STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus ANAND ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER on 12 July 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 8339/2012 and 8340/2012, by whichthe High Court has allowed the said writ petitions preferred by therespondents herein and has set aside the order/notice imposing damagesof Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) for violation of theEnvironmental Protection Act, 1986, which was imposed in exercise ofpowers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, theState of Uttar Pradesh through its Forest Department has preferred thepresent special leave petitions.

2. That the respondents herein are running an educational institutionin the area at Agra-Mathura Road and that too in the close vicinity of theNational Chambal Sanctuary Project undertaken by the State Government.That due to the effluent flowing out of the premises of the college thatborders the Sanctuary has resulted in serious threat to the ecology of thearea as well as causing environmental damage and consequently hasendangered the flora and fauna as well as the wild life in the sanctuary.The Forest department issued various notices to the respondents rightfrom the year 2003 onwards regarding threat to the environment onaccount of effluent flowing in the sanctuary area from the huge multistoried building of the institution. However, the respondents continuedto discharge the effluent which, according to the Forest Department,resulted in serious environmental damage in the area and consequentlyendangered the wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, by order dated30.12.2011 the Forest Department of the State imposed damages ofRs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) upon the respondents. The saidorder imposing damages upon the respondents was the subject matterbefore the High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. At this stage, it isrequired to be noted that subsequently notice dated 10.02.2012 was issuedto the original writ petitioners to ensure compliance of the provisions ofthe Water (Control and Removal of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air(Control and Removal of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also the EnvironmentalProtection Act, 1986.

2.1 Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the originalwrit petitioners that the order imposing damages was in gross violation BC

DEFG

H

Aof principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was ever issuedto them in respect of the proposed action of imposing damages. It wasalso the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the authoritypassing the order imposing damages is not vested with any such powerunder any law for the time being in force. It was also the case on behalfof the original writ petitioners that the amount of damages imposed isBtoo excessive without there being any statistical basis for the same andassessment for loss based on any cogent and convincing material. Beforethe High Court and even before this Court, the State/Forest Departmentrelied upon Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, whichreads as under:C“33. Control of sanctuaries – The Chief Wild Life Warden shallbe the authority who shall control, manage and maintain allsanctuaries and for that purpose, within the limits of any sanctuary,- (a) may construct such roads, bridges, buildings, fences or barriergates, and carry out such other works as he may considerDnecessary for the purposes of such sanctuary:

Provided that no construction of commercial tourist lodges, hotels,zoos and safari parks shall be undertaken inside a sanctuary exceptwith the prior approval of the National Board.

E(b) Shall take such steps as will ensure the security of wild animalsin the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and wildanimals therein;

(c) may take such measures, in the interests of wild life, as hemay consider necessary for the improvement of any habitat; F(d) may regulate, control or prohibit, in keeping with the interestsof wild life, the grazing or movement of 2 live-stock.”

2.2 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasallowed the aforesaid two writ petitions and set aside the order/noticeimposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores, by holding that under the WildGLife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest Department/State has nojurisdiction and/or authority to impose damages. The High Court hasalso observed that imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores was inbreach of principles of natural justice as before imposing such damages,no opportunity of being heard was given to the original writ petitionersand as such there was no material to impose damages of Rupees TenHCrores.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court in setting aside the orderimposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores for discharging the effluentflowing out of the premises of the college in the national sanctuary andconsequently endangering the environment as well as the wild life in thesanctuary, the State has preferred the present special leave petitions.

3. We have heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the State. We have gone through the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court. At the outset, it is requiredto be noted that the order/notice imposing damages of Rs. (Rupees Ten Crores) has been found to be in gross violation of theprinciples of natural justice. Nothing is on record to indicate that beforeimposing damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) any showcause notice was issued upon the original writ petitioners to show causeas to why the damages may not be imposed or for any violation of any ofthe provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and/or the EnvironmentalProtection Act and/or any other law. Neither the respondent was givenany opportunity of hearing by the authorities concerned. There was nomaterial on record to impose damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (RupeesTen Crores). Imposing damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees TenCrores), thus can be said to be without any basis and/or material andthe extent of damages caused to the environment and/or wild lifesanctuary. Therefore, it cannot be said that the High Court has committedany error in setting aside the imposing of damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) which, as observed hereinabove, was found tobe in breach of the principles of natural justice.

4. On merits and on jurisdiction and/or authority of the ForestDepartment/Environment Department to impose damages, heavy relianceis placed on Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which isreproduced hereinabove. It is the case on behalf of the Department thatright from the year 2003, all efforts were made by the Department tosee that the original writ petitions stop discharging the effluent in thesanctuary area. However, the original writ petitioners have continued todischarge the effluent and have caused the environmental damage andhave endangered the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary.Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the Department that thereafterwhen the original writ petitioners have continued to act detrimental tothe environment and wild life in the sanctuary, the authority was justified AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain imposing the damages while exercising the powers under Section 33of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

5. On a fair reading of Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection)Act, 1972, reproduced hereinabove, the appropriate authority shall havewide powers to take such steps as well as to ensure the security ofBwild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary andwild animals therein. The Chief Wild Life Warden also may take suchmeasures, in the interests of wild life, as he may consider necessary forthe improvement of any habitat and may also regulate, control or prohibit,in keeping with the interests of wild life, the grazing or movement oflivestock. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the WildCLife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Chief Wild Life Warden/appropriateauthority may even pass an order of closure of the institution, if theinstitution continues to discharge the effluent in the sanctuary whichmay affect and/or damage the environment as well as wild life in thesanctuary. Mere issuance of notice is not suffice. There can be furtherDsteps, may be of closure of an institution in case of repeated breachesand/or the action in discharging the effluent which may damage theenvironment and wild life in the sanctuary, after following the principlesof natural justice and in accordance with law. To that extent, the authorityis not helpless.

EHowever, at the same time, the authority cannot impose damagesand for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings beforethe appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages. However,straightway in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972, the authority could not have imposed damages.

F6. Be that as it may, as observed hereinabove, before imposingdamages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores), admittedly, no showcause notice was issued to the original writ petitioners calling upon themto show cause as to why damages may not be imposed for dischargingeffluent in the sanctuary, which damages/affects the environment andwild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances ofGthe case, setting aside the order of damages does not call for anyinterference of this Court. However, at the same time, if the authoritiesare very serious and are the opinion that the original writ petitionershave continued to discharge the effluent in the national sanctuary areawhich ultimately damages/affects the environment as well as wild life inHthe sanctuary, it will always be open for the department/authority to take STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. ANANDENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]

steps as provided under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972 and as observed hereinabove including the closure of the institutionand even stop discharging the effluent in the national sanctuary, however,of course, after following the principles of natural justice. The authoritiesmay not stop taking any further action and be satisfied by issuing noticeonly. If the discharge of the effluent is a threat to the environment and/or wild life in the national sanctuary, the authorities have to take furthersteps to stop such use and/or threat to the environment and wild life inthe national sanctuary, in accordance with law.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the present special leavepetitions stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposedof.

Ankit Gyan

SLPs disposed of.

(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H