# M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 795
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7305 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-ramesh-dyeing-and-washing-ghaziabad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53762
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma, Chandra
Shekhar Pandey
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether U.P. Pollution Control Board has
jurisdiction
to
impose
environmental
compensation and whether the writ petition is
liable to be entertained despite availability of an
alternative statutory remedy under Section 16 of
the NGT Act, 2010.

HEADNOTE
Environmental Law - Pollution Control Board -
Jurisdiction - Environmental Compensation -
Polluter Pays Principle - Supreme Court affirms
authority
of
Boards
to
impose
restitutionary/compensatory
damages
-
Statutory remedy under Section 16, NGT Act
available - Writ petition filed after long delay -
Discretion under Article 226 declined - Petition
dismissed.
Held :
Environmental Law - Closure direction and
environmental compensation of Rs.14,20,000/-
imposed under Section 33A of the Water Act,
1974 challenged - Contention that State Board
lacks jurisdiction to impose environmental
compensation rejected - In Civil Appeal No.757760 of 2013, Delhi Pollution Control Committee
v. Lodhi Property Company Ltd. the Apex Court
has held that Pollution Control Boards can
impose
and
collect,
as
restitutionary
or
compensatory damages, fixed sum of monies or
require furnishing of bank guarantees as exante measures towards potential or actual
environmental damage - Pollution Control Board
has
the
authority/jurisdiction
to
impose
environmental compensation - High Court's writ
jurisdiction not ousted, but discretionary -
Effective
statutory
appeal
provided
under
Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 not availed
within limitation - Writ petition filed after more
than three years - High Court declined to
exercise writ jurisdiction - Petition dismissed.
(E-5)

CASE LAW CITED

## Text

8 All. M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
not lay down any ratio that the petitioners
have a vested right to demand an extension
of time limit that has been provided under
the OTS Scheme. The petitioners have not
been able to provide any plausible reason
as to why the payment was not made
within 180 days as prescribed under
Clauses 7.3 to 7.5 of the SOTS Scheme
2022-23. Owing to the same, we cannot
fault the Bank for proceeding to cancel the
OTS provided to the petitioners and
selling the securities in accordance with
law to third parties. It is to be further
noted that third party rights have already
been created and the sale certificate has
also been issued. In these circumstances,
we do not see any reason to interfere with
the action taken by the Bank which has
proceeded in a bonafide manner.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 795
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 7305 of 2025

M/S
Ramesh
Dyeing
And
Washing,
Ghaziabad ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jalaj Kumar Gupta, Mehdi Khan, Mohd.
Aslam Khan, Tarannum Sana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma, Chandra
Shekhar Pandey
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether U.P. Pollution Control Board has
jurisdiction
to
impose
environmental
compensation and whether the writ petition is
liable to be entertained despite availability of an
alternative statutory remedy under Section 16 of
the NGT Act, 2010.

HEADNOTE
Environmental Law - Pollution Control Board -
Jurisdiction - Environmental Compensation -
Polluter Pays Principle - Supreme Court affirms
authority
of
Boards
to
impose
restitutionary/compensatory
damages
-
Statutory remedy under Section 16, NGT Act
available - Writ petition filed after long delay -
Discretion under Article 226 declined - Petition
dismissed.
Held :
Environmental Law - Closure direction and
environmental compensation of Rs.14,20,000/-
imposed under Section 33A of the Water Act,
1974 challenged - Contention that State Board
lacks jurisdiction to impose environmental
compensation rejected - In Civil Appeal No.757760 of 2013, Delhi Pollution Control Committee
v. Lodhi Property Company Ltd. the Apex Court
has held that Pollution Control Boards can
impose
and
collect,
as
restitutionary
or
compensatory damages, fixed sum of monies or
require furnishing of bank guarantees as exante measures towards potential or actual
environmental damage - Pollution Control Board
has
the
authority/jurisdiction
to
impose
environmental compensation - High Court's writ
jurisdiction not ousted, but discretionary -
Effective
statutory
appeal
provided
under
Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 not availed
within limitation - Writ petition filed after more
than three years - High Court declined to
exercise writ jurisdiction - Petition dismissed.
(E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
1. Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Trust v. State of GujaratCivil Appeal No. 1046 of
2019, decided on 21.01.2022 (SC) ;
2. Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi
Property Company Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos.
757-760 of 2013, decided on 04.08.2025 (SC);
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC
395;
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.
Union of India; (1996) 3 SCC 212'
5. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of
India (1996) 5 SCC 647;
6. State Pollution Control Board, Odisha v.
Swastik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2014 SCC OnLine NGT 1;
7. Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar
Association v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 433 of 2012, decided on 18.05.2022 (SC);
8. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade
Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1
9. Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan
v. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 326

List of Acts
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974;
Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
;
National
Green
Tribunal
Act,
2010;
Environmental
Protection
Act,
1986
;
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Environmental Compensation; Polluter Pays
Principle; Jurisdiction; Statutory Remedy; Delay;
Discretion under Article 226

CASE ARISING FROM
Orders dated 12.08.2021, 25.03.2022 and
28.06.2022
imposing
environmental
compensation and closure direction against the
petitioner-unit.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Shri Jalaj Kumar Gupta,
Shri Mehdi Khan, Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, Smt.
Tarannum Sana
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Shri Ashok
Kumar Verma; Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
(Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Chandra Shekher Pandey,
learned counsel for the Central Pollution
Control Board, Shri Ashok Verma, learned
counsel appearing for U.P. Pollution
Control Board and Shri Nishant Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State.

2. After hearing the parties and going
through the record, what comes out is that
by means of this petition the petitioner has
challenged two orders, one is dated
12.08.2021 by which closure of the
petitioner?s industrial unit was ordered and
environmental
compensation
of
Rs.14,20,000/- was imposed accordingly.
Subsequently, the said order, as also
another order dated 25.03.2022, which was
in continuation of the earlier order, was
revisited and a decision was taken on
28.06.2022 for cancelling the said orders
subject to certain conditions, one of which
was that the remaining environmental
compensation, payable by the petitioner
under the earlier orders amounting to
Rs.13,20,000/-, would be paid by the
petitioner within two months, failing which
the closure order will again revive. This
order dated 28.06.2022 is also under
challenge.

3. It is not out of place to mention that
in the interregnum the petitioner admits to
have
paid
Rs.1,00,000/-
towards
environmental compensation albeit, as
alleged, under compulsion and coercion.

4.
The
question
which
has
arisen before us is as to whether U.P.
Pollution Control Board has jurisdiction to
impose such environmental compensation
and in this context, contention of petitioner
is that the impugned orders having been
passed under Section 33A of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Water Act,
1974"),
it
did
not
have
any
such
jurisdiction as the said provision does not
vest any such authority/jurisdiction upon
the
Board
to
impose
environmental
8 All. M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
compensation. Reliance has been placed in
this regard upon judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 21.01.2022 rendered
in Civil Appeal No.1046 of 2019; Kantha
Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust
and others vs. State of Gujarat and others.

5. Sri A. K. Verma, counsel appearing
for U.P. Pollution Control Board as also Sri
Chandra
Shekhar
Pandey,
counsel
appearing for Central Pollution Control
Board submitted that this issue is no more
res integra as the same has already been
considered and decided in favour of the
Board albeit in the context of Delhi
Pollution Control Committee in Civil
Appeal
No.757-760
of
2013;
Delhi
Pollution Control Committee vs. Lodhi
Property Company Ltd. Etc. wherein, it
has been held that the Pollution Control
Board can impose such environmental
compensation in exercise of powers under
Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974 and
Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and
Control
of
Pollution)
Act,
1981.
(hereinafter referred to as "the Air Act,
1981" As regards the earlier decision of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Kantha
Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Trust and others (supra), he submitted
that
the
said
judgment
does
not
specifically deal with this issue and
therefore it is not applicable, although, he
admitted the fact that the NGT also has
adjudicatory powers in this regard under
Section 15 of National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to ?the
NGT Act, 2010?) and can impose
environmental compensation.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the records,
we find first of all that the orders impugned
have been passed under Section 33A of the
Water Act, 1974.

7. As regards the decision of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva
Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust and others
(supra), the specific issue as to whether the
Pollution Control Boards have the power to
impose environmental compensation etc. or
not, did not fall for consideration in the said
case, in fact, the issue therein was as to
whether the NGT could abdicate its
adjudicatory powers under the Act, 2010 to
the Committees formed by it and in that
context it was held that it could not do so.
The inference being drawn by the counsel
for the petitioner, based on the said
judgment, that it is the NGT alone which
has adjudicatory powers to determine
environmental compensation and impose it,
is unfounded. The said judgment is not an
authority on the issue involved before us.

8.
We
have
gone
through
the
subsequent
decision
of
Hon'ble
the
Supreme
Court
in
Lodhi
Property
Company Ltd. (supra), wherein the issue
falling
for
our
consideration
was
specifically considered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India albeit in the
context
of
Delhi
Pollution
Control
Committee. Relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

"1. The Delhi Pollution Control
Committee (DPCC) is in appeal against the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court holding that it is not empowered to
levy compensatory damages in exercise of
powers under Section 33A of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974
and
Section 31A of
the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 on the ground that such an action
amounts to imposition of penalty provided
for in Chapters VII and VI of the respective
Acts, and as such, procedure contemplated
thereunder will be the only method for
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
imposing and collecting compensatory
damage.

2.
Having
considered
the
principles
that
govern
Indian
environmental laws, we have held that the
environmental regulators, the Pollution
Control Boards exercising powers under
the Water and Air Acts, can impose and
collect restitutionary or compensatory
damages in the form of fixed sum of monies
or require furnishing of bank guarantees as
an ex-ante measure to prevent potential
environmental damage. These powers are
incidental
and
ancillary
to
the
empowerment under Sections 33A and 31A
of the Water and Air Acts. At the same time,
we have directed that the powers must be
exercised as per procedure laid down by
subordinate
legislation
incorporating
necessary principles of natural justice,
transparency and certainty.

8. The core question in these
appeals is - whether the regulatory boards
can, in exercise of powers under Section
33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of
the Air Act, impose and collect as
restitutionary and compensatory damages
fixed sums of monies or require furnishing
bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure
towards potential environmental damage?

11. In 1988, both Acts were
amended. Notably, through amendments
the State Boards were further empowered
to give directions under Section 33A of the
Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act.
These two provisions are identically
worded. Section 33A of the Water Act is as
under;

"Section 33A. Power to give
directions.-Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law, but subject to the
provisions of this Act, and to any directions
that the Central Government may give in this
behalf, a Board may, in the exercise of its
powers and performance of its functions
under this Act, issue any directions in writing
to any person, officer or authority, and such
person, officer or authority shall be bound to
comply with such directions.

Explanation. -For the avoidance
of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power
to issue directions under this section includes
the power to direct-

(a) the closure, prohibition or
regulation of any industry, operation or
process; or

(b) the stoppage or regulation of
supply of electricity, water or any other
service."

12. The directions contemplated
under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and
Air Acts must be in furtherance of the powers
and functions of the Boards and they must be
in writing. These provisions, declares that the
power to issue directions will include the
power to direct closure, prohibition or
regulation of any industry, operation or
process. Further, this power extends to
directing the stoppage or regulation of supply
of electricity, water or any other service. The
power to give directions has been worded
broadly, and it allows the Boards significant
flexibility in deciding the nature of directions.
The legislative intention of granting these
powers through the 1988 amendment can be
inferred from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Water Act, which reads as
follows -

"2. The Water Act is implemented
by the Central and State Governments and
the Central and State Pollution Control
8 All. M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
Boards. Over the past few years, the
implementing agencies have experienced
some more administrative and practical
difficulties in effectively implementing the
provisions of the Act. The ways and means
to remove these difficulties have been
thoroughly examined in consultation with
the implementing agencies. Taking into
account the views expressed, it is proposed
to amend certain provisions of the Act in
order to remove such difficulties?.

3. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to
make the following amendments in the Act,
namely: -

....

(iv) in order to effectively prevent
water pollution, the penal provisions of the
Act are proposed to be made stricter and
bring them at par with the punishments
prescribed in the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended
by Act 47 of 1987;

....

(vi) it is proposed to empower the
Boards to give directions to any person,
officer or authority including the power to
direct closure or regulation of offending
industry, operation or process or stoppage
or regulation of supply of services such as
water and electricity;"

13. Similar objective is expressed
for the amendment introduced in the Air
Act.

14. An appeal against directions
issued under Section 33A of the Water Act
by the State Board can be filed before the
National Green Tribunal under Section
33B, introduced in 2010. Unlike the Water
Act there is no specific Appeal provision
against directions issued under Section 31A
of the Air Act. This asymmetry must be
addressed legislatively.

15. Offences and penalties under
the two Acts, and the related procedures,
are covered in Chapter VII of the Water
Act and Chapter VI of the Air Act. These
chapters have undergone significant and
substantial amendments. Prior to the
amendments, the two Acts stipulated
penalties in the form of imprisonment,
monetary fine or both for offences under
the statute. Courts could only take
cognizance of an offence if a complaint was
filed by a Board or any officer authorized
by it, or by any person who had given
notice of the alleged offence and of his
intention to make a complaint. No court
inferior
to
that
of
a
Metropolitan
Magistrate or a Judicial magistrate of the
first class can try an offence punishable
under the two Acts. Be that as it may, for
the present purpose we have to examine
and interpret Sections 33A and 31A of the
Water and Air Acts.

16. Our constitutionalism bears
the hallmark of an expansive interpretation
of fundamental rights. But such creative
expansion is only a job half done if the
depth of the remedies, consequent upon
infringement, remain shallow. In other
words, remedial jurisprudence must keep
pace with expanding rights and regulatory
challenges. It is not sufficient that courts
adopt
injunctory,
mandatory
and
compensatory remedies, but our regulators
also must be empowered in that regard.
However, the legislative grammar must be
elastic for us to infuse the regulators with
power to fashion different remedies. This
infusion must also be tempered with the
necessary guidelines and parameters of
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise of remedial powers, failing which
such infusion would aid arbitrary use. Our
firm view is that remedial powers or
restitutionary directives are a necessary
concomitant of both the fundamental rights
of citizens who suffer environmental
wrongs and an equal concomitant of the
duties of a statutory regulator, which are
informed by Part IV A of the constitution.
To that extent, the functions and powers of
a regulator must be inspired by the
obligation in Part IV A and Article 48 A.
The State's 'endeavour to protect and
improve the environment' will be partial, if
it does not encompass a duty to restitute.

17. Of all the duties imposed
under Article 51A, the obligation to
conserve and protect water and air, is
perhaps the most significant, amidst our
climate change crisis. The Water Act and
the Air Act institutionalised all efforts and
actions that need to be taken to protect air
that we breathe and water that we consume
by creating the Pollution Control Boards.
These
Boards
functioning
as
our
environment regulators are expected to act
with institutional foresight by evolving
necessary policy perspectives and action
plans. Working with perpetual seal and
succession, they are to develop and retain
institutional memory so that they can act on
the basis of the experience, data and
information that they would have gathered
and processed. Institutional expertise is
critical, and these bodies are to employ
human resource which have domain
expertise and talent. These bodies are
intended to maintain institutional integrity
by taking independent and objective
decisions
without
governmental
or
industrial control. These values flow
naturally
if
there
is
institutional
transparency and accountability. It is in
this perspective that we need to interpret
Section 33A of the Water Act and 31A of
the Air Act."

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
noticed the distinction between an action
for environmental damages for restitution
or remediation and imposition of penalties
or fines levied at the culmination of a
punitive action and in this context referred
to the earlier decision in M.C. Mehta and
another vs. Union of India and others,
(1987)
1
SCC
395
(decided
on
20.12.1986). It has then considered the
Polluter Pays principle with reference to
various decisions including the decision of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action
etc. vs. Union of India and others etc.
reported in (1996) 3 SCC 212, wherein, it
has been held that according to Polluter
Pays
principle
the
responsibility
for
repairing the damage is that of the
offending industry. In that case, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court held that powers of the
Central Government to issue direction
under Section 5 read with Section 3 of the
Environmental
Protection
Act,
1986
include the power to impose cost for
remedial measures.

10. It has then referred to another
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union
Of India & Others, (1996) 5 SCC 647,
wherein it has been held that liability for
environmental
damage
includes
both
compensatory aspect and a restorative or
remedial aspect.

11. Most important it has then referred
to a judgment of National Green Tribunal
in the case of State Pollution Control
Board, Odisa vs. M/s. Swastik Ispat
Private Ltd. & others, (2014) SCC Online
NGT 13 wherein a distinction was made
8 All. M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
801
between a punitive action and a direction to
pay environmental damages. In that case,
the NGT held that the Pollution Control
Board did not act as a consequence of a
punitive or penal action but it acted in
exercise of the powers vested in it in
relation to recalling the conditions of
consent and ensuring their implementation
while also making compensatory provision
for remedying the apprehended wrong to
the environment and that such action
squarely fell within the power of the Board
to prevent and control pollution in
consonance with the scheme of the Acts
concerned. The decision of the Supreme
Court of India in Lodhi Property Company
Ltd. (supra) approves the decision of the
NGT in M/s Swastik Ispat (supra) with the
observation that the Tribunal correctly
interpreted Section 33A of the Water Act
and 31A of the Air Act. In para 27, it has
summarized the principles elucidated from
preceding discussion in the following
terms.

27. Based on a review of
precedents on this issue, the following legal
position emerges -

I. There is a distinction between a
direction for payment of restitutionary and
compensatory damages as a remedial
measure for environmental damage or as
an ex-ante measure towards potential
environmental damage on the one hand;
and
a
punitive
action
of
fine
or
imprisonment
for
violations
under
Chapters VII of the Water Act and VI of the
Air Act on the other hand.

II. If directions in furtherance of
restitutionary and compensatory measures
are issued, these are not to be considered as
punitive in nature. Punitive action can only
be taken through the procedure prescribed in
the statute for example under chapters VII
and VI of the Water and Air Acts respectively.

III. Indian environmental law has
assimilated the principle of Polluter Pays and
there is also a statutory incorporation of this
principle in our laws. The invocation of this
principle is triggered in the situations; i)
when an established threshold or prescribed
requirement is exceeded or breached, and it
does result in environmental damage, ii)
when an established threshold or prescribed
requirement is not exceeded or breached,
nevertheless the act in question results in
environmental damage and also iii) when a
potential risk or a likely adverse impact to the
environment is anticipated, irrespective of
whether or not prescribed thresholds or
requirements are exceeded or breached.

IV. Environmental regulators have
a compelling duty to adopt and apply
preventive measures irrespective of actual
environmental damage. Ex-ante action shall
be taken by these regulators and for this
purpose a certain measure in exercise of
powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the
Water and Air Acts is necessary.

V. The powers of the Boards under
Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air
Acts are identical to that of Section 5 of the
Environment Protection Act. Under Section
5, the Central Government or its delegate has
the power to issue directions to the polluting
industry to pay certain amounts and utilise
the said fund for carrying out remedial
measures. The Boards are empowered to take
similar actions under Sections 33A and 31A
of the Acts."

12. After noticing the distinction
between a direction for payment of
restitutionary and compensatory damages
as a remedial measure for environmental
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
damage or as an ex-ante measure towards
potential environmental damage and a
punitive action of fine or imprisonment for
violations under Chapter-VII of the Water
Act,1974 and Chapter-VI of the Air Act,
1981, it has been observed that if the
directions in furtherance of restitutionary
and compensatory measures are issued,
these are not to be considered as punitive in
nature. Punitive action can only be taken
through the procedure prescribed in the
statute. Environmental regulators such as
the Pollution Control Boards have a
compelling duty to adopt and apply
preventive measures irrespective of actual
environmental damage. Ex-ante action shall
be taken by these regulators and for this
purpose, certain measure in exercise of
powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the
Water and Air Act is necessary. It has
categorically held that powers of the
Boards under Sections 33A of the Water
Act, 1974 and 31A of the Air Act, 1981 are
identical to that of Section 5 of the
Environmental Protection Act, which had
been considered in the case of Indian
Council for Enviro Legal Action etc.
(supra), as already referred above.

13. It has categorically held that the
Boards have similar powers under Sections
33A of the Water Act, 1974 and 31A of the
Air Act, 1981 as the Central Government
under Section 5 of the Environmental
Protection Act, 1986.

14. It has then categorically held that
"we are of the opinion that these regulators
in exercise of these powers can impose and
collect, as restitutionary or compensatory
damages fixed sum of monies or require
furnishing bank guarantees as ex-ante
measure
towards
potential
or
actual
environmental damage". There is no doubt
that Sections 33A of the Water Act, 1974 and
31A of the Air Act, 1981 give the State
Boards powers to issue necessary directions
for environmental restoration, remediation
and compensation and for the payment of
costs for the same.

15. It has then observed that the Board's
power under Section 33A of the Water
Act,1974 and Section 31A of the Air Act,
1981 have to be read in light of the legal
position on the application of Polluter Pays
principle as formulated and explained. This
means that the State Board cannot impose
environmental damages in case of every
contravention or offence under the Water Act
and Air Act. It is only when the State Board
has made a determination that some form of
environmental damage or harm has been
caused by erring entity, or the same is so
imminent, that the State Board must initiate
action under Section 33A of the Water
Act,1974 and Section 31A of the Air
Act,1981. It has emphasized that the exercise
of powers by the Board as aforesaid should
be
guided
by
transparency
and
non
arbitrariness
and
also
emphasized
the
necessity of subordinate legislation in the
form of rules and regulations to be notified in
this regard in light of the said judgment.

16. In view of the said authority, it is no
longer res integra that the Pollution Control
Board has the authority/jurisdiction to impose
environmental
compensation.
The
only
reason we had proposed to hear the matter,
earlier, was the plea taken by the petitioner
that the Board does not have jurisdiction, but
now that the legal position has been clarified
through Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Lodhi Property Company Ltd. (supra),
this ground is not available.

17. We may also put it on record that
prior to pronouncement of the decision of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lodhi
8 All. M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
803
Property Co. Ltd. (supra) on 04.08.2025 a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court had an
occasion to decide a similar issue vide
judgment dated 17.7.2025, however, in
view of subsequent judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court directly on the said
issue of jurisdiction of the U.P. Pollution
Board, we are unable to follow the law
discussed and enunciated by the coordinate Bench of this Court as we are
bound by the dictum of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court as envisaged under Article
141 of the Constitution of India. Of course,
counsel for petitioner has heavily relied
upon the judgment dated 18.05.2022
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.433 of 2012;
Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates
Bar Association and another vs. Union of
India and another wherein one of the
questions under consideration was whether-
"whether the National Green Tribunal ousts
the
High
Court's
jurisdiction
under
Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act?", which
was answered in the negative, as, such
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 and 227 is part of the basic structure of
the Constitution. Based on the aforesaid, it
was contended that even if the Board has
the power to impose such compensation,
nevertheless, there are other irregularities
and illegalities which could be seen by the
High Court.

18. On the other hand, learned counsel
for Board emphasized upon the judgment
of Hon?ble the Supreme Court reported in
(2012) 8 SCC 326; Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog and others vs. Union of
India and others, paragraph 40 of which
reads as under:-

"40.
Keeping
in
view
the
provisions and scheme of the National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short "the
NGT Act") particularly Sections 14, 29, 30
and 38(5), it can safely be concluded that
the environmental issues and matters
covered under the NGT Act, Schedule I
should be instituted and litigated before the
National
Green
Tribunal
(for
short
"NGT"). Such approach may be necessary
to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders
between the High Courts and NGT. Thus,
in unambiguous terms, we direct that all
the matters instituted after coming into
force of the NGT Act and which are
covered under the provisions of the NGT
Act and/or in Schedule I to the NGT Act
shall stand transferred and can be
instituted only before NGT. This will help
in rendering expeditious and specialised
justice in the field of environment to all
concerned."

19. The above quoted judgment has
not been considered in the subsequent
decision in Madhya Pradesh High Court
Advocates Bar Association and another
(supra). Much emphasis was laid by
counsel for the Board on the fact that an
earlier decision on the subject will prevail
if it has not been considered in the
subsequent decision of Hon?ble Supreme
Court, but without expressing any opinion
on this aspect, suffice it to say that even if
the judgment in Madhya Pradesh High
Court Advocates Bar Association and
another (supra) is to be applied, the fact
remains that though jurisdiction of this
Court is not ousted, but it is a discretionary
jurisdiction and, ordinarily, unless there are
exceptional circumstances, such as those
mentioned in the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool
Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and others, 1998 8 SCC 1, the
High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily
loathe to entertain a writ petition when
there is a statutory remedy, as prescribed in
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this case under Section 16 of the NGT Act,
2010, which has not been availed of.
Further, an order dated 28.06.2022 has
been challenged by filing this writ petition
on 22/23.07.2025 i.e. with a delay of more
than three years. Statutory remedy of
appeal has not been availed in terms of
limitation prescribed under Section 16 of
the NGT Act, 2010 and after more than
three years this writ petition has been filed
challenging the said order.

20.
Accordingly,
we
decline
to
exercise our discretion to entertain this
petition.

21. The writ petition is dismissed
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 804
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 7820 of 2025

Sabra Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Moti Lal Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Syed Mohammad Haider Rizv

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner claimed that the reservation for
SC/ST and OBC far exceeded 50% in four
Government
Medical
Colleges
located
at
Ambedkar
Nagar,
Kannuaj,
Jalaun
and
Saharanpur, which is contrary to the Uttar
Pradesh Admission to Educational Institutions
Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes
and
Other
Backward
Classes
Act,2006.The total reservation shown in the seat
matrix was exceeding 79%.

Headnotes
Civil
law-Constitution
of
India,1950Article 226- Uttar Pradesh Admission to
Educational Institutions Reservation for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes Act,2006.-S. 4(1)-
Reservation in Educational InstitutionsPermissible
Extent
of
ReservationContradiction between Executive Order
and Statute-The Government Orders were
founded
on
a
misreading
and
misinterpretation
of
the
Central
Government's policy guidelines for the
SCP-The G.O. was clearly contrary to the
mandate of Section 4 of the Act,2006Petition Allowed.

Held
The court held that the guidelines for SCP,
which mention 70% SC/ST and 30% general
population, relate to hostel facilities and the
expenditure to be borne by the SCP and General
Plan Funds(70% and 30% respectively), not the
reservation
for
educational
admissions
as
defined in the Act,2006-All the Government
orders mandating quotas in excess of the
reservation prescribed
in 2006 Act were
quashed-The State of U.P. was directed to fill
the seats in the four college afresh strictly based
upon the reservation prescribed under the
Act,2006 along with the reservation for the
Central Government seats and the State
Governments Seats.(Para 24 to 30) (E-6)

List of Acts
Uttar
Pradesh
Admission
to
Educational
Institutions Reservation for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
Act, 2006

List of Keywords
Act,2006, Reservation, quota , EWS, SC/ST,
OBC, SCP, Ambedkar Nagar, Kannuaj, Jalaun
and Saharanpur, Indra Sawhney, MBBS seats,
Tribal Sub-plan

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION:WRIT-C No. - 7820 of
2025