National Green Tribunal
Ms Landmark Ventures Through Its ... vs Member Secretary Madhya Pradesh ... on 29 January, 2026
Item No.01
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Appeal No.08/2025(CZ)
(I.A. No.85/2025 & I.A. No.94/2025)
IN THE MATTER OF :
M/S LANDMARK VENTURES
Through its Partner
Mr. Krishna Kumar Shrivastava
Address: C/O, BL Shrivastava,
B-5, Krishna Vihar, Huzur,
Bhopal - 462039, Madhya Pradesh.
Appellant(s)
Vs.
1 The Member Secretary
Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Office at, E-5, Main Rd No. 3, Ekant Park,
Arera Colony, Bhopal, M.P. Respondent No. 1
2 Regional Officer, Bhopal
Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Office at, E-4, Paryawaran
Parisar, Arera Colony, Bhopal, M.P. Respondent No. 2
3 The Prospera Rahwasi Rakhrakhaw
Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit.
Through President Gulshan Mohan Sud
Address: Flat No. A/402, Block-A, Fourth
Floor, Prospera, Bagmugaliya, Distt. Bhopal Respondent No. 3
4 Bhopal Municipal Corporation
Through Commissioner Office
at 4B, Habibganj, Inter State Bus Terminus
(ISBT) Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Respondent No. 4
COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):
Mr. Siddharth Prasad Nandedkar, Adv. &
Mr. Jatin Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Sen, Adv.
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):
Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. for MPPCB
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. for BMC
Mr. Mehul Bhardwaj, Adv. for State of MP
Mr. Pranjal Karera, Adv. for R-2
1
Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 23.01.2026
Date of uploading of order on website : 29.01.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. Challenge in this appeal is the demand notice dated 06.06.2025 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board addressing to the appellant to deposit environmental damage compensation which is quoted below:-
"WHEREAS, M/s Prospera Multi storied Building is a residential complex located at ward number 53, Bagmugaliya, Bhopal. The joint committee inspected the residential complex on 20.12.2023 and submitted before the Hon'ble Tribunal on dated Action Taken Report 03.01.2024.
WHEREAS, during the inspection the joint committee observed that STP was found non operational and sewage collection tank of STP was found empty and untreated sewage water was found flowing outside the premises and accumulating on adjacent open plot which is a violation of the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
WHEREAS, the Hon'ble NGT vide its order dated 04.01.2024 directed to finalise the recommendation of the committee with regard to imposition of Environmental Compensation. WHEREAS, Regional Office, MPPCB, Bhopal submitted the proposal of imposition of environmental compensation of Rs 8,94,000/- as per CPCB guidelines to Head office of MPPCB. The calculation of Environment compensation as per CPCB guidelines as under:-
2
Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
EC (Lacs Rs.) [17.5(Total Sewage Generation Installed Treatment Capacity) + 55.5(Total Sewage Generation- Operational Capacity)]+ 0.2(Sewage Generation-
Operational Capacity) x N Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality x (Total Sewage Generation- Operational Capacity) x N Where; N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority EC = 17.5* (0.097 - 0) + 55.5* (0.097 - 0.0) + 0.2* (0.097 - 0)* 96 = Rs. 8.94/- (In Lacs Rs.) EC = 5000*96 Rs. 4.80/- (In Lacs Rs.) WHEREAS, an opportunity of hearing was given to the project proponent vide letter dated 20/05/2025 to appear before the committee constituted for imposition of environmental compensation vide order no 1743 dated 30/07/2019 on dated 23/05/2025.
WHEREAS, Project proponent was appeared before the committee on dated 23/05/2025 and submitted their response. The committee after reviewing the response of the project proponent, committee is not satisfied with the response of project proponent and proposed to finalise the environmental compensation of Rs. 8,94,000/- as per the order of the NGT."
2. Notices were issued to the respondent with direction to submit the reply. Reply has been filed. We have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the Tribunal vide Order dated 17.10.2023, directed the constitution of a Joint 3 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. Committee with a mandate to inspect the site and submit a factual report. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Committee conducted an inspection on 20.12.2023 and, upon examination, alleged that M/s Prospera Multi-Storied Building (Appellant), a residential complex having an Address in Ward No. 53, Bagmugaliya, Bhopal, was discharging untreated sewage water onto the adjoining lands in the neighborhood.
4. The Joint Committee, upon inspection, reported that although a Sewage Treatment Plant had been installed at the premises, the same was found to be non-operational. Further, alleged that the sewage collection tank of the STP was empty, and untreated sewage was found flowing outside the premises and accumulating on an adjacent open plot. These findings were duly recorded in the Action Taken Report of the Committee. The said ATR was submitted before the National Green Tribunal on 03.01.2024, wherein the Joint Committee recommended the imposition of Environmental Compensation amounting to Rs. 8,94,000/- on the appellant.
5. The Tribunal vide Order its dated 04.01.2024, directed that the recommendation of the Joint Committee, regarding the imposition of Environmental Compensation be finalized and granting an opportunity of being heard prior to the passing of any final order.
6. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant are that respondent no.- 2, without due consideration of the contentions and representation submitted by the appellant on multiple occasions arbitrarily issued a demand notice for which no opportunity of hearing were given and further that the tripartite agreement was entered between the appellant and the third party and by laws of the aforesaid agreement under clause 3.3 shifted the responsibility for the operation and maintenance and upkeep of the sewage treatment plant with the society.
4 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
7. In response to the above contention the submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondent/State Pollution Control Board are that the board vide notice dated 21.05.2025, delivered by hand, informed the appellant and representation/opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant and the facts which have been raised in the representation have been duly considered by the committee.
8. The State Pollution Control Board formulated a committee to finalize the matter of environmental damage in the above matter and the same has been acted upon in accordance with the rules. The copy of the proceedings of the expert committee consisting five members including Member Secretary are quoted below :-
कार्यवाही वववरण "द प्रोसपेरा मल्टी स्टोरीड बिल्डिं ग", वाडड न. 53, िागमुगबियािं , भोपाि द्वारा मेससड िैण्डमार्ड वेन्चसड बिबम., एफ-4/आर-28, पूरुषोत्तम स्टै ण्ड, जान 2, एमपी नगर भोपाि पर पयाडवरणीय क्षबिपूबिड अबिरोबपि र्रने हेिु गबिि सबमबि र्ी िैिर् र्ा र्ायडवाही बववरण ।
िोडड र्े आदे श र्मािंर् 1743 बदनािंर् 30/07/2019 द्वारा पयाडवरणीय अबिबनयमोिं र्े प्राविानोिं र्ा उल्लिंघन र्रने वािे उद्योगोिं/सिंस्थानोिं पर अबिरोबपि र्ी जाने वािी पयाडवरणीय क्षबिपूबिड र्े बनिाडरण हेिु सबमबि र्ा गिन बर्या गया है। पयाडवरणीय क्षबिपूबिड राबश र्े आर्िन हेिु बदनािंर् 23/05/2025 र्ो उक्त सबमबि र्ी िैिर् सम्पन्न हुई। िैिर् में बनम्नबिल्िि अबिर्ारी उपल्स्थि हुये :-
1. श्री ए.ए. बमश्रा, सदस्य सबिव, म.प्र. प्रदू षण बनयिंत्रण िोडड , भोपाि - अध्यक्ष
2. श्री एम. र्े. मण्डराई, अिीक्षण यिंत्री, म.प्र. प्रदू षण बनयिंत्रण िोडड , भोपाि-सदस्य
3. श्री िृजेश शमाड , क्षेत्रीय अबिर्ारी, म.प्र. प्रदू षण बनयिंत्रण िोडड , भोपाि - सदस्य
4. श्री अबभषेर् बसिंह, मुख्य बवत्त अबिर्ारी, म.प्र. प्रदू षण बनयिंत्रण िोडड , भोपाि सदस्य सिंयोजर्
5. श्री आर्ाश जैन, उपयिंत्री, म.प्र. प्रदू षण बनयिंत्रण िोडड , भोपाि 5 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
6. श्रीमबि पारूि भदौररया, िोडड ररटे नर अबिवक्ता श्री िृजेश शमाड , क्षेत्रीय अबिर्ारी, भोपाि द्वारा सबमबि र्ो बनम्नानुसार अवगि र्राया :-
1) मIननीय राष्ट्रीय हररि अबिर्रण, सेन्ट्रि जोन िेंि, भोपाि र्े प्रर्रण क्रमािंर् 146/2023 (CZ) में पाररि आदे श बदनािंर् 17/10/2023 र्े पािनायड गबिि सबमबि द्वारा द प्रोसपेरा (मल्टी-स्टोरी बिल्डिं ग) र्ा बनरीक्षण बदनािंर् 20/12/2023 र्ो बर्या गया। बनरीक्षण र्े दौरान एसटीपी सिंिाबिि अवस्था में नहीिं पाया गया िथा सीवेज र्िेक्शन टैं र् िािी पाया गया। साथ ही अनुपिाररि घरे िू दू बषि जि पररसर र्े िाहर बनस्साररि होिा पाया गया िथा समीपस्थ ररक्त भू-िण्डोिं पर एर्बत्रि पाया गया।
2) सबमबि द्वारा र्ेन्द्रीय प्रदू षण बनयिंत्रण िोडड द्वारा जारी मागडदबशडर्ा अनुसार सिंस्थान पर राबश रूपये 8.94 िाि र्ी पयाडवरणीय क्षबिपूबिड आिं र्बिि र्ी गई है। माननीय राष्ट्रीय हररि अबिर्रण, सेन्ट्रि जोन िेंि, भोपाि र्े प्रर्रण क्रमािं र् 146/2023 (CZ) में पाररि आदे श बदनािंर् 04/01/2024 र्े अनुसार सिंस्थान पर आिं र्बिि पयाडवरणीय क्षबिपूबिड राबश बनिाडरण र्े बनदे श प्राप्त हुए है।
3) क्षेत्रीय अबिर्ारी, भोपाि द्वारा पत्र क्रमािंर् 1849 बदनािंर् 19/05/2025 र्े माध्यम से पयाडवरणीय बनयमोिं र्े उल्लिंघन हेिु र्ेन्द्रीय प्रदू षण बनयिंत्रण िोडड द्वारा जारी मागडदबशडर्ा अनुसार सिंस्थान पर बदनािंर् 22/09/2023 से 27/12/2023 िर् र्ी अवबि िर् र्ुि 96 बदनोिं हेिु पयाडवरण क्षबिपूबिड अबिरोबपि र्रने र्ा प्रस्ताव सबमबि र्े समक्ष प्रस्तुि बर्या गया। क्षेत्रीय अबिर्ारी द्वारा प्रस्ताबवि पयाडवरण क्षबिपूबिड राबश र्ी प्रस्ताबवि गणना बनम्नानुसार हैं:-
EC (Lacs Rs.) [17.5(Total Sewage Generation Installed Treatment Capacity) + 55.5(Total Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity)]+ 0.2(Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) x + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality x (Total Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) xN Where; N- Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required 6 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority EC 17.5* (0.097-0)+55.5*(0.097-0.0)+ 0.2 (0.097-
0)*96- Rs. 8.94/- (In Lacs Rs.) EC 5000*96 Rs. 4.80/- (In Lacs Rs.)
4) मुख्यािय द्वारा प्रोजेक्ट सिंस्थापर् मेससड िैण्डमार्ड वेन्चसड, भोपाि र्ो सुनवाई र्ा अवसर प्रदान र्रने हेिु प्रबिबनबि अबिवक्ता श्री जबिन बसिंह एविं श्री सृजन जैन सिंस्थान पर आिं र्बिि पयाडवरणीय क्षबिपूबिड राबश र्े सिंििंि में पक्ष रिने हेिु उपल्स्थि हुए एविं अपना बिल्िि जवाि प्रदान बर्या गया।
5) प्रोजेक्ट सिंस्थापर् द्वारा अपने जवाि में मुख्य रूप से बर्ये गये अबभर्थन एविं उप नर सबमबि र्ा पक्ष बनम्नानुसार है:-
सरल सांस्था द्वारा ली गई आपवि सवमवि का पक्ष
कमाांक
1 प्रबजक्ट सिंस्थापर् द्वारा अपने प्रबजडक्ट सिंस्थापर् र्े र्थन र्े
जवाि में मुख्य रूप से यह पररप्रेक्ष्य में प्रस्तुि दस्तावेजोिं र्ा अबभर्थन बर्या गया है बर् सबमबि द्वारा अविोर्न बर्या मेससड िैण्डमार्ड वेन्चसड, भोपाि गया, बजसमें पाया गया बर् नगर द्वारा पूवड में ही प्रोसपेरा रहवासी पाबिर् बनगम, भोपाि र्े पत्र रिरिाव सहर्ारी सिंस्था क्रमािंर् 453 बदनािंर् मयाडबदि, िागमुगाबिया, भोपाि 09/08/2024 र्े अनुसार र्ो प्रोसपेरा र्ॉिोनी र्ी सिंििंबिि र्ॉिोनी र्ा सिंिारण व रिरिाव र्ी बजम्मेदारी बदनािंर् रि-रिाव प्रमाण-पत्र बदनािंर् से
23. 08.2023 र्ो ही हस्तािं िररि "दी प्रोसपेरा रहवासी रि-रिाव र्र दी गई है। अिः विडमान सहर्ारी सिंस्था मयाडबदि, प्रर्रण में पयाडवरणीय क्षबिपूबिड िागमुगाबिया, भोपाि" र्ो राबश र्े सिंििंि में प्रोसपेरा अिंिररि र्र बदया गया है , परन्तु रहवासी रिरिाव सहर्ारी क्षेत्रीय र्ायाडिय, भोपाि द्वारा सिंस्था मयाडबदि, िागमुगाबिया, बजस अवबि हेिु पयाडवरणीय भोपाि द्वारा पक्ष रिा जाना क्षबिपूबिड अबिरोबपि र्ी गई है उबिि होगा। (बदनािंर् 22/09/2023 से 7 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
27/12/2023 िर्) ित्समय
प्रोजेक्ट सिंस्थापर् ही र्ॉिोनी
सिंिारण व रि-रिाव हेिु
बजम्मेदार थे।
2 प्रोजेक्ट सिंस्थापर् द्वारा ििाया माननीय अबिर्रण र्े आदे श
गया बर् सेम्पबििंग सिंस्था र्े बदनािंर् 17/10/2023 में गबिि
प्रबिबनबियोिं र्े समक्ष नहीिं र्ी सबमबि द्वारा स्थि बनरीक्षण
गई। प्रर्रण में िोडड द्वारा ऐसा बदनािंर् 20/12/2023 र्े दौरान
र्ोई दस्तावेज प्रस्तुि नही बर्या सेम्पबििंग र्ी गई थी एविं गबिि गया है बर् बजससे यह स्पष्ट् हो सबमबि द्वारा एक्शन टे र्न ररपोटड बर् प्रोजेक्ट सिंस्थापर् द्वारा माननीय समक्ष प्रस्तुि र्ी गई बनयमोिं र्ा उल्लिंघन बर्या गया। थी। अबिर्रण र्े 3 अिः मूि रूप से प्रोजेक्ट प्रोजेक्ट सिंस्थापर् द्वारा उनर्े सिंस्थापर् द्वारा रहवासी सबमबि र्थन र्े साथ ऐसा र्ोई र्ो विडमान प्रर्रण में पक्षर्ार दस्तावेज प्रस्तुि नहीिं बर्या गया िनाने र्ी प्राथडना अपने जिाव में बजससे यह स्पष्ट् होिा है बर् र्ी गई है । ित्सिंििंि में प्रोजेक्ट उल्लिंघन र्े समय सिंस्था र्ा रि-
सिंस्थापर् द्वारा सिंििंबिि रिाव प्रोजेक्ट सिंस्थापर् दस्तावेज जवाि र्े साथ सिंिग्न द्वारा नहीिं बर्या जा रहा बर्ये गये है।
अिः उनर्े जिाव में बर्ये गये र्यन स्वीर्ार बर्ये जाने योग्य नहीिं है। अनुशांसा :-
सबमबि द्वारा सुनवाई उपरािंि माननीय राष्ट्रीय हररि अबिर्रण, सेन्ट्रि जोन िेंि, भोपाि र्े प्रर्रण क्रमािंर् 146/2023 (CZ) में पाररि आदे श बदनािंर् 17/10/2023 र्े पािनाथड, सबमबि प्रोजक्ट सिंस्थापर् पर पयाडवरणीय क्षबिपूबिड राबश रू. 8,94,000/- (आि िाि िौरान्वे हजार रूपये मात्र) अबिरोबपि र्रने र्ी अनुशिंसा र्ी जािी है।"
9. It is further argued that that the present appeal suffers from Non-Joinder of Necessary Party since the appellant in its appeal has stated various facts related to the sewage system and completion certificate / transfer certificate 8 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. and other permissions granted by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation which has not been impleaded the BMC as necessary party. It is significant to note that the appellant had also failed to mention the date of Completion Acknowledgment Certificate from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in their appeal.
10. The appellant in its appeal has a completion certificate granted by the BMC which has been issued under Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar palika (Colony Development) Rules, 2021. That said rules states as follows:
"Rule - 19. Completion of internal development works. After completion of the development work of the colony by the colonizer, information of completion of development work shall be given to the competent authority in Form-Five A. The competent authority within a period of 15 days after receipt of information, shall get the development work inspected of the concerned colony by the competent technical officer, and in case development works are found complete, completion certificate shall be issued in Form-Five B. On the date of the issue of completion certificate the concerned colony shall be deemed to have been transferred to the resident welfare committee (RWA) for maintenance under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Prakoshtha Swamitva Niyam, 2019."
The date of the completion certificate in the present case is of 09.08.2024 however the period for which the EC has been imposed on the appellant is from 22.09.2023 to 27.12.2023. Thus it is evident a time of joint committee inspection the appellant had not completed the project and was in control of the same.
11. It is further submitted that the appellant is liable to pay environmental damage/compensation as the appellant failed to prove the transfer and 9 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. handover of the Prospera Rahwasi Rakh Rakhav Sahkari Sanstha Madhya Pradesh, Bagmugaliya, Bhopal. Hence, the responsibility of control, supervision or management over the operations of the premises, including the functioning of the Sewage treatment plant (STP) was sole responsibility of M/s Landmark Ventures therefore, the Appellant is held liable for deficiencies, including the non- functioning of the STP or the presence of untreated sewage water observed during the inspection.
12. That the Appellant had belated filed an application for Consent to Operate under section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 dated 08.01.2024. That, same was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) on the specific grounds of project proponent has started the operations without obtaining consent to operate in violation of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974.
13. The appellant filed an application for consent only on dated 08.01.2024 whereas the inspection of the residential complex was conducted on i.e. 20.12.2023. This categorically establishes that the appellant was carrying out activities without obtaining prior consent from the board. According to Clause 4 of Section 21 the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act,1981) ...... Provided that it shall be open to the State Board to cancel such consent before the expiry of the period for which it is granted or refuse further consent after such expiry if the conditions subject to which such consent has been granted are not fulfilled.' That, the Section 25 (1)(a) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges --
10Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
......no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land.
Therefore, the appellant clearly failed to obtain Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
14. The notice of imposition of environmental compensation was issued upon the appellant to deposit aforesaid amount and contention of the appellant that there was no pollution is false and frivolous for the reasons that on the date of inspection the STP was found not functional, since, the STP was not operational, thus the joint committee had found sewage discharge in the premises.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued the matter of tripartite agreement and in reply thereof, the submission of the learned counsel for the State PCB Ms. Parul Bhadoria are that triparty agreement is not a relevant document for transfer or handover of the Prospera multi storied building since the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Colony Development) Rules, 2021 provides for the manner of transfer of the colony to resident welfare committee. It is further submitted that mere execution of a contract in no manner can extinguish the statutory liability and obligations of the project proponent (appellant) provided under Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. The apparent violation of the 11 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. same was observed by the joint committee in its report dated 03.01.2024 (discharge of sewage water within the premises).
16. It is further argued that the Appellant failed to obtain Consent to Operate (CTO) under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The inspection dated 20.12.2023 clearly revealed that operations were carried out without obtaining mandatory consent from the Board. The appellant was the occupier of the project thus making him liable for the violation.
17. The Respondent Board acted strictly within the powers of the conferred under Section 23 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974, along with under section 24 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act1981, which expressly authorizes the officers of board to carry out inspection, examination of records, and collection of the samples for the analysis. Also, it is pertinent to mention the inspection was carried out in compliance of the order of the NGT. Hence, the inspection and sampling conducted by the authorized officers of the respondent board is valid in law and binding on the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. At first the appellant has submitted that it was not responsible for the operation and maintenance of the project, however it is questioning the sampling conducted by the Board. If the appellant had indeed transferred the project to The Prospera Rahwasi Rakh rakhav Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Bagmugaliya, Bhopal as per the procedure established under law, then they have no locus to challenge the sampling conducted by Board.
18. It is to be noted that Nature and its elements are worshipped as Gods since the time immemorial, our forefathers knew the importance of preserving the environment both for their own well-being and for the benefit of future 12 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. generations. However, over time, human greed has led us to forget this wisdom, treating nature as expendable at our expense and that of future generations The degradation of the natural resource and pollutions of different kinds have a cascading effect on the environment, which now is a global issue and poses a threat to the very existence of our planet. Such degradation is the catalyst for the drastic climatic changes and challenges we are facing now. The pollution and depletion of water resource, more particularly groundwater, is a foreseeable threat to all living beings.
19. The Doctrine of Public Trust asserts that vital natural resources such as rivers, seashores, forests, and air are held in trust by the State for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. Rooted in Roman law, which classified these resources as common property (res communis) or unowned (res nullius), and refined by English common law, this doctrine places a fiduciary duty on governments to protect them from privatization or exploitation that compromises public interests. It imposes three key restrictions viz., (a)resources must remain accessible for public use,
(b)cannot be sold for private gain, and (c)must be preserved in their natural state. Courts internationally, have extended its scope to protect wetlands, riparian forests, and ecologically fragile lands, emphasizing the need for environmental preservation in light of modern ecological challenges. This evolving interpretation reflects the doctrine's relevance in maintaining the balance between sustainable development and environmental conservation. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath ((1997) 1 SCC 388), this court elucidated the doctrine of public trust as follows:
"24. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the "Doctrine of the Public Trust". It was founded on the ideas that certain common properties such 13 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Our contemporary concern about "the environment" bears a very close conceptual relationship to this legal doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources were either owned by no one (res nullious) or by everyone in common (res communious). Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interests in navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public. Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan -- proponent of the Modern Public Trust Doctrine
-- in an erudite article "Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention", Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, Part 1 p. 473, has given the historical background of the public trust doctrine as under:
'The source of modern public trust law is found in a concept that received much attention in Roman and English law -- the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature, need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasised. First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property used for those purposes 14 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
was distinguished from general public property which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties
-- such as the seashore, highways, and running water -- "perpetual use was dedicated to the public", it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although the State apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available that public rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant government.'
25. The public trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters, and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes.
According to Professor Sax the public trust doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority: "Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often though to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not 15 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third property must be maintained in particular types of uses".
20. Further, in Vedanta Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024 SCC Online SC
230), it was observed by this Court as follows:
"25. In addition, the public trust doctrine, recognized in various jurisdictions, including India, establishes that the state holds natural resources in trust for the benefit of the public. It reinforces the idea that the State must act as a steward of the environment, ensuring that the common resources necessary for the well-being of the populace are protected against exploitation or degradation. These principles underscore the importance of balancing economic interests with environmental and public welfare concerns. While the industry has played a role in economic growth, the health and welfare of the residents of the area is a matter of utmost concern. In the ultimate analysis, the State Government is responsible for preserving and protecting their concerns."
21. Right to life inherently includes the right to enjoy, pollution free environment, which are essential for the full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs the quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution to address the pollution of environment which may be detrimental to the quality of life. This court has recognised the concept of 'right to healthy environment' as part of the 'right to life' under Article 21 and thereby has also recognised the 'right to clean drinking water' as a fundamental right. Infact, environmental rights, which encompass a group of collective rights, are now described as 16 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
"third generation" rights. Therefore, the State, so as to sustain its claim of functioning for the welfare of its citizens, is bound to regulate water supply by safeguarding, maintaining and restoring the water bodies to protect the right to healthy water and prevent health hazards. This court has also laid down in many cases, that the States shall ensure that the water bodies are free from encroachments and steps must be taken to restore the water bodies. In this context, we may refer to the following judgments and observations made thereunder:
(i) Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598 :
1991 SCC OnLine SC 42 "7. Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court. It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the Fundamental Rights of a citizen. Right to live is a fundamental right under Art 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art. 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. ....."
(ii) State of Karnataka v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 9 SCC 572 "175. Water is a unique gift of nature which has made the planet earth habitable. Life cannot be sustained without water. In the National Water Policy issued by the Government of India in 1987, it was declared that water is 17 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
a prime natural resource, a basic human need and a precious national asset. Water, like air, is the essence for human survival. The history of water availability and its user is tied up with the history of biologically evolution in all civilizations. It will not be wrong to say that not only the life started in water but rather water is life itself. It is essential for mankind, animals, environment, flora and fauna. There is no denial of the fact that in the ancient times water played an important role in the origin, development and growth of civilization all over the globe. Water is an important factor in the economic development of the countries which ultimately affects the social and human relations between the habitants. Planned development and proper utilization of water resources can serve both as a cause as well as an effect off the prosperity of a nation. Water on earth is available in the form of frozen snow, rivers lakes, springs, water ways, water falls and aqueducts, etc."
(iii) A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Naidu and Others (2001) 2 SCC 62 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1679 "7. Our Supreme Court was one of the first Courts to develop the concept of right to 'healthy environment' as part of the right to "life" under Article 21 of our Constitution. [See Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 (3) SCC
161)]. This principle has now been adopted in various countries today.
18 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
7. In today's emerging jurisprudence, environmental rights which encompass a group of collective rights are described as "third generation" rights. The "first generation" rights are generally political rights such as those found in the International Convention "7. Our Supreme Court was one of the first Courts to develop the concept of right to 'healthy environment' as part of the right to "life" under Article 21 of our Constitution. [See Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 (3) SCC 161)]. This principle has now been adopted in various countries today. 8. In today's emerging jurisprudence, environmental rights which encompass a group of collective rights are described as "third generation" rights. The "first generation" rights are generally political rights such as those found in the International Convention on Civil & Political Rights while "second generation" rights are social and economic rights as found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. "Right to Healthy Environment". (See Vol.25) 2000 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law by John Lee P.283, at pp.293-294 fn.29)."
22. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, in the case 2025 INSC, page 131, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 23633 of 2010 Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee Rep by its Secretary Vs. District Collector, Vellore District & Ors. has discussed the matter of liability to pay compensation and other matters as follows:-
A. LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE 19 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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 ((1996) 3 SCC 212), 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 20 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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 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.
21 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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 22 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
for those involved in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been satisfactorily agreed. 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."
23. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, the 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).
23 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
"... 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 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."
24Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
24. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath ((2000) 6 SCC 213 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 963) , it was observed by the 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.
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 25 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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 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."26
Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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.
25. EXTENT OF LIABILITY - DEEMING FICTION AND PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE 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:
27
Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
a) Kanpur Tanneries (1988 SCR (2) 530): 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 tanneries have also been discharging contaminated water into the river Ganga, continuing their harmful practices despite legal orders.
b) Bicchri Industrial Cluster (1999 SCC (3) 212): 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 (Order dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 15244 of 2004) : 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 (https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil- 28 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
nadu/2018/Jun/16/perundurai-becomes-capital-of-cancer- in-erodedistrict-1829072.html)
26. Further, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (supra), the 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."
27. 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 cannot award damages against the respondents in these proceedings that does not mean that the Court cannot direct the Central Government to 29 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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 ii. Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan (2022) 16 SCC 581) "16. The CEC has recommended imposition of exemplary penalty of Rs.10 lakh per vehicle and Rs.5 30 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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. 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".
28. 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 31 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. 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 ((2022) 10 SCC 544 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 716) , 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 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.
32 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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 intergenerational 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 33 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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.'
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
34
Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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."
29. 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 (2014 SCC Online NGT 1) "36. The liability of the polluter is absolute for the harm done to the environment which extends not only to 35 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
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 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."
36 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
ii. Saloni Ailawadi v. Union of India (2019 SCC OnLine NGT 69):
"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 (Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 186). 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...."
30. DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION 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- 37 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. organisms--is not easily measurable in monetary terms. Additionally, the impact on local communities, particularly their livelihoods, is difficult to assess. 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.
31. CASE LAWS i. Costa Rica v. Nicaragua ([2018] ICJ Rep 15) The International Court of Justice, in the case titled "Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area [Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, dated 02.02.2018], observed that the lack of certainty as to the extent of damage did not preclude awarding compensation for the impairment or loss of environmental goods and services (paras 35 and 86). The Court ultimately stated its view to the effect that "damage to the environment, and the consequent impairment or the loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and services is compensable under international law." Thus, as per the decision of the Court, the assessment of compensation for damages requires the Court to be able to determine a causal link between the wrongful act and injury suffered. While so, it was noted that environmental damage claims had their own particular issues concerning causation as damage could be the result of multiple concurrent causes or the lack of scientific certainty may make it difficult to establish the causal link. In regard to the methodology to be used to value the impairment or 38 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. loss of environment, goods and service, the Court explained, it would select those elements of methods offered by the Parties that provided a "reasonable basis for valuation" to assess the value for restoration of the damaged environment (Nicaragua) as well as the impairment of loss of goods and services prior to recovery (Costa Rica) (para 53). The Court justified this approach stating that there is no prescribed method of valuation for the compensation of environmental damage under international law and the Court would have to take into account the specific circumstances and characteristics of each case. In other words, the Court was refraining from adopting a single purpose methodology for valuation of environmental damage in favor of a case-by-case approach (para 52). The Court went on to develop its own method of valuation of environmental damage "from the perspective of the ecosystem as a whole", which is an overall assessment of the impairment or loss of environment goods or services rather than separate valuation of each different category.
ii. In Deepwater Horizen Oil Spill by British Petroleum case (United States v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc. (In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon"), 21 F. Supp. 3d 657 (E.D. La. 2014), On April 20, 2010, the oil drilling rig Deepwater Horizon, operating in the Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico, exploded and sank resulting in the death of 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon and the largest spill of oil in the history of marine oil drilling operations. 4 million barrels of oil flowed from the damaged Macondo well over an 87-day period, before it was finally capped on July 15, 2010. The United States filed a complaint in District Court against BP Exploration & Production and several other defendants alleged to be responsible for the spill. This led to multiple civil and criminal actions being initiated and billions of dollars in fine, settlements and 39 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. restoration effort. The Polluters claimed the award to be a onetime payment, however, the British petroleum, allied companies and individuals were held liable on the basis of polluter pays principle being an absolute and continuing liability extending to restoration to a pre damage state of affairs. The litigation lasted three phases, numerous lawsuits and a final settlement of 20 billion US Dollars after the appeal was rejected by the US Supreme Court in 2015.
iii. In M.C. Mehta (supra), while dealing with Kanpur tanneries, this court has pointed out in paragraph 14, as follows:
The financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary treatment plants. Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence for the adverse effect on the public at large which is likely to ensue by the discharging of the trade effluents from the tannery to the river Ganga would be immense and it will outweigh any inconvenience that may be caused to the management and the labour employed by it on account of its closure. Moreover, the tanneries involved in these cases are not taken by surprise. For several years they are being asked to take necessary steps to prevent the flow of untreated waste water from their factories into the river. Some of them have already complied with the demand. It should be remembered that the effluent discharged from a tannery is ten times noxious when compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river from any urban area on its banks. We feel that the tanneries at Jajmau, Kanpur cannot be allowed to continue to carry on the industrial activity unless they take steps to establish primary treatment plants.
40 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. iv. The aspect of determining compensation has been dealt with in detail in Adil Ansari vs M/S Gupta Exports and Ors, in Original Application No. 220/2019, wherein the National Green Tribunal observed as follows:
"Calculating environmental compensation:
514.Taking into consideration multifarious situations relating to violation of environmental laws vis-a-vis different proponents, nature of cases involving violation of environmental laws can be categorized as under:
(i) Where Project/Activities are carried out without obtaining requisite statutory permissions/consents/clearances/NOC etc., affecting environment and ecology. For example, EC under EIA 2006; Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981; Authorisation under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other Rules; and NOC for extraction and use of ground water, wherever applicable, and similar requirements under other statutes.
