Dismissed

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar v. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

NGT16 Sept 2026Review Application No. 8/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review applications challenging a National Green Tribunal order dismissing appeals against environmental damage compensation imposed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board are dismissed as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

All review applications are dismissed and disposed of.

What the court decided

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar vs Rajasthan State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2026)

¶1

(In-Chamber)

¶2

Item Nos.01 to 04

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶4

Review Application 05/2026(CZ)

¶5

in Appeal No.24/2024 (CZ) With

¶6

Review Application 06/2026(CZ) in Appeal No.25/2024 (CZ)

¶7

With

¶8

Review Application 07/2026(CZ) in Appeal No.26/2024 (CZ) AND

¶9

With

¶10

Review Application 08/2026(CZ) in Appeal No.27/2024 (CZ)

¶11

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar

¶12

Applicant (s)

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, through its Member Secretary

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

Date of Hearing: 16.09.2026

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Appeal No. 16/2024 to 39/2024 and Appeal No. 02/2025 were heard and decided vide order dated 08.05.2026. The relevant part of the order quoted below :

¶20

“ 52. In view of the above discussion, the contention as raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants with regard to the noncompliance of the principle of natural justice or not providing the opportunity of hearing, have no legs to stand and have no merits

¶21

¶22

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar Vs. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, through its Member Secretary

¶23

R.A No. 05/2026(CZ) R.A No. 06/2026(CZ) R.A No. 07/2026(CZ)

¶24

R.A No. 08/2026(CZ)

¶25

and not acceptable. The methodology adopted by the State PCB have been duly recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above and this methodology has not been challenged by the Appellants with regard to the calculation of any amount, thus, there is no fault in the calculation of the environmental damage. The State PCB has power to proceed to close the unit or industrial institution or direct the authorities to disconnect the electricity power and further to recover the environmental damages. Out of these three options, the first and two options if adopted by the State PCB then it will be the national loss, social loss and loss of the unit also. The purpose of the law is to protect the environment and not to close the unit. Accordingly, the better option to compensate and remediate the damages which has been caused by the violator is main purpose of the law and the State PCB has adopted the above provisions to fulfil the goal of the environmental law. Accordingly, the State PCB has power to impose environmental damage and further calculated the amount of environmental compensation according to the parameters laid down by the CPCB and according to rules.

¶26

53. In the matter of DPCC quoted above, it was fully discussed that after amendment there is not conflict between the powers of the State Board to direct payment of environmental damage compensation under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water Act and the Air Act and the powers of the adjudicating officer to impose penalty under Chapter VII of the Water Act and Chapter VI of the Air Act, both are the different things, in addition to the environmental damage compensation for restitution of the environment, the proceedings may be initiated before the adjudicating officer for imposing the penalty according to rules.

¶27

54. In accordance with the T.N. Godhavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India,: In Re.: (2025) 2 SCC 641, the principle of restoration of damaged ecosystem would require the respondent to promote the recovery of damaged or threatened species or environment. Bringing the culprits to face the proceedings is a

¶28

Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar Vs. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, through its Member Secretary

¶29

¶30

R.A No. 05/2026(CZ) R.A No. 06/2026(CZ) R.A No. 07/2026(CZ) R.A No. 08/2026(CZ)

¶31

different matter and restoration of the damage already done is a different matter.

¶32

55. In view of the above discussion, the Appeals have no merit and, thus, deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. A copy of the order be kept on other records. The amount of environmental damage compensation be deposited to the environmental fund and should be utilised for restoring the damaged environment taking remedial actions according to rules.

¶33

56. With these observations, the Appeals along with pending I.As. stand disposed of.”

¶34

The review applicant has filed this review with the prayer to reconsider the matter and to direct the State PCB to calculate the environment compensation afresh. The main grounds as contended by the learned counsel for the review applicant are non-compliance of principle natural justice and method of calculation of the environmental compensation. Both the points find placed in the judgment & order in detail and discussed and accordingly order has been passed. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, there is no ground to interfere in the order. The contention as raised by the review applicant in the review application has been discussed in the order itself.

¶35