THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (ROAD DEVELOPMENT) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus AAM AADMI LOKMANCH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 14-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (ROAD DEVELOPMENT)
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
v.
AAM AADMI LOKMANCH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6932 of 2015)
JULY 14, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14, 15, 17 and
Schedules – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Jurisdiction of the
NGT – Victim was driving a car with her young daughter on the
Highway – An over-mining resulted in the destruction of a small hill
by the side of the National Highway – The resultant debris and a
part of the hill collapsed and slid down to the road, claiming the
lives of the victim and her daughter – The NGT imposed a joint
penalty of Rs.50 lakhs for causing environmental damage on NHAI
and the persons who carried out the cutting of the hill – Further,
they were also directed to pay jointly and severally amount of
Rs. 15 lakhs towards compensation to the legal representatives of
the deceased and her daughter – Also, an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs
was ordered to be deposited for plantation of trees in order to restore
damage caused to environment – It was contended that NGT has
narrow and circumscribed jurisdiction in regard to issuing directions
as well as ordering compensation – Held: A conjoint reading of ss.
14, 15, and the Schedules would lead one to infer that the NGT has
circumscribed jurisdiction to deal with, adjudicate, and wherever
needed, direct measures such as payment of compensation, or make
restitutionary directions in cases where the violation (i.e. harm
caused due to pollution or exposure to hazards, etc.) are the result
of an infraction of any enactment listed in the first schedule –
However, the wide language of s.15(4) enables the Tribunal (NGT)
to direct, inter alia, payment of compensation,”having regard to the
damage to public health, property and environment” – This
interpretation is borne out by a reading of s.17(2) regarding the
apportionment of liability for payment of compensation – Under
ss.15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c), the NGT has the power to make directions
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1050
1050
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
and provide for “restitution of property damaged and for restitution
of the environment for such area as the Tribunal may think fit” –
Further, s.17(1) refers to first schedule enactments, it talks of death
of, or injury to, any person “or damage to any property or
environment” which “has resulted from an accident or the adverse
impact of an activity or operation or process, under any enactment”
in Schedule I – One of the enactments is Environment Protection
Act, 1986 – Environmental clearance is necessary even for minor
mineral extraction where the area of operation is less than 5 hectares
– In the instant case, there was violation of EPA, because there was
mining lease covered an area in excess of 5 hectares – There is
nothing on record to show that the relevant clearance was obtained
– Therefore, the facts of the present case disclose violation of the
EPA – This means that the NGT’s jurisdiction u/s. 15(1)(a) and s.17
cannot be disputed and NGT correctly assumed jurisdiction, having
regard to the nature of the accident in the facts of the case.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Environment Protection
Act, 1986 – National Highways Act, 1956 – National Highways
Authority of India Act, 1988 – An over-mining resulted in the
destruction of a small hill by the side of the National Highway –
The resultant debris and a part of hill collapsed and slid down to
the road, claiming lives of a woman and her daughter – National
Green Tribunal directed payment of compensation towards death
and damages towards restitution – Propriety of – Held: A statutory
corporation or local authority can be held liable in tort for injury
occasioned on account of omission to oversee, or defective
supervision of its activities contracted out to another agency – In
the instant case, having regard to the duty imposed on the NHAI by
virtue of ss. 4 and 5 of the Highway Act r/w. s. 16 of the NHAI Act,
there can be no manner of doubt that the NHAI was responsible for
the maintenance of the highway, including the stretch upon which
accident occurred – The report of Sub-Divisional Officer highlighted
the deficiencies, also NHAI’s correspondence with the person
carrying out extraction of minor minerals by cutting hills, reveal
that authorities were aware of the danger and likelihood of risk to
human life – The failure of the NHAI to ensure remedi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.