(ii) Where proponents have violated conditions imposed under statutory Permissions, Consents, Clearances, NOC etc. affecting environment and ecology.
(iii) Where Proponents have carried out their activities causing damage to environment and ecology by not following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution of air, water etc.
515. The above categories are further sub-divided, i.e., where the polluters/violators are corporate bodies/organisations/associations and group of the people, 41 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
in contradistinction, to individuals; and another category, the individuals themselves responsible for such pollution.
516. Further category among above classification is, where, besides pollution of environment, proponents/violators action also affect the community at large regarding its source of livelihood, health etc.
517. The next relevant aspect is, whether damage to environment is irreversible, permanent or is capable of wholly or partially restoration/remediation.
518. Determination/computation/assessment of environmental compensation must, not only conform the requirement of restoration/remediation but should also take care of damage caused to the environment, to the community, if any, and should also be preventive, deterrent and to some extent, must have an element of "being punitive." The idea is not only for restoration/remediation or to mitigate damage/loss to environment, but also to discourage people/proponents from indulging in the activities or carrying out their affairs in such a manner so as to cause damage/loss to environment.
519. To impose appropriate 'environmental compensation' for causing harm to environment, besides other relevant factors as pointed out, one has to understand the kind and nature of 'Harmness cost'. This includes risk assessment. The concept of risk assessment will include human-health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided a guideline to 42 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
understand harm caused to environment as well as people. For the purpose of human-health risk assessment, it comprised of three broad steps, namely, planning and problem formulation; effects and exposure assessment and risk categorization. The first part involves participation of stakeholders and others to get input; in the second aspect health effect of hazardous substances as well as likelihood and level of exposure to the pollutant are examined and the third step involves integration of effects and exposure assessment to determine risk.
520. Similarly, ecological risk assessment is an approach to determine risk of environmental harm by human activities. Here also we can find answer following three major steps, i.e., problem codification; analysis of exposure and risk characterization. First part encompasses identification of risk and what needs to be protected. Second step insists upon crystallization of factors that are exposed, degree to exposure and whether exposure is likely or not to cause adverse ecological effects. Third step is comprised of two components, i.e., risk assessment and risk description.
521. In totality, problem is multi-fold and multi-angular. Solution is not straight but involves various shades and nuances and vary from case to case. Even Internationally, there is no thumb-rule to make assessment of damage and loss caused to environment due to activities carried out individually or collectively by the people, and for 43 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
remediation/restoration. Different considerations are applicable and have been applied.
............
525. When there is collective violation, sometimes the issue arose about apportionment of cost. Where more than one violator is indulged, apportionment may not be equal since user's respective capacity to produce waste, contribution of different categories to overall costs etc. would be relevant. The element of economic benefit to company resulting from violation is also an important aspect to be considered, otherwise observations of Supreme Court that the amount of environmental compensation must be deterrent, will become obliterated. Article 14 of the Constitution says that unequal cannot be treated equally, and it has also to be taken care. Determination/assessment/computation of environmental compensation cannot be arbitrary. It must be founded on some objective and intelligible considerations and criteria. Simultaneously, Supreme Court also said that its calculations must be based on a principle which is simple and can be applied easily. In other words, it can be said that wherever Court finds it appropriate, expert's assessment can be sought but sometimes experts also go by their own convictions and belief and fail to take into account judicial precedents which have advanced cause of environment by applying the principles of 'sustainable development', 'precautionary approach' and 'polluter pays', etc. 44 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
526. Clean-up cost or TPC, may be a relevant factor to evaluate damage, but in the diverse conditions as available in this Country, no single factor or formula may serve the purpose. Determination should be a quantitative estimation; the amount must be deterrent to polluter/violator and though there is some element of subjectivity but broadly assessment/computation must be founded on objective considerations. Appropriate compensation must be determined to cover not only the aspect of violation of law on the part of polluter/violator but also damage to the environment, its remediation/restoration, loss to the community at large and other relevant factors like deterrence, element of penalty etc."
32. Further, certain guidelines for determining compensation have already been established. It is to be noted that the Principal Bench of the NGT vide order dated 31.08.2018 in the matter of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & another v. Union of India & Ors. WP (CIVIL) No. 375/2012 observed that "CPCB may also assess and recover compensation for the damage caused to the environment and the said fund may be kept in a separate account and utilized in terms of an action plan for protection of the environment. Such action plan may be prepared by the CPCB within three months". Accordingly, the CPCB in its report published on July 15, 2019 laid down the formula for computation of environmental compensation. The formula for computing environment compensation was accepted by the NGT vide its order dated August 28, 2019 in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti (supra). The said formula is:
EC = PI x N x R x S x LF 45 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. Wherein, EC stands for Environmental Compensation in INR, PI stands for Pollution Index of industrial sector, N stands for Number of days the violation took place, R stands for a factor in INR (₹) for compensation for the environmental harm caused by the industry, S stands for factor for scale of operation and LF stands for location factor. While the CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) largely appear to be following this formula, the NGT also took various other approaches towards determining environmental compensation. It seems that NGT has primarily adopted two methods for the imposition of environmental compensation: (a) levying 5- 10% of the project cost as environmental compensation if it finds the industry to be defaulting; or (b) using a percentage of the annual turnover of the industry as the method for determining environmental compensation.
33. REDUCTION OF POLLUTION Some of the techniques / methodologies / approaches followed to reduce the pollution caused by the industries are as under:
(a) EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR) It is a policy that generally makes producers' responsible for the environmental impact of their products throughout their lifecycle. In the present case, the tannery industries owe a duty of care to the environment and are accountable. EPR can serve as a pivotal strategy to mitigate pollution and ensure sustainable waste management.
Tanneries must adopt traceability systems to track waste generation, treatment, and recycling, ensuring accountability. Financial mechanisms such as environmental fees and deposit-refund systems could incentivize compliance, while penalties and license revocation would deter violations. We are also of the view that the responsibility must not be restricted just until the life cycle of the product but also 46 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
must extend until the effects are controlled, nullified and restoration is executed.
(b) EMISSION STANDARDS - COMMAND AND CONTROL PRINCIPLE Emission standards are regulatory limits that specify the maximum allowable levels of pollutants released into the environment, aiming to protect public health and preserve environmental quality. These standards are a key element of the Command and Control (CAC) principle, where governments set clear, enforceable rules to limit pollution. Under this approach, industries must comply with specific emission limits, with penalties such as fines or imprisonment (e.g., under the Water Act) for non-compliance. In addition to setting pollutant thresholds, regulators should also implement ambient standards, focusing on the overall quality of air, water, and soil by controlling pollution concentrations. Moreover, technology standards can be enforced, requiring industries to use specific pollution-control technologies to meet these regulatory requirements. Implementing these standards for the tannery industry can effectively reduce pollution and ensure long-term environmental protection.
