Allowed

News Item Titled Four Workers Killed in Storage Tank Explosion at Gujarat Industrial Unit Appearing in the Hindu Dated 03.12.2024 v. -Gujarat Pollution Control Board(Gpcb) through Its Member Secretary

NGT31 Aug 2026IA No. 280/2026 in Original Application No. 4/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT examined whether the excess amount of interim Environmental Damage Compensation levied by the GPCB under its policy framework should be refunded after an expert agency assessed the actual environmental damage at a significantly lower figure.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.1 to refund Rs.99,97,805/- to Respondent No.5 after retaining Rs.2,195/- as Environmental Damage Compensation.

News Item Titled Four Workers Killed in Storage Tank… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.1

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

¶6

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.04 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.280 OF 2026 (WZ) [EARLIER ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1384 OF 2024 (PB)]

¶7

NEW ITEM TITLED “FOUR WORKERS KILLED IN STORAGE TANK EXPLOSION AT GUJRAT INDUSTRIAL UNIT” APPEARING IN THE HINDU DATED 03.12.2024

¶8

Date of hearing: 31.08.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Respondents : Mr. Neelkanth Mehta, Advocate for R-1/GPCB Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2/CPCB Mr. Rinkesh Patel, Law Officer on behalf of Collector Office, Bharuch, for R-4 Ms. Anindita Roy, Advocate along-with Ms. Vatsala Rai, Mr. Soham Sarkar, Mr. Rohan Anand and Ms. Anupa Malla, Advocates for R-5/PP Mr. A.R. Pithiya Assistant Director, DISH for R-6/DISH

¶11

ORDER

¶12

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier order dated 30.01.2026, which shall form part of the present order.

¶13

By the order dated 30.01.2026, we had directed the Respondent No.5- Detox India Pvt. Ltd./Project Proponent to provide us the calculation of the amount of personal compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased workers as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶14

Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009)

¶15

6 SCC 121] , which was submitted by Respondent No.5 by filing an affidavit dated 12.02.2026 and that the same was considered by us by the order dated 19.02.2026, which shall also form part of this order.

¶16

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶17

Page 1 of 12

¶18

In the order dated 19.02.2026, we had recorded that all the four deceased/workmen have already been paid more than the amount which was required to be paid under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no additional compensation was required to be paid. Thereafter, we found recorded in the same very order that we find from our order dated 07.04.2025 that a submission was made by Respondent No.1Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) that unit/Project Proponent should be asked to carry out assessment of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) through institute of national repute like NEERI/IIT to decide final EDC, in order to reach the conclusion as to what should be the final amount of EDC to be levied from the Project Proponent.

¶19

In regard to the above, the learned counsel for Respondent No.5Project Proponent had submitted that they have already got study conducted by Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIIT). But we expressed our view that the said study ought to have been conducted by NEERI or one of the IITs. In that very order dated 19.02.2026, we had directed the Respondent No.5 to get the study done from NEERI regarding the assessment of EDC.

¶20

Thereafter, on 01.06.2026, the learned counsel for Respondent No.5wanted from this Tribunal to revise the order dated 19.02.2026, by which we had directed the Respondent No.5 to get the study conducted either by NEERI or one of the IITs in respect of assessment for Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC). It is submitted by her that the said study has already been got conducted through one of the NIITs i.e. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIIT), to which it was orally submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.1-GPCB that they were satisfied with the same. Therefore, we had directed the learned

¶21

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶22

Page 2 of 12

¶23

counsel for Respondent No.5 to move an application for recall of that order, giving therein the reasons for the same.

¶24

Pursuant to the above order, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 filed I.A. No.280 of 2026 (WZ), praying therein for recalling/modifying the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal in the present Original Application to the extent that it directs the applicant/Respondent No.5 to get the study done from NEERI regarding the assessment of EDC. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.08.2026, we had mentioned that Respondent No.1-GPCB has filed reply affidavit dated 17.06.2026, wherein they have stated that they are satisfied with the report prepared by Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat and hence, there was no further need to go for additional study. Therefore, looking to the fact that SVNIIT had assessed the EDC amount of Rs.2195/- only, we made a query from the GPCB as to why the amount i.e. Rs.1,00,00,000 - Rs.2195 = Rs.99,97,805/- be not directed to be refunded by the GPCB to the Respondent No.5/Project Proponent.

¶25

Now, in response to the above query, Respondent No.1-GPCB has filed additional reply affidavit dated 20.08.2026, wherein it is submitted that the present proceedings are not founded upon any allegation made by complainant seeking adjudication of an individual or private monetary claim against the Respondent Board, nor were they initiated for determination of any/inter-se/monetary dispute between Respondent No.5-Project Proponent and Respondent No.1- Gujarat Pollution Control Board. The central object of the proceedings has throughout remained the protection of the environment, examination of the regulatory response to the occurrence and ensuring that adequate preventive, corrective and remedial measures are undertaken in accordance with law.

¶26

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶27

Page 3 of 12

¶28

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1-GPCB that the levy was not in the nature of a monetary claim made by one litigating party against another, nor was the amount received by the Board pursuant to any consensual or provisional arrangement between the parties. It formed part of the regulatory measures adopted by the Board under the prevailing Environmental Compensation framework consequent upon an industrial accident of a serious nature. As the proceedings progressed, this Tribunal examined several distinct aspects arising from the occurrence, including the cause of the accident, compliance with safety and environmental requirements, compensation paid to the legal heirs of the deceased workers, the methodology adopted for assessment of Environmental Damage Compensation and the necessity or otherwise of obtaining a further technical study from another expert institution. The Respondent Board has throughout assisted this Tribunal in the aforesaid exercise and has placed its position on record from time to time in response to the specific queries and directions issued by this Tribunal.

¶29

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1-GPCB that the query, which was made by this Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2026, requires consideration of the nature and legal character of the original levy, the regulatory framework, under which it was imposed, the purpose and scope of the subsequent scientific assessment, and the distinction between a policy-based Environmental Compensation imposed by the statutory regulator and a quantified environmental damage-cost component subsequently arrived at by an expert institution. The two figures cannot be treated as arithmetically interchangeable without first examining the aforesaid distinction. The aforesaid two figures proceed from different stages, purposes and methodologies of environmental

¶30

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶31

Page 4 of 12

¶32

regulatory assessment, and the figure reflected in the SVNIIT report cannot, by a process of mere arithmetic, be treated as having automatically substituted, superseded or retrospectively nullified the Environmental Compensation lawfully levied by the Board under its prevailing Environmental Compensation framework.

¶33

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1-GPCB that the sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) was not collected as a security deposit, ad hoc deposit, refundable advance etc. The said amount was levied by the Board in exercise of its regulatory functions and in accordance with the Environmental Compensation regime contained in the prevailing GPCB Technical Manual, which, in turn, incorporates and follows the methodology/guidelines evolved pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal and the Central Pollution Control Board. Immediately after the unfortunate occurrence in question, the Board had undertaken inspection of the premises and, having regard to the nature and gravity of the occurrence and the deficiencies noticed, the Board issued Closure Direction dated 05.12.2024 under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Along-with the said Closure Direction, an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was levied as interim Environmental Damage Compensation in accordance with the prevailing policy and Technical Manual of the Board. The levy of Rs.1,00,00,000/did not originate for the first time in or as a consequence of the present proceedings before this Tribunal. The said levy was a contemporaneous regulatory action taken by the Board immediately after the occurrence and on the basis of an already existing Environmental Compensation framework applicable in the State of Gujarat.

¶34

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1-GPCB that paragraph 18.3 of the Technical Manual specifically deals

¶35

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶36

Page 5 of 12

¶37

with the assessment of Environmental Compensation in cases including accidental discharges resulting in environmental damage and provides for a two-part mechanism, namely: (a) interim Environmental Compensation, under which the prescribed amount for a large-scale industry is Rs.1,00,00,000/-; and additional Environmental Compensation, which may be assessed on the basis of detailed investigation undertaken through an expert institution/organization. Thus, the structure of the prevailing policy itself recognizes a distinction between the Environmental Compensation which is required to be immediately imposed having regard to the nature, scale and gravity of the occurrence, and such further/additional scientific assessment as may thereafter be undertaken with the assistance of an expert institution. More importantly, paragraph 18.4 of the GPCB Technical Manual specifically deals with assessment of Environmental Compensation in case of an industrial accident. Under the said provision, for a large-scale industry, an industrial accident falling within the category of “Severe+/Emergency” attracts Environmental Compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

¶38

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1-GPCB that the said paragraph further specifically provides that where an industrial accident involves casualty, the same shall be considered as a Severe/Emergency case. The present occurrence unfortunately resulted in the loss of four human lives. The concerned unit is a large-scale industrial/common environmental infrastructure facility. The application of the aforesaid category and the corresponding amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was, therefore, founded upon the express criteria prescribed under the prevailing Technical Manual of the Board.

¶39

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1-GPCB that the inspection undertaken after the occurrence had

¶40

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶41

Page 6 of 12

¶42

revealed inter alia deficiencies concerning the Spray Dryer Feed Effluent Storage Tanks, including non-provision of breather valves and condensers in accordance with the applicable GPCB guidelines and non-provision of a separate stripping facility for Spray Dryer feed effluent. The regulatory response of the Board, including closure safety-related conditions, requirement of HAZOP/safety audit/root-cause analysis and levy of Environmental Compensation, was therefore, taken in the backdrop of the occurrence as a whole and the deficiencies observed at the unit. The Respondent Board further submits that the aforesaid policy-based Environmental Compensation cannot be equated with a mere reimbursement of the measurable physical cost of damage to a particular environmental medium.

¶43

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1-GPCB that the Closure Direction also required the Respondent No.5PP to obtain assessment through an institute of national repute, so that the scientific assessment could be considered while determining the environmental consequences of the occurrence. Significantly, the direction itself stated that the amount calculated on scientific assessment “may be considered final”. It did not provide that such expert calculation would automatically, without any further consideration or decision by the competent authority, substitute the Environmental Compensation already levied under the applicable Technical Manual.

¶44

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent No.1-GPCB that the said Affidavit dated 17.06.2026 did not state that: (a). the figure of Rs.2,195/- stood accepted by the Board as the final amount of Environmental Compensation payable under the GPCB Technical Manual; (b). the Environmental Compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- levied on 05.12.2024 stood withdrawn, modified or reduced; (c). the amount of

¶45

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶46

Page 7 of 12

¶47

Rs.1,00,00,000/- was subject to automatic refund upon receipt of the SVNIIT study; or (d). the Respondent Board had agreed to refund any part of the Environmental Compensation already levied and recovered. The satisfaction expressed in the Affidavit dated 17.06.2026 was therefore qua the sufficiency of the scientific study and the absence of necessity for commissioning a second and duplicative scientific study. It ought not be construed as a concession regarding the legal effect of a particular numerical component contained in that study upon the separate policybased Environmental Compensation already imposed. Therefore, it is prayed that no direction for refund of the amount already recovered be issued, since refund at the present stage would effectively treat an expert damage-cost calculation as having automatically annulled the subsisting policy-based Environmental Compensation without a determination to that effect.

¶48

Respondent No.1- Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) has also filed written submission dated 31.08.2026, wherein we find that the same facts have been reiterated, which we have already taken into consideration above while dealing with their additional reply affidavit. Further, it is reiterated that a later expert exercise quantifying particular environmental components cannot retrospectively undo that prescribed regulatory consequence, particularly, when the statutory decision remains operative and unchallenged.

¶49

Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1- GPCB on the Judgment/Order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4178 of 2026 (KLJ Petroplast Ltd. vs. Gujarat Pollution Control Board) , in which following order was passed:-

¶50

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶51

Page 8 of 12

¶52

“ 1. Gujarat Pollution Control Board1 in exercise of power conferred by Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 has, vide an order dated 20.09.2023, levied interim environmental damage compensation to the tune of Rs.1 crore on the appellant as well as required the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.20 lakh. Appellant, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, has complied with such order passed by the Board.

¶53

2. An appeal was carried to the National Green Tribunal (Western Bench), Pune which, by the impugned order dated 05.12.2025, has upheld the order dated 20.09.2023.

¶54

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at some length. Since the compensation which has been assessed by the Board appears to be interim in nature, we grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Board and raise all contentions in support of its claim that since there has been no environmental damage, no compensation should have been levied. Once the appellant approaches the Board, we expect the Board to decide the appellant’s claim in accordance with law, as early as possible, but preferably within three months. It shall be open to the Board to increase/decrease/waive off the quantum of environmental damage compensation imposed on the appellant.

¶55

4. Needless to observe, whatever payment has been made by the appellant shall abide by the final decision to be given by the Board.

¶56

5. The civil appeal is disposed of, on the aforesaid terms.

¶57

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

¶58

Having drawn our attention to the above, it is urged by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1- GPCB that in the present case also, based on the law which is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned case, a direction may be issued to the Project Proponent to approach the Board, in case they want their amount of interim EDC to be

¶59

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶60

Page 9 of 12

¶61

refunded or this Tribunal may also leave it open to the GPCB to decide the amount of EDC afresh.

¶62

After having heard the above argument of the learned counsel for Respondent No.1- GPCB, we are not convinced with his argument. The query, which was made by us, was to the effect as to why the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000 - Rs.2195 = Rs.99,97,805/- be not directed to be refunded by the GPCB to the Respondent No.5/Project Proponent because as per the opinion expressed by the Expert Agency i.e. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIIT), the total amount of EDC has been calculated to the tune of Rs.2195/-, while by way of interim compensation, an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) has already been levied from the Project Proponent. The concept of interim compensation is that the same was to be finalized at some point of time. The same has also been stated by Respondent No.1- GPCB that the direction itself stated that the amount calculated on scientific assessment “may be considered final”. So, if the amount of final compensation comes to a lesser amount than which have already been levied, then excess amount would have to be refunded by the GPCB to the Project Proponent. But in case the final amount of compensation comes to higher amount than the amount which has been levied under interim EDC, additional amount would have to be levied from the Project Proponent. This is being disputed by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1- GPCB on the ground that the interim amount of EDC was levied based on the policy framework. But that does not appear to be correct approach.

¶63

We are also not in agreement with the argument made by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1- GPCB that there is no prayer made before this Tribunal for the refund of the said amount from the side of Respondent No.5-Project Proponent, therefore, no order may be passed by

¶64

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶65

Page 10 of 12

¶66

this Tribunal. In this regard, our view is that we have taken cognizance of this matter suo moto . So, all the issues are being taken up into consideration by us including the determination of the Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) to be levied by the GPCB from the Project Proponent. So, that amount is very much required to be determined by us.

¶67

Since the learned counsel for Respondent No.1- GPCB has already expressed his satisfaction through their affidavit that they are satisfied with the scientific study conducted by Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIIT) and that the amount of Rs.2195/- is being agreed to have been correctly arrived at, though later on, they have disputed that amount also. Had that been the position, they would not have opposed the study by another expert agency.

¶68

In view of above analysis made by us, we are of the view that Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) is levied from the polluters to pay for restoration of damaged eco-system which is founded on the “Polluters Pays Principle”. In the case in hand, the environmental damage has been assessed by an expert agency only to the tune of Rs.2195/- and the said scientific assessment has been accepted by the GPCB. Accordingly, we accept the report of the SVNIIT and dispose of this application with a direction to the Respondent No.1- Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) that after retaining the amount of EDC of Rs.2195/the excess amount i.e. Rs.9,997,805/-, which has been levied by them from the Respondent No.5- Detox India Pvt. Ltd./Project Proponent, be refunded to the Respondent No.5 within a period of one month from the date of uploading of this order.

¶69

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶70

Page 11 of 12

¶71

Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.

¶72

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶73

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶74

August 31, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.04 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.280 OF 2026 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶75

Original Application No. 04 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶76

Page 12 of 12

News Item Titled Four Workers Killed in Storage Tank Explosion at Gujarat Industrial Unit Appearing in the Hindu Dated 03.12.2024 v. -Gujarat Pollution Control Board(Gpcb) through Its Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

News Item Titled Four Workers Killed in Storage Tank Explosion at Gujarat Industrial Unit Appearing in the Hindu Dated 03.12.2024 v. -Gujarat Pollution Control Board(Gpcb) through Its Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Punem Ramulu vs the State of Telangana Rep by Its Chief Secretary

Kali Charan Chand vs the Chief Secretary of Odisha

Kali Charan Chand vs the Chief Secretary of Odisha

Soubhagya Patra vs Odisha State Pollution Control Board

Vaibhav Baban Satam vs Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Maa Durga Stone Crusher through Its Proprietor vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Monu Raja vs Union of India through Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Monu Raja vs Union of India through Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Prashant Vasant Mahadik vs Thane Municipal Corporation

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Union of India

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Union of India

News Item Titled Four Workers Killed in Storage Tank Explosion at Gujarat Industrial Unit Appearing in the Hindu Dated 03.12.2024 vs -Gujarat Pollution Control Board(Gpcb) through Its Member Secretary

Hakimuddin Kasamali Hathyari (Vohra) vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Faisal Mehbubbhai Khota vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept