Disposed

M/S Jubliant Food Works Ltd. Thru Auth. Person Nrip Vibhaw v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Forest, Environment and Climate Change Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024WRIC/8791/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order connects Writ-C No. 8791 of 2024 with a related writ petition where an interim order stays the levy of environmental compensation. The court grants the benefit of that interim stay to the present petitioner and directs exchange of pleadings.

What did the court decide?

Stay of levy of Environmental Compensation granted by reference to the interim order in Writ-C No. 4816 of 2024. Pleadings directed to be exchanged.

M/S Jubliant Food Works Ltd. Thru Auth. Person Nrip… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8791 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Jubliant Food Works Ltd. Thru Auth. Person Nrip Vibhaw

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Forest, Environment And Climate Change Deptt. Lko And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Jalaj Kumar Gupta,Mehdi Khan,Mohd. Aslam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Asit Srivastava,Chandra Shekher Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Jalaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Asit Srivastava,learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5.

¶7

The parties are ad-idem that the issues involved in this case are similar to one pending adjudication in Writ-C No. 4816 of 2024 [Suez India Pvt. Ltd. vs. U.P. Pollution Control Board & Ors.] wherein interim order dated 29.05.2024 is operating. The said interim order passed in the said case reads as under:-

¶8

"1. Heard Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Asit Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.1, Shri Rishabh Kapoor, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2, Shri Namit Sharma, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

2. The issue involves in these proceedings is as to whether U.P. Pollution Control Board has statutory authority to award Environmental Compensation and make the petitioner liable for the same, that too without any opportunity of hearing.

¶10

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 120 : Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others, wherein it has been held that such power vests in the National Green Tribunal, which cannot be abdicated or delegated to any administrative expert committee. The ratio of the decision according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that such adjudicatory power referable to Sections 14,

¶11

15, 16 and 17 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 cannot be delegated or abdicated to the U.P. Pollution Control Board nor can the U.P. Pollution Control Board usurp such power which vests statutorily in the Tribunal constituted under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

¶12

4. Counsel for the Board says that in fact a direction had come from the Central Pollution Control Board with reference to O.A. No. 593 of 2017 (W.P. (civil) No. 375 of 2012, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another Vs. Union of India and others), wherein National Green Tribunal directed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to take penal action for failure against those accountable for setting up and maintaining Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs), Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) and Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs), in pursuance of which CPCB has prepared a 'Methodology' for Assessing Environmental Compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the fund. CPCB has started levying Environmental Compensation against defaulting industries including Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities Methodology developed or calculating Environmental Compensation enclosed for ready reference, however, we do not find any such authorization by CPCB to the U.P. Pollution Control Board in this regard for levying Environmental Compensation.

¶13

5. Moreover, the issue is under what authority of law it is permissible specially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court as referred hereinabove, which is subsequent to the aforesaid letter and the directions, if any, of the National Green Tribunal dated 28th August, 2019 issued in O.A. No. 593 of 2017.

¶14

6. It is an issue to be considered as to how far directions issued in the aforesaid case on 28th August, 2019 would apply in view of the subsequent decision in the case of Kanta Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust (supra). Moreover directions do not contain any specific order empowering the CPCB or U.P. Pollution Control Board for levying Environmental Compensation although it does speak of remedial action. Even if it did, the question is how far it is applicable now in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court.

¶15

7. Apart from the above, it is the case of the petitioner that in fact it is only the Operator of the Sewage Treatment Plants, which in fact belongs to the U.P. Jal Nigam represented by Shri Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate

¶16

and Environmental Compensation, if any, would be leviable against the U.P. Jal Nigam.

¶17

8. Let pleadings be exchanged by the parties.

¶18

9. List in the 3rd week of July, 2024.

¶19

10. In the meantime, action by which the U.P. Pollution Control Board has levied Environmental Compensation on the petitioner shall remain in abeyance, however, without prejudice to the National Green Tribunal to take such action as may be permissible in law or any other authority also to take such action as may be permissible in law in respect of the subject matter in issue. "

¶20

Connect and list along with Writ-C No.4816 of 2024 [Suez India Pvt. Ltd. vs. U.P. Pollution Control Board & Ors.] . The benefit of the interim order passed in the above quoted case shall be available in this case also on the same terms so far as environmental compensation is concerned.

¶21

Let pleadings be exchanged between the parties.

¶22

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 4.10.2024 Santosh/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Jubliant Food Works Ltd. Thru Auth. Person Nrip Vibhaw v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Forest, Environment and Climate Change Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jubliant Food Works Ltd. Thru Auth. Person Nrip Vibhaw v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Forest, Environment and Climate Change Deptt. Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhashini Tomar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical Education and Training, Lucknow and Others

M/S J.B. Daruka Paper Mill Thru Authorized Signatory Shiv Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief/ Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Environment Forests and Climate Change and Ors.

Umesh Chandra Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Avdhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Anand Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Ravindra Kumar Upadhyay Thru. Proprietor Ravindra Kumar Upadhyay vs Managing Director U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Another