(c) REGULAR IMPACT ASSESSMENT While many countries have made regular monitoring a part of their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, India officially recognized the need for ongoing assessments only in 2020. This development marks a significant step forward in ensuring that the environmental impacts of projects are not only evaluated before they begin but are also continuously monitored throughout their operational lifespan. Therefore, similar to the mandatory EIA under the Environment Protection Act, a Regular Impact Assessment (RIA) 47 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
should be made mandatory for all industries identified as polluting. The tanneries must be directed submit periodical reports of the emissions, and the States and their mechanism must conduct independent audit of the emissions and take appropriate action. Without such regular assessments, court orders and regulatory measures risk being ineffective in addressing long-term environmental harm.
(d) EFFLUENT CHARGES/TAX An effluent charge is a financial penalty or tax imposed by government authorities on polluters, based on the amount of effluent discharged into the environment, typically calculated in rupees per unit of pollution. As an additional recommendation, the charge can be structured to apply specifically to effluent released beyond the permissible limit, with industries paying a tax per unit of excess pollution. This approach aligns with Pigouvian taxes (pollution taxes), designed to internalize the environmental costs of pollution. In India, introducing industry-specific effluent charges would not only incentivize industries to reduce their environmental impact but also help fund necessary pollution control measures. One key benefit of effluent charges is that they provide a mechanism for collecting detailed financial and technological data from each polluting source. Unlike emission standards, which primarily focus on limiting the volume of pollution, effluent charges require continuous monitoring of both the quantity of effluent discharged and the technologies used to mitigate it. This enhanced data collection improves regulatory enforcement and allows for more targeted, 48 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
effective pollution control strategies, ensuring that industries are held accountable for their environmental impact.
(e) POLLUTANT RELEASE AND TRANSFER REGISTER (PRTR) / PARTICIPATORY CITIZENS APPROACH The Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) is a system that collects and disseminates information about hazardous substance emissions and transfers from industrial facilities, ensuring transparency and community access to environmental data. Established in response to events like the Bhopal Disaster and the Rio Earth Summit (1992), PRTRs promote environmental education and participatory decision-making under the Aarhus Convention, 1998, which emphasizes three pillars: (a) Access to Information--citizens have the right to obtain environmental data, which authorities must provide transparently; (b) Public Participation--people must be informed and involved in environmental decision-making to enhance outcomes and legitimacy; and (c) Access to Justice--citizens can seek legal recourse for violations of environmental laws. Despite global adoption by countries like the U.S., Canada, and Turkey, India has yet to recognize citizens' "right to know," underscoring the need for public access to such crucial environmental information. Though under the Right to Information Act, 2005, information can be collected from the State or Central Board, the Board can disclose the compliance details, violations or actions taken by it, only if the particulars are readily available with it. Therefore, in public interest, the State/Central governments or Boards/departments must issue appropriate instructions or guidelines mandating the industries to disclose the periodical reports in the websites. Such conditions can 49 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
also be imposed while granting or renewal of any licence or by introducing the same by including such conditions as mandates for compliance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Another emerging concept in the corporate world is the Environmental, Social Governance (ESG), a positive step by the corporates to pledge their commitment to preserve the ecology by assessing their impact on the environment. An interplay between the CSR and ESG ought to be facilitated to ensure not only compliance of the norms but also to ensure voluntary disclosure.
34. RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER THE WATER ACT We will not reiterate the provisions of law related to the issue at hand as it is well settled. However, we deem it necessary to highlight the relevant provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Water Act provides for the constitution of the Central and State Pollution Control Boards and empowers them to carry out a variety of functions. These include establishing quality standards, research, planning and investigations to promote cleanliness of streams and wells and to prevent and control pollution of water. Importantly, it also provides that no industry, etc. which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluents, can be established by any person without obtaining the consent of the State Board. The aforesaid provisions are extracted below for ready reference:
"24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section,--
(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in accordance with such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to enter 50 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
(whether directly or indirectly) into any [stream or well or sewer or on land] (Substituted by Act No. 53 of 1988, for the words "stream or well"); or
(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.
(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under sub-section (1), by reason only of having done or caused to be done any of the following acts, namely:--
(a) constructing, improving or maintaining in or across or on the bank or bed of any stream any building, bridge, weir, dam, sluice, dock, pier, drain or sewer or other permanent works which he has a right to construct, improve or maintain;
(b) depositing any materials on the bank or in the bed of any stream for the purpose of reclaiming land or for supporting, repairing or protecting the bank or bed of such stream provided such materials are not capable of polluting such stream;
(c) putting into any stream any sand or gravel or other natural deposit which has flowed from or been deposited by the current of such stream;
(d) causing or permitting, with the consent of the State Board, the deposit accumulated in a well, pond or reservoir to enter into any stream.
51 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
(3) The State Government may, after consultation with, or on the recommendation of, the State Board, exempt, by notification in the Official Gazette, any person from the operation of sub-
section (1) subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification and any condition so specified may by a like notification be altered, varied or amended
25. Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges.-- [(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board,--
(a) establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or
(b) bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage; or
(c) begin to make any new discharge of sewage: Provided that a person in the process of taking any steps to establish any industry, operation or process immediately before the commencement of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988 (53 of 1988), for which no consent was necessary prior to such commencement, may continue to do so for a period of three months from such commencement or, if he has made an application for such consent, within the said period of three months, till the disposal of such application.
52Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
(2) An application for consent of the State Board under sub- section (1) shall be made in such form, contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.] (3) The State Board may make such inquiry as it may deem fit in respect of the application for consent referred to in sub- section (1) and in making any such inquiry shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.
(4) The State Board may-- (a) grant its consent referred to in sub-section (1), subject to such conditions as it may impose, being--
(i) in cases referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 25, conditions as to the point of discharge of sewage or as to the use of that outlet or any other outlet for discharge of sewage;
(ii)in the case of a new discharge, conditions as to the nature and composition, temperature, volume or rate of discharge of the effluent from the land or premises from which the discharge or new discharge is to be made; and
(iii) that the consent will be valid only for such period as may be specified in the order, and any such conditions imposed shall be binding on any person establishing or taking any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or treatment and disposal system of extension or addition thereto, or using the new or altered outlet, or discharging the effluent from the land or premises aforesaid; or
(b) refuse such consent for reasons to be recorded in writing. 53 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
(5) Where, without the consent of the State Board, any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, is established, or any steps for such establishment have been taken or a new or altered outlet is brought into use for the discharge of sewage or a new discharge of sewage is made, the State Board may serve on the person who has established or taken steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, or using the outlet, or making the discharge, as the case may be, a notice imposing any such conditions as it might have imposed on an application for its consent in respect of such establishment, such outlet or discharge.
(6) Every State Board shall maintain a register containing particulars of the conditions imposed under this section and so much of the register as relates to any outlet, or to any effluent, from any land or premises shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by any person interested in, or affected by such outlet, land or premises, as the case may be, or by any person authorised by him in this behalf and the conditions so contained in such register shall be conclusive proof that the consent was granted subject to such conditions.] (7) The consent referred to in sub-section (1) shall, unless given or refused earlier, be deemed to have been given unconditionally on the expiry of a period of four months of the making of an application in this behalf complete in all respects to the State Board.
54 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
(8) For the purposes of this section and sections 27 and 30,--
(a) the expression "new or altered outlet" means any outlet which is wholly or partly constructed on or after the commencement of this Act or which (whether so constructed or not) is substantially altered after such commencement;
(b) the expression "new discharge" means a discharge which is not, as respects to nature and composition, temperature, volume, and rate of discharge of the effluent substantially a continuation of a discharge made within the preceding twelve months (whether by the same or a different outlet), so however that a discharge which is in other respects a continuation of previous discharge made as aforesaid shall not be deemed to be a new discharge by reason of any reduction of the temperature or volume or rate of discharge of the effluent as compared with the previous discharge.
26. Provision regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent.-- Where immediately before the commencement of this Act any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a [stream or well or sewer or on land] (Subs. by Act 44 of 1978, s. 13, for "stream or well" (w.e.f. 12-12-1978) the provisions of section 25 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such person as they apply in relation to the person referred to in that section subject to the modification that the application for consent to be made under sub-section (2) of that section [shall be made on or before such date as may be specified by the State Government by notification in this behalf in the Official Gazette].
55 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.
43. Penalty for contravention of provisions of section 24 Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 24 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [one year and six months] (Substituted by Act No. 53 of 1988, for the words "six months) but which may extend to six years and with fine.
44. Penalty for contravention of section 25 or section 26 Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 25 or section 26 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [one year and six months] (Substituted by Act No. 53 of 1988, for the words "six months) but which may extend to six years and with fine."
35. In Gujarat Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Nicosulf Indst.& Exports Pvt Ltd (2009 (2) SCC 171), a complaint was filed under various sections of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, against M/s. Nicosulf Industries & Exports Pvt. Ltd. and its directors for allegedly discharging 10,800 liters of polluted water daily during nicotine sulphate production, where the court held that under sections 24 and 25 of the Act, every industry is compulsorily required to obtain prior permission or approval of the Board for discharging its polluted water either within or outside the industry as per section 25(i) of the Act.
36. Additionally, in the 1983 case of U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and Others (2000 (3) SCC 745), relating to Gomti River pollution caused by the respondent therein, faced prolonged delays. The High court gave its judgment in 1999 and thereafter, this court held that where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every 56 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. person who was in charge of and was responsible for the company's conduct of business, is also guilty of the offence.
37. Thus, it is evident that Vellore's current status highlights the critical consequences of unchecked industrialization and exploitation of natural resources. The district, once known for its agricultural prosperity and natural resources, now faces a grave environmental crisis driven by pollution from the tanning industries, illegal sand mining, and poor waste management. These activities have degraded vital ecosystems, polluted water bodies like the River Palar and reduced the groundwater availability, severely impacting the livelihoods of farmers, fishermen, and local communities. In the light of the principles outlined above, this Court has the duty to foster a more comprehensive, balanced, and sustainable approach to curb the water pollution in the river. The principles mentioned not only ensure compliance but also encourage longterm strategies for environmental protection, public health, and sustainable development. Moreover, the legal position is clear: until the damage caused by the tanneries to the ecology is reversed, the polluters have a continuing duty to pay compensation and further, it is the bounden duty of both the Central and State Governments and local authorities to prevent, protect and preserve natural resources and maintain a healthy and clean environment.
38. Admittedly, the unit which continued to pollute the environment by discharging the water into the open area violated the provisions of Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, and cannot absolve themselves of their liability merely on the ground that there are tripartite agreement between the parties and by committing the agreement shifted the liability to others and continued the discharge of untreated water into the open air or land causing health hazard. The tripartite agreement is 57 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. binding between the parties and the compensation can be contributed or distributed or claimed from the person concerned and that tripartite agreement is binding on themselves not on law. The polluting unit is liable to reverse the damage to the environment and ecology as long as the untreated water continues to pollute the environment and the State Pollution Control Board has rightly calculated the amount from the date of discharge till its continuance or remedial measures have been taken and nothing has been challenged with regard to the discharge or continuance of the pollution. Only basis of challenge is the tripartite agreement which is not tenable in eyes of law. The damage to the environment has a large effect on the air quality and water quality adversely affecting the human body, though the details of the affected individuals' families cannot be ascertained at this distant point of time, this alone cannot be a reason to withhold the damage to environment amount which is required to be paid by the polluter to reverse the damage to the environment.
39. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that applying the principle of polluter to pay the appellant is responsible for the payment of the environmental damage caused by discharging untreated effluent into the surrounding areas resulting in irreversible damage to the groundwater, agricultural lands and environment. The conduct of the appellant shows that the discharges were neither reauthorized nor in compliance with the standard set by the Pollution Control Board. All this occurred while various directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court and this Tribunal has directed to follow the environmental norms but the appellant failed to achieve any meaningful results and being custodian of the fundamental rights, the Tribunal must come to rescue the affected environment and to ensure that there should not be any discharge of 58 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors. untreated water into the water bodies or the open land causing serious environmental and health hazards.
40. Since pollution is continuing wrong until the condition is reversed the polluter, the appellant will be liable to compensate and to restore the ecology and the damage of the environment and responsible and liable for the payment of the amount. The environmental damage compensation as assessed by the State PCB is according to the parameter laid down by the rules and damage to the environment, thus appeal has no legs to stand and no merit, and thus deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
41. Appellant is directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of uploading of this order failing which the respondent State Pollution Control Board have to act in accordance with the procedure as stated by law for recovery of the amount. The amount of environmental damage must be deposited in the environmental fund as per rule and be utilized to restore the environmental damage.
42. With these observations Appeal No. 08/2025 alongwith I.As. stand dismissed.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 29th January, 2026 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) PN 59 Appeal No.08/2025(CZ) M/s Landmark Ventures Vs. MPPCB & Ors.