LexVEENA GUPTA & ANR versus CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1185 : 2024 INSC 89 Veena Gupta & Anr. v. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. 30 January 2024 (Civil Appeal No(s). 1865-1866 of 2022) [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned orders passed by National Green Tribunal – order arising out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings holding the appellants guilty and directing payment of compensation; and order of dismissal of the review petition filed by appellant No.2 alleging that he had not been given opportunity before adverse order was passed against him, were not sustainable. Headnotes Practice and Procedure – Opportunity of hearing to affected party – National Green Tribunal’s recurrent engagement in unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review hearing and routinely dismissing it – Deprecated. Held: On facts, it is evident that the Tribunal itself noted that notices were not issued to the Project Proponents – The Tribunal, in fact, considered it unnecessary to hear the Project Proponent to verify the facts in issue – The persons who were prejudiced by the order of the Tribunal naturally filed Review Petitions before the Tribunal – Appellant No.2 is one amongst them – The National Green Tribunal’s recurrent engagement in unilateral decision making, provisioning ex post facto review hearing and routinely dismissing it has regrettably become a prevailing norm – It is imperative for the Tribunal to infuse a renewed sense of procedural integrity, ensuring that its actions resonate with a harmonious balance between justice and due process – It appears that the appellants did not have a full opportunity to contest the matter and place all their defenses before the Tribunal – The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to issue notice to all the affected parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders. [Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6] 1186 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors., [2023] 10 SCR 440 : (2023) 8 SCC 35 – referred to. List of Keywords National Green Tribunal; ex parte order; Suo motu proceedings; Review petition; Adverse order; Opportunity of hearing; Affected party; Unilateral decision making; ex post facto review hearing; Facts in issue; Prejudice; Prevailing norm; Procedural integrity; Harmonious balance; Justice; Due process; Opportunity to contest the matter; Remand. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.1865-1866 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2021 in OA No.65 of 2021 and dated 26.11.2021 in RA No.37 of 2021 of the National Green Tribunal. Appearances for Parties Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ashish Aggarwal, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, Ms. Tatini Basu, Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Subodha Pandey, Advs. for the Appellants. Avneesh Arputham, Ankit Sharma, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Praveen Swarup, Ameet Singh, Devesh Maurya, Ravi Kumar, Ms. Payal Swarup, Aman, Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Vidya Sagar, Rajesh Sonthalia, Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Shekher Kaushik, Ganesh Barowalia, Mrs. Vandana Gupta, Rahul Gupta, Deepak Goel, Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Ms. Alka Goyal, Jitendra Bharti, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. These appeals arise out of two orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short). The main order arises out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings holding the appellants to be [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1187 Veena Gupta & Anr. v. Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. guilty and directing payment of compensation. The second order is the dismissal of the review petition filed by the appellant No.2 alleging that he had not been given an opportunity before an adverse order was passed against him. For the reasons to follow, we set aside the orders and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to issue notice to all the affected parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders. 2. The relevant portion of the order impugned1 is as under: “7. Even though no notice was issued by the Tribunal to the PP in absence of particulars, the Joint Committee has visited the site. Notice has been issued to the PP under the Employees Compensation Act for death of a person. Remedial measures have been suggested for future. The PP has been found to be operating witho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.