CASE TITLE:
State Of Uttar Pradesh Vs Anand Engineering College And Another
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
July 12, 2022.
BENCH:
Justice. M.R. Shah
Justice. B.V. Nagarathna
PARTIES:
Petitioners – state of Uttar Pradesh
Respondents – Anand Engineering College and another
SUBJECT
The Special Leave Petition had been filed by the petitioners against the orders setting aside the damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) for the violation of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether damages can be imposed on any authority violating Environmental Protection Act, 1986 under the powers provided under section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
SECTION 33 OF THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972: This section deals with the controlling of sanctuaries. The chief warden has the authority to control manage and maintain the sanctuaries. For the same, he can take steps to construct roads, bridges fences, etc. He can take:
- Steps to ensure the security of wild animals and preserve the wildlife of the sanctuary.
- Measures to improve the habitat of the wildlife
- Measures to o regulate and control constructions of any commercial purposes unless and until there is prior permission for the same from National Board.
OVERVIEW
- The concerned educational institution was run by the respondents and was in close vicinity of the National Chambal Sanctuary Project. The effluents released by the premises of the college led to damage to the ecology of that area and also consequently endanger the flora and fauna of the sanctuary.
- Despite the notices being issued by the Forest Department as to the effluents being released into the sanctuary, the respondents did not take any action.
- Thus, the Forest Department issued a notice imposing damages upon the institution under the powers of section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1974.
- The respondents then filed an original Writ Petition claiming that the order passed by the Forest Department is violative of the principles of natural justice and also the Forest Department failed in even providing the respondents a show cause notice with regards to the imposing of damages.
- The respondents also questioned the authority of the petitioners in imposing such damages and the High Court considering the same had set aside the order issued by the Forest Department.
- For the same, a Special Leave was filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the said order of the High Court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS
- The petitioners submitted that under section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 the appropriate authority can take any action to protect, control, and maintain the sanctuary. It is also submitted that any action or measure can be taken for the security and preservation of the wildlife of the sanctuary.
- The petitioner further submitted that there have been many notices sent to the respondents concerning the effluents being discharged into the sanctuary and damage being caused to the ecology of the sanctuary.
- The petitioner held that the act of imposing damages is justified as the respondents continued to act detrimental towards the environment and the wildlife of the sanctuary too.
- Thus, the act of imposing damages was justified as exercising powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- The respondents stated that the petitioners have not issued any show cause notice as to the imposing of damages to that extent.
- The same shall result in the breach of principles of natural justice, for the same the High Court has also set aside the orders issued following the damages imposed.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court heard both the respondents and the petitioners and held that the notice issued by the Forest Department imposing the damages is violative of principles of natural justice. The court submitted that there is no existence of any show cause notice issued with regards to the damages imposed.
- The court further held that the High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the damages imposed as it was issued without any basis or material on record or there existed any violation to the extent of that damages being imposed.
- The court held that the Forest Department authorities acting under the scope of section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 can follow the principles of natural justice and take steps as to the closure of the institution and steps as to sop discharging effluents any further.
CONCLUSION
Thus, in light of the averments made by both the parties, the court held that the scope of section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 does not authorize the authorities to impose damages, rather the authorities may take further steps as to the closure of institutions or any other steps to stop discharging effluents into the sanctuary following the principles of natural justice.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
