Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Mayor and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, setting aside the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) order that had punished them with civil imprisonment and a fine of ₹5 lakhs each. The Court held that:
- There was no material to prove that the Mayor had the executive authority or was responsible for the dumping of waste.
- The Commissioner’s imprisonment and penalty lacked any finding of wilful breach.
- The direction imposing ₹1 lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation for environmental damage was upheld.
The Court concluded:
“As there was no failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the orders, penal provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 could not have been invoked.”
Facts
- Three Original Applications were filed before the NGT challenging the establishment and operation of a municipal solid waste management (MSWM) plant by the Municipal Corporation at Village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly.
- The plant allegedly violated the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
- On 28 May 2013, the NGT restrained the Corporation from dumping solid waste at the site.
- On 18 July 2013, the NGT ordered closure of the plant and mandated removal of all dumped waste within four weeks.
- The Supreme Court stayed this order on 13 September 2013.
- Despite the stay, waste dumping allegedly continued, prompting contempt applications.
- The NGT, on 24 October 2013, imposed fines and civil imprisonment on the Mayor and Commissioner and directed a ₹1 lakh per day fine on the Corporation.
Issues
- Can the Mayor and Commissioner be held liable under Section 26 of the NGT Act, 2010 for non-compliance with NGT orders?
- Whether the imposition of civil imprisonment and penalties was justified without proof of wilful violation?
- Was the ₹1 lakh/day environmental compensation against the Corporation valid?
Petitioner’s Arguments
For the Mayor:
- He was not a party to the NGT’s original proceedings and was never served notice.
- He had no executive authority under law to stop the dumping of waste.
- He had already tendered an unconditional apology for his remarks to the press, which the NGT had accepted.
- No reasons were assigned by NGT for holding him liable under Section 26.
For the Commissioner:
- No finding of wilful breach was recorded.
- The 18 July 2013 NGT order had remained stayed by the Supreme Court.
- The earlier appeal was withdrawn without authorization.
- The punishment of imprisonment and penalty was too harsh.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Mayor’s statements to the press scandalized the NGT, undermining its authority.
- As Mayor and Commissioner, both appellants were duty-bound to implement the NGT’s orders.
- The penalty was proportionate to the environmental damage caused.
- The NGT had exercised leniency, given that imprisonment under Section 26(1) can extend up to three years.
Analysis of the Law
- Section 26(1) of the NGT Act imposes penalties for failure to comply with the Tribunal’s orders and must be strictly construed as it is penal in nature.
- To invoke this provision, it must be proved that the individual had the authority to prevent the prohibited act.
- The Mayor lacked such executive power under the governing municipal law.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment relies on a strict interpretation of penal statutes. The Court applied fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that mens rea or intentional breach is essential for invoking penal consequences. No case law is cited explicitly, but the ruling echoes past judgments emphasizing strict construction of penal provisions and the necessity of direct responsibility.
Court’s Reasoning
- On the Mayor: Not a party to original applications, had no notice, and lacked legal authority to prevent waste dumping. His apology for press remarks was accepted by the NGT.
- On the Commissioner: Though the Corporation failed to remove all the waste, no finding of wilful breach was made. Therefore, imprisonment and fine under Section 26 were unjustified.
- On the Municipal Corporation: Admitted failure to remove waste, and site inspections confirmed ongoing dumping. The ₹1 lakh/day fine was proportionate and justified.
Conclusion
- Appeals by the Mayor were allowed. All directions against him in the NGT’s order were set aside.
- Appeals by the Commissioner were partly allowed. The fine and imprisonment were set aside, but the ₹1 lakh/day fine on the Corporation was upheld.
“A person can be said to have failed to comply with the direction… only if it is shown that he had the power to prevent the act which was prohibited.”
Implications
- Clarifies liability standards for municipal officials under environmental jurisprudence: penal consequences under the NGT Act cannot be imposed without showing control or authority over the violation.
- Affirms accountability of municipal bodies for environmental damage through monetary penalties.
- Reinforces constitutional duties of public officials under Article 51A(g) regarding environmental protection.
- Sets limits on contempt-type proceedings for public statements where apology is tendered and accepted.