# Suez India Pvt. Ltd v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 844
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-17
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 4816 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suez-india-pvt-ltd-v-uttar-pradesh-pollution-control-board-ors-opp-parties-53659
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Asit Srivastava, Ashok Kumar Verma, C.S.C.,
Namit Sharma, Rishabh Kapoor

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the U.P. Pollution Control Board
has the authority to impose environmental
compensation and recover the same from
an industry under any statutory provision?

HEADNOTE

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 - Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 - National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 - Ss. 31A, 33A, 14, 15,
16 - Power to impose environmental
compensation
-
Jurisdiction
of
U.P.
Pollution Control Board - Held, the Board
has
no
adjudicatory
power
to
impose
compensation. Such power lies exclusively with
the National Green Tribunal (NGT) - Directions
imposing environmental compensation are set
aside.

HELD
7 All. Suez India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors.
845
State has not enacted any law empowering the
State Pollution Control Board to impose or
recover environmental compensation from any
industry. The power to issue administrative
directions for prevention or control of water and
air pollution does not include the power to
impose or recover compensation.State Pollution
Control Board has no power to adjudicate or
impose environmental compensation upon any
person or industry. The adjudicatory function for
determining
liability
for
environmental
compensation under Section 15 of the NGT Act
is vested exclusively in the NGT, and such
function cannot be delegated to the State
Pollution Control Board. State Pollution Control
Board may, however, file an application before
the NGT under Section 15 read with Section 18
of the NGT Act seeking appropriate direction for
payment of compensation. Orders passed by the
State
Pollution
Control
Board
imposing
environmental
compensation
upon
the
petitioners-impugned in the writ petitions
quashed. (Paras 47, 61, 80, 82, 83) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Thandava Co-operative Sugars Ltd. v. Central
Pollution Control Board, 2020 SCC OnLine NGT
1823; Nutra Specialities (P) Ltd. v. Member
Secretary, CPCB, 2020 SCC OnLine NGT 1572 ;
Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Splendor
Landbase Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 400;
Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust
v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 13 SCC 525
List of Acts
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
List of Keywords
Environmental compensation - Jurisdiction -
Pollution Control Board - National Green
Tribunal - Adjudicatory power - Polluter pays -
Administrative
direction-
Environmental
jurisprudence
CASE ARISING FROM
Common challenge to orders of U.P. Pollution
Control
Board
imposing
environmental
compensation on industrial units, including brick
kilns

Appearances for Parties
Advs. For Petitioner: Aprajita Bansal, Anilesh
Tewari, Gursimran Kaur, Salil Kumar Srivastava,
Rahul Srivastava, Jalaj Kumar Gupta, and
others.
Advs. For Respondents: Asit Srivastava, Ashok
Kumar Verma, C.S.C., Namit Sharma, Rishabh
Kapoor, A.S.G.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 93,479. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the administration to provide necessary
assistance in the given situation.

(28) On the basis of the scheme of
administration produced by the Committee
of Management of Dargah Sharif, it is
amply clear that the Committee alone is
vested with the power to regulate the
management of Dargah and its property,
therefore, it is the bounden duty of the
Committee to ensure effective management
of the affairs of the Dargah so as to
facilitate the devotees to perform the rituals
on visiting the shrine. The suggestions
made by the administration, if any, may
also be taken into consideration for
ensuring peace and tranquility.

(29) So far as the rights of other
petitioners are concerned, we are of the
firm opinion that they having supported the
cause of the Committee would equally
stand
protected
for
the
purpose
of
performing the customary rituals, which, of
course, are subject to the limitations
mentioned above.

(30) Though the State Government,
looking to the circumstances and based on
the confidential reports, has passed the
order impugned, which has lost its efficacy,
consequent upon the period of Mela being
over and the interim arrangement made by
this Court permitting the performance of
rituals
has
rather
dispelled
the
apprehensions of the State, therefore, the
relