Partly allowed

Bhaskar Rao Vemuri v. .

NGT3 Nov 2025IA No. 227/2021 in Original Application No. 144/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of three intervention applications filed by the defaulting unit, M/s Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Private Limited, in Original Application No. 144/2020. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding compensation calculation, the Tribunal reduced the environmental compensation liability from 5% of annual turnover to Rs. 73,50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 228/2021 allowed; IA No. 226/2021 disposed of by granting intervention; IA No. 227/2021 disposed of by reducing compensation to Rs. 73,50,000/- and directing deposit.

Bhaskar Rao Vemuri vs . — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 08

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

IA No. 226/2021, IA No. 227/2021 & IA No. 228/2021

¶5

¶6

Original Application No. 144/2020

Bhaskar Rao Vemuri

Applicant

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

Date of hearing: 03.11.2025

¶13

Date of uploading: 18.11.2025

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶15

Respondent: Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava & Ms. Ananya Sahu, Advs. for Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.

¶16

Mr. TVS Raghuvendra Sreyas & Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Advs. for APPCB Mr. Mukesh Kumar & Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advs. for CPCB

¶17

ORDER

¶18

In this original application, registered on the basis of the letter petition, the issue of compliance of environmental norms by the M/s Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Private Limited operating a bulk drug chemical unit near Chandrapid Village, Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh was raised. The violations of the norms had also resulted in two fatal accidents on 29.07.2020 and 11.05.2021 resulting in five deaths – two in first incident and three in the second incident.

¶19

The Tribunal had constituted the Joint Committee which had filed its report on 04.10.2021 reflecting compliance status found on inspection conducted on 10.08.2021. In that OA, M/s Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Private Limited - the defaulting industry had filed IA No. 226/2021 for intervention and impleadment as respondent, IA No.

¶20

¶21

227/2021 for dismissal and rejection of OA and IA No. 228/2021 – an application for exemption from filing dim annexures.

¶22

The Tribunal by the order dated 07.12.2021 had disposed of the OA after considering the report of the Joint Committee and reaching to the conclusion that M/s Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Private Limited had committed violation of the environmental norms which had resulted in two fatal accidents first on 29.07.2020 in which two workers had died and two had received burn injury and second on 11.05.2021 in which three employees had died due to inhalation of Thionyl chloride gas and other three were affected. The Tribunal noted that apart from the environmental compensation paid earlier, the Committee had further assessed the additional compensation of Rs. 73,50,000/- for causing damage to the environment. The Tribunal considering the fact that there was loss of five lives within one year apart from injuries to others, held that atleast 5% of the annual turnover, i.e., Rs. 7.5 crores was to be calculated under the head of loss of environment. Accordingly, the environmental compensation payable by the above defaulting unit was calculated. The Tribunal directed that the amount of environmental compensation calculated on the basis of the annual turnover be deposited by the unit with the State Pollution Control Board within three months. The other directions were also issued by the Tribunal relating to restoration/improvement of the environment in the area by preparing an action plan by a five Member Expert Committee constituted by that order.

¶23

The order of the Tribunal dated 07.12.2021 was challenged by the defaulting unit - M/s Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Private Limited before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1940-1941 of 2022. These Civil Appeals were disposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the following order dated 21.03.2025:

¶24

"ORDER

¶25

¶26

1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi¹ in Review Application No.3 of 2022 and the parent judgment and order dated 07.12.2021 in Original Application No. 144 of 2020.

¶27

2. The Tribunal noted in paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 that the appellant had filed various applications being I.A. Nos. 226, 227 and 228 of 2021, including an application for intervention as well as for an order to reduce compensation as levied. It is not disputed at the Bar that such applications were not disposed by the Tribunal. The appellant considers itself aggrieved because an order has been passed to its detriment and prejudice without reasonable opportunity of hearing being granted to it.

¶28

3. We are satisfied that the grievance of the appellant has some substance the sense that no adverse order ought to have been passed without consideration of such applications.

¶29

4. The directions contained in the impugned parent order are kept in abeyance for three months. The Tribunal is directed to consider the applications filed by the appellant being I.A. Nos. 226, 227 and 228 of 2021, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks.

¶30

5. Should the application for intervention be allowed, it shall be open to the appellant to raise all other points available to it in law and seek revocation of the directions.

¶31

6. Needless to observe, enforcement of the directions issued by the Tribunal will depend on the fate of such applications.

¶32

7. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the interim applications filed by the appellant.

¶33

8. The appeals are disposed of on the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

¶34

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a plea was raised that though I.A. Nos. 226/2021, 227/2021 and 228/2021 filed by the defaulting unit in the OA were noted in para 7 of the order dated 07.12.2021, but they were not decided by the Tribunal. Hence, in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, these I.As are now required to be decided.

¶35

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in I.A. Nos. 226/2021, 227/2021 and 228/2021.

¶36

¶37

So far as IA No. 228/2021 is concerned, it is only an application seeking exemption from filing the legible copies of dim annexures. The legible copies of the relevant annexures are already on record. Hence, the IA No. 228/2021 is allowed.

¶38

So far as IA No. 226/2021 is concerned, this IA has been filed by the Applicant for intervention and impleadment in the OA and for placing on record the relevant facts and documents. This IA has not been opposed by Counsel for the PCB. Even otherwise in these proceedings and by the order already passed by the Tribunal, the Applicant in the IA has been found to be a unit defaulting in compliance with the environmental norms and environmental compensation has been imposed on it, therefore, the prayer made in the IA is granted and IA No. 226/2021 is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

With the consent we have also heard IA No. 227/2021 an application seeking disposal of the OA in terms of the report of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) and also with alternate prayer to reduce the environmental compensation.

¶40

Learned Counsel for the Applicant in IA has objected to the imposition of environmental compensation on the basis of the annual turnover of the unit and has submitted that the Applicant is ready to pay the environmental compensation of Rs. 73,50,000/- calculated by the Joint Committee. In support of such a submission, learned Counsel for the Applicant has relied upon two orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶41

Learned Counsel for the APPCB has not opposed the prayer made in this IA.

¶42

Tribunal in the order dated 07.12.2021 had calculated the environmental compensation at the rate of 5% of the annual turnover of

¶43

¶44

Rs. 7.5 crores. The argument advanced by Counsel for the Applicant in the IA is covered by the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

¶45

Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited vs. Arvind Manohar Mahajan & Ors ., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3543 and in the matter of C.L. Gupta Export Ltd. vs. Adil Ansari & Ors. , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1812 .

¶46

Keeping in view the above orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, paragraph 8 of the order dated 07.12.2021 is modified and part of this paragraph relating to imposition of environmental compensation at the rate of 5% of the annual turnover of Rs. 7.5 crores is deleted and it is directed that the unit - M/s Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Private Limited is liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 73,50,000/- as calculated by the Joint Committee in addition to the environmental compensation of Rs. 37.20 lakhs already paid.

¶47

Hence, we dispose of this IA No. 227/2021 by directing M/s Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Private Limited to deposit the environmental compensation of Rs. 73,50,000/- within four weeks. This amount will be utilised for restoration and improvement of environment as per the direction contained in paragraph 8 of the order dated 07.12.2021.

¶48

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶49

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶50

November 03, 2025 IA No. 226/2021, IA No. 227/2021 & IA No. 228/2021 In Original Application No. 144/2020 dv

¶51

Bhaskar Rao Vemuri v. .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Rao Vemuri v. .

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

Similar cases

Mr Rajender vs Union of India

Rakesh Bansal vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Rakesh Bansal vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Rakesh Bansal vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

National Nature Society vs Principal Secretary Department of Mines Petroleum

Prashant Sumantrai Naik vs Seiaa

Prashant Sumantrai Naik vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Parimal Sumantrai Naik vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Giriraj Parikrama Sanrakshan Sansthan vs Department of Environment & Forests ∨S.

Giriraj Parikrama Sanrakshan Sansthan vs Department of Environment & Forests ∨S.

Giriraj Parikrama Sanrakshan Sansthan vs Department of Environment & Forests ∨S.

Anil Kumar Pandey vs

Bhaskar Rao Vemuri vs .

Bhaskar Rao Vemuri vs .