggarwal, it is submitted that the impugned communications are

composite in nature, however, remedy of petitioners lies before

the NGT itself as the communications have been issued in

compliance of the direction of the NGT.

7.11 While responding to the submissions made by Mr. Hemant

Kumar Jain, it is submitted that the appellate authority has been

notified on 18.09.2025 and, therefore, the submission made by

him is incorrect on the face of it. Thus, the petitioner very well has

an alternative remedy to approach the Appellate Authority.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Allahabad High Court

delivered in the case of Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. State of UP

& Ors. [(2024) ILR 12 All. 741].

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

9. One of the argument raised by the respondents is with

regard to the maintainability of writ petitions in view of the fact

that the petitioners have equally efficacious alternative remedy.

9.1 This Court deems it appropriate to deal with the issue of

alternative remedy at first.

9.2 The counsel for the petitioners, while making preliminary

submissions, have submitted that RSPCB exceeded its jurisdiction

in calculating and imposing Environmental Compensation upon the

petitioners, more particularly in view of not having legislative

competence to take such action.

9.3 It may also be noted that order/show cause notice is

challenged by the petitioners on ground of it being without

jurisdiction. If order/action is without jurisdiction, then writ

petition is maintainable despite alternative remedy being

available, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,

Mumbai & Ors. [(1998) 8 SCC 1], wherein it was observed as

under:-

"14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of
the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any
other provision of the Constitution This power can be exercised
by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of
Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and
Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental
Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for
"any other purpose".

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court,
having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to
entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court
has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that

if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High
Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction.
But the alternative remedy has been consistently held
by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed
for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or
where there has been a violation of the principle of natural
justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut
down this circle of forensic whirlpool we would rely on some
old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law
as they still hold the field.

16. Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, kairana,
[1950]1SCR566 , laid down that existence of an adequate legal
remedy was a factor to be taken into consideration in the
matter of granting Writs. This was followed by another Rashid
case, namely, K.S. Rashid & Son v. The Income Tax
Investigation Commissioner, [1954]25ITR167(SC) which
reiterated the above proposition and held that where
alternative remedy existed, it would be a sound exercise of
discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226.
This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant
words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which
indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an
absolute bar and that Writ Petition under Article 226 could still
be entertained in exceptional circumstances.

XXX XXX

20. Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there
has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which though
old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the
jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative
statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the
authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had
no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without
any legal foundation."

9.4 It is further to be noted that the impugned orders are

composite in nature as they have been passed under the Act of

1981 so also Act of 1974, thus remedy of appeal cannot be availed

as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sterlite Industries

(supra) wherein the Court observed as under:-

"35...At this juncture, it is important to state that Section 33B of
the Water Act and Section 31B of the Air Act were both enacted
on 18.10.2010, which is the very date on which the NGT Act
came into force. What is important to note is that whereas
Section 33B(c) of the Water Act read with Section 16(c) of the
NGT Act make it clear that directions issued Under Section 33A
of the Water Act are appealable to the NGT, directions issued
Under Section 31A of the Air Act are not so appealable. In fact,
the statutory scheme is that directions given Under Section 31A
of the Air Act are not appealable. This being the case, all the
aforesaid orders, being composite orders issued under both the
Water Act and the Air Act, it will not be possible to split the
aforesaid orders and say that so far as they affect water
pollution, they are appealable to the NGT, but so far as they
affect air pollution, a suit or a writ petition would lie against
such orders.....However, Shri Sundaram argued, with particular
reference to the explanation to Section 31A of the Air Act that
"directions" partake of the nature of "orders" when closure of
any particular industry or stoppage of supply of electricity qua
any single industry is made, and therefore, such directions are
appealable as orders Under Section 31 of the Air Act. This
argument is also of no avail as Section 33A of the Water Act
contains an identical explanation to that contained in Section
31A of the Air Act. Despite this, the legislative scheme, as stated
hereinabove, is that so far as directions under the Water Act are
concerned, they are appealable, but so far as directions under
the Air Act are concerned, they are not appealable."

Thus, this Court is well within its jurisdiction to entertain the

present writ petitions.

10. Now, I propose to deal with the issue submitted in the form

of preliminary submission, which is as to whether Rajasthan State

Pollution Control Board is competent to impose Environmental

Compensation, as has been imposed in the orders impugned in

the present bunch of petitions.

10.1 In order to adjudicate the above issue, it would be

appropriate to first consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Lodhi Properties (supra). Before considering

the said judgment, it would be appropriate to reproduce certain

relevant paragraphs of the judgment, which are reproduced as

under:-

"31. At this stage, we must also take note of the recent 2024
amendments to the Water and Air Acts. Two major changes
relevant for our consideration are that of decriminalisation and
introduction of the office of "Adjudicatory Officer". Even after
the amendments, in our opinion, there is no conflict between
the powers of the State Boards to direct payment of
environmental damages under Sections 33A and 31A of the
Water and Air Acts and the powers of the Adjudicating Officer
to impose penalties under Chapter VII of the Water Act and
Chapter VI of the Air Act. The decriminalization of offences
under these Chapters has not removed the punitive nature of
actions that can be taken under them. There remains a clear
distinction between the nature of directions that the State
Boards can issue under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and
Air Acts for payment of environmental damage and the
determination by Adjudicating Officers. The former is
compensatory in nature and will be resorted to when remedial
measures are being undertaken to restore the degraded
environment or pollution caused. The latter is a penalty for an
offence under the law and is imposed with the objective of
punishing the offender. This penalty collected here will not be
specifically directed towards the restoration of the degraded
environment (for instance, to decontaminate a pond that has
beenpolluted due to discharge of untreated sewage). It will be
deposited in the Environmental Protection Fund that is to be
set up under Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act.
According to Section 16(3) of the EP Act, the Fund shall be
used for, (a) the promotion of awareness, education and
research for the protection of environment; (b) the expenses for
achieving the objects and for purposes of the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981(14 of 1981) and under this
Act; and (c) such other purposes, as may be prescribed.

A. Board's Responsibility to Choose Appropriate Course
of Action.

32. Given their broad statutory mandate and the significant
duty towards public health and environmental protection the
Boards must have the power and distinction to decide the
appropriate action against a polluting entity. It is essential that
the Boards function effectively and efficiently by adopting such
measures as is necessary in a given situation. The Boards can
decide whether a polluting entity needs to be punished by
imposition of penalty or if the situation demands immediate
restoration of the environmental damage by the polluter or
both.

B. Powers Must Be Guided by Transparency and Non-
Arbitrariness.

33. While we hold that the Boards have the power to direct
the payment of environmental damages, we make it clear that

this power must always be guided by two overarching
principles. First, that the power cannot be exercised in an
arbitrary manner; and second, the process of exercising this
power must be infused with transparency.
...

35. To ensure that the Boards impose restitutionary and the compensatory environmental damages in a fair transparent, non- arbitrary manner, with procedural certainty, necessary subordinate legislation in the form of rules and regulations must be notified. This shall include methods by which environmental damage is determined, and the consequent quantum of damages are assessed. They may also incorporate certain basic principles of natural justice for fairness in action. At present environmental damages are being levied by the Boards on the basis of certain guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in its document "General framework for imposing environmental damage compensation" issue in December, 2022. These guidelines seem to have been issued pursuant to the directions of the NGT. It is important that these guidelines are reviewed thoroughly and issued in the form of Rules and Regulations. This will enable declaration of a law that applies and ensures its recognition and easy implementation.

36. These Rules must also create enabling framework for citizens to file complaints about environmental damage. Public participation in environmental protection has assumed great importance with climate change threatening to drastically disrupt our way of living. Boards, being the first line of defence against polluting activities, must provide easy accessibility and encourage public participation in their function and decision making.

37. While we have reversed the decision of the High Court on the principle of law and hold that the environmental regulators, the Pollution Control Boards, can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts, we issue the following consequential directions.

39. For the reasons stated above:

(a) we allow these appeals and set aside the judgement and order dated 23.01.2012, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi to the extent of declaration of law but direct that the show cause notices that have been set aside by the High Court shall not be revived.

(b) we direct that the Pollution Control Boards can impose and collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require furnishing bank (D.B. SAW/440/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon30/10/2025 (Downloaded 30/10/2025atat04:43:17 10:12:54PM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44705] (17 of 24) [CW-645/2025] guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts.

(c) it is further directed that the power to impose or collect restitutionary or compensatory damages or the requirement to furnish bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts shall be enforced only after detailing the principle and procedure incorporating basic principles of natural justice in the subordinate legislation."

10.2 A perusal of the above judgment, more particularly, the paragraphs as reproduced above, reflects that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para No.39 of the judgment, has specifically concluded and directed that power to impose or collect restitutionary or compensatory damages or requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee as an ex-ante measure under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Act respectively shall be imposed only after detailing the principle and procedure incorporating basic principles of natural justice in the subordinate legislation. Meaning thereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the issue of imposition of the Environmental Compensation by the State Pollution Control Boards, observed that the State Pollution Control Boards can impose restitutionary or compensatory environmental damages but only after having competence of subordinate legislation in the form of Rules & Regulations.

In para No.35 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that to ensure that the Boards can impose restitutionary and compensatory damages in a fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary manner, with procedural certainty, necessary subordinate legislation in the form of Rules and Regulations must be notified. This shall include methods by which environmental damages is determined, and the consequent quantum of damages (D.B. SAW/440/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon30/10/2025 (Downloaded 30/10/2025atat04:43:17 10:12:54PM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44705] (18 of 24) [CW-645/2025] are assessed. While bringing such Rules & Regulations, it may also incorporate certain principles of natural justice for fairness in action.

It is further observed that presently there is no legislation providing method of calculating Environmental Compensation and environmental damages being levied by the Boards on the basis of the certain guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in its document "General Framework for imposing environmental damage compensation" issued in December, 2022. It is noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court that these guidelines seem to have been issued pursuant to the directions of the NGT and the same are required to be reviewed thoroughly and are required to be issued in the form of Rules & Regulations.

10.3 Considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the firm opinion that the RSPCB could not have demanded Environmental Compensation while considering the fact that there is no statutory backing with regard to the mechanism to calculate Environmental Compensation so also to have an authority to demand such Environmental Compensation.

10.4 Counsel for the respondents have stated that the Allahabad High Court, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lodhi Properties (supra), dismissed the writ petitions, however, it is noted that the Allahabad High Court has considered the only issue with regard to competence of the State Pollution Control Board and has not considered the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which mandated that the State Pollution Control Boards could demand Environmental Compensation only after framing Rules & Regulations.

(D.B. SAW/440/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon30/10/2025 (Downloaded 30/10/2025atat04:43:17 10:12:54PM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44705] (19 of 24) [CW-645/2025] 10.5 There is no dispute to the fact that presently the formula, as applied by the RSPCB is based on the guidelines "Mechanism of Calculation, Imposition and Recovery of Environmental Compensation". These guidelines have no statutory backing and, therefore, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the RSPCB has no authority of law in demanding such Environmental Compensation. It is also to be noted that in the present case, demands were raised in the year 2022-23. The Hon'ble Apex Court has though decided the issue regard to the competency of State Pollution Control Boards to impose Environmental Compensation recently in the case of Lodhi Property (supra) which was decided on 04.08.2025, and the demands raised in the present writ petitions are prior to it, yet considering the settled law on the prospective and retrospective operation of the judgments rendered by the Courts, which does not require much deliberation, it is clear that the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case would apply to impugned orders in the present bunch of writ petitions. The said of proposition of law was recently discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanishk Sinha & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.; 2025 INSC 278 wherein the Court observed that whereas the law made by the Legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated retrospective, the reverse is true for judicial pronouncements. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. That being so, once it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Environmental Compensation could only be (D.B. SAW/440/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon30/10/2025 (Downloaded 30/10/2025atat04:43:17 10:12:54PM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44705] (20 of 24) [CW-645/2025] imposed by the State Pollution Control Boards after it attains the legislative colour, the demand raised by the State Pollution Control Boards could not be allowed to stand and the impugned orders in the present bunch of petitions deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. Another ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the order passed by NGT in pursuance of which the impugned orders have been passed by the RSPCB, has not been challenged before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that when the entire exercise of inspection and imposition of the environmental compensation has been carried out by the RSPCB then, it can be safely concluded that the said exercise constitutes an independent action which can be challenged under writ jurisdiction without challenging the order of NGT considering the fact that the impugned orders are composite in nature; more particularly, when the core issue is with regard to the competence and jurisdiction of the RSPCB to levy environmental compensation.

12. Some additional submissions have also been made by the petitioners as well as by the respondents on some other issues but this Court does not deem it necessary to examine the same as the core issue is only with regard to the competence of the RSPCB to impose impose Environmental Compensation in absence of statutory backing.

13. In view of the above, the preliminary submissions, as raised by the petitioners, is accepted. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders/notices/communications in the present writ petitions are hereby quashed and set aside.

14. It is hereby directed that if any amount has been collected or deposited in lieu of demand raised vide impugned orders/notices/ communications, the same shall be refunded to the respective petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if amounts are not deposited or collected, the respondent-RSPCB shall not take any further action.

15. However, the respondent-RSPCB can impose and collect restitutionary and compensatory damages so also damages qua potential environmental damage while exercising powers under Sections 33A of the Act of 1974 and 31A of the Act of 1981 provided the subordinate legislation is enacted detailing the principles and procedure incorporating basic principles of natural justice.

16. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J skm/-

1. CW 6090/2022 Sagar Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

2. CW 6434/2022 Tara Bricks Ind Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

3. CW 7580/2022 Tata Brick Co. Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

4. CW 7588/2022 Tata Brick Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

5. CW 7683/2022 Tata Brick Chak 7 APM Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

6. CW 8086/2022 Shree Mahadev Int Udyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

7. CW 9250/2022 M/s Anil Bricks Co. Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

8. CW 10175/2022 Shree Gurunanak Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

9. CW 10401/2022 Jai Sri Krishna Int Udyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

10. CW 12532/2022 M/s. Mandeep Singh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

11. CW 14698/2022 Satya Narayan Shiv Kumar Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

12. CW 15928/2022 Satguru Int Udyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

13. CW 15941/2022 Sri Balaji Bricks Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

14. CW 16809/2022 M/s. Saharan Int Ydyog, Chak 5 MLD Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

15. CW 16810/2022 M/s. Shree Shyam Kilan Company Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

16. CW 16836/2022 Sagar Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

17. CW 16934/2022 M/s. Balaji Suppliers Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

18. CW 17254/2022 M/s. Choudhary Bricks Udyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

19. CW 17569/2022 M/s. Kamal Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

20. CW 17590/2022 M/s. Bika Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

21. CW 17854/2022 M/s. Shree Shyam Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

22. CW 18322/2022 Jai Vaishno Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

23. CW 19022/2022 M/s. Jyani Bricks Industries Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

24. CW 19179/2022 M/s. Khan Int Udyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

25. CW 19187/2022 M/s. Mohan Lal Jakhar Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

26. CW 19422/2022 M/s. Jyani Int Udyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board (D.B. SAW/440/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon30/10/2025 (Downloaded 30/10/2025atat04:43:17 10:12:54PM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44705] (23 of 24) [CW-645/2025]

27. CW 1/2023 M/s. Murliwala Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

28. CW 77/2023 M/s. Prince Bricks Co. Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

29. CW 340/2023 M/s. Bhadu Kiln Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

30. CW 1167/2023 M/s. Angri Devi Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

31. CW 1171/2023 M/s. Jai Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

32. CW 2065/2023 M/s. Bika Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

33. CW 2454/2023 M/s. Akal Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

34. CW 3087/2023 M/s. Balaji Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

35. CW 3088/2023 M/s. S.S. Bricks Industries Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

36. CW 12951/2023 Shri Veer Tejaji Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

37. CW 13152/2023 M/s. Champa Devi Bricks Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

38. CW 15138/2023 M/s. Shri Balaji Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

39. CW 17165/2023 M/s. Jai Durga Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

40. CW 17755/2023 M/s. Kooldiya Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

41. CW 14245/2024 KBI Industries Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

42. CW 16120/2024 M/s. Kalgidhar Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

43. CW 17118/2024 M/s. Kamra Kiln Company Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

44. CW 17895/2024 M/s. Shri Ganesh Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

45. CW 18137/2024 M/s. Waheguru Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

46. CW 18573/2024 M/s. Balana Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

47. CW 99/2025 M/s. Raj Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

48. CW 189/2025 M/s. Chug Brick Industries Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

49. CW 657/2025 M/s. Shree Shyam Int Udhyog Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

50. CW 664/2025 M/s. Tata Bricks Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

51. CW 669/2025 M/s Tata Brick Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

52. CW 673/2025 M/s. Arora Bricks Industries Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board (D.B. SAW/440/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon30/10/2025 (Downloaded 30/10/2025atat04:43:17 10:12:54PM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44705] (24 of 24) [CW-645/2025]

53. CW 678/2025 M/s. Tata Bricks Industries Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

54. CW 818/2025 M/s. Mandeep Singh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

55. CW 3105/2025 M/s. S.M. Bricks Suppliers Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board

56. CW 19009/2024 M/s. Rishabh Traders Vs. Raj. State Pollution Control Board (D.B. SAW/440/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon30/10/2025 (Downloaded 30/10/2025atat04:43:17 10:12:54PM) PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S S.S. Bricks Industries vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 30 October, 2025