Dismissed

M/ S Tilak Hospital v. State of Punjab

NGT10 Jul 2026Original Application No. 489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an application challenging the Punjab Pollution Control Board's levying of environmental compensation on a hospital for operating without a renewed authorisation. The Tribunal held that the Board acted within its jurisdiction under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, and the failure to renew was the operator's fault.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application challenging the Environmental Compensation levy was dismissed.

M/ S Tilak Hospital vs State of Punjab — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.23 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 489/2025

¶4

M/s. Tilak Hospital Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶7

Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 10.07.2026

¶9

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

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Randhir Singh Manhas, Adv. for Applicant (Through VC)

¶11

Respondents: Mr. Vijay Dalal, Adv. for R - 1 (Through VC)

¶12

Ms. Deepmala Chauhan, Adv. for R - 2 & 3

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By way of this Original Application (OA), applicant has challenged the order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) levying the Environmental Compensation (EC) of Rs.3, 22, 800/for operating without renewal of authorisation under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (for short Rules of 2016).

¶15

The applicant has also challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued by the PPCB giving last opportunity to the applicant to deposit the EC of Rs. 3, 22, 800/-. Against the order of the PPCB levying the EC, applicant had preferred the appeal before the appellate authority and appellate authority by order dated 09.05.2024 has dismissed the appeal. The appellate order is also under challenge in this OA.

¶16

The applicant is a hospital situated in Pathankot in the State of Punjab and is required to obtain an authorisation in terms of the provisions of Rules 2016.

¶17

¶18

It has been pointed by Counsel for the applicant that authorisation was obtained by the applicant, which was last renewed by order annexure A-1 by PPCB upto 31.03.2023.

¶19

The applicant had not applied for renewal of the authorisation on or before 31.03.2023. After the expiry of validity period, applicant had continued to operate without authorisation. Therefore, notice dated 15.11.2023 was given by the PPCB to the original applicant initiating the action for violating the Rules of 2016 and requiring the applicant to show cause. Thereafter impugned order was passed by the PPCB and appeal again the said order has been dismissed.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that PPCB did not issue any notice to the applicant informing the applicant to get the authorisation renewed. Therefore, levy of environmental compensation is improper. He has further submitted that impugned order of the PPCB is without jurisdiction, as applicant has not caused any damage to the environment. He has also submitted that reply filed by the applicant to the show cause notice has not been considered while passing the impugned order.

¶21

The Learned Counsel for the PPCB opposing the OA, has submitted that due procedure has been followed and EC has rightly been imposed.

¶22

So far as the submission of Learned Counsel for the applicant that, while passing the impugned order, reply filed by the applicant has not been considered, we find that applicant was given show cause notices dated 15.11.2023 and 12.12.2023. The impugned order and appellate order clearly record that applicant had not filed reply to the show cause notices. During the hearing also no reply to the show cause notices has been pointed out. Hence, it is apparent that applicant is taking an incorrect plea

¶23

¶24

before the Tribunal that reply was filed which has not been considered while passing the impugned order.

¶25

So far as the submission of Counsel for the applicant that PPCB does not have the jurisdiction to levy the EC is concerned, we have gone through the provisions of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016. Rule 18 fixes the liability to pay the Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) and action can be taken for violating Rule 5. Rule 5, Sub-Rule (l) requires the operator to display the details of authorisation on its website. In the present case since the authorisation had expired and no steps were taken by the applicant to get the authorisation renewed. Therefore, applicant had failed to display the valid authorisation for the period for which EC has been imposed. It is a clear case of violation of the Rules of 2016. Hence, action of levying the EC is proper. We are of the view that a lenient view has been taken by PPCB by levying the EDC instead of stopping the applicant to operate without renewal of authorisation.

¶26

So far as the submission of Counsel for the applicant that no notice for renewal was given to the applicant, we find that last renewal order itself mentioned the date of expiry as 31.03.2023. The Rules of 2016 do not require the PPCB to give any notice to the operator to apply for renewal. Hence, it was a fault of the applicant in not making the application for renewal to the PPCB. Hence, impugned action is justified.

¶27

Impugned order reveals that EC of Rs. 3, 22, 800/- has been levied for the period from date of expiry of authorisation upto the date of issuance of authorisation. Considering the period and nature of default the EC has rightly been levied. Hence, no error has been found in the impugned order in this regard.

¶28

¶29

Thus, we find no merit in this OA. Respondents have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and no case for interference is made out.

¶30

The OA is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶32

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶33

July 10, 2026 Original Application No. 489/2025 JG.

¶34

M/ S Tilak Hospital v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/ S Tilak Hospital v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pisati Indira Reddy vs Union of India

Mr Duvvur Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh Department of Environment Forest Science and Technology Rep by Its Secretary

News Item Titled T N Forest Minister Mathiventhan Criticised for Staying at Partially Closed Illegal Resort in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve Appearing in the Hindu Dated 27 05 2024 vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Its Regional Office Deputy Director General of Forests

National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale vs Regional Officer Mpcb

Atindranath Chatterjee vs Chairman West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Abhijit Das vs State of West Bengal

Centre for Holistic Development -Chd vs State of Bihar

Dhrampal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Varun Gulati vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Yadram Singh vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Devender vs Department of Forest

Akhilesh Kumar vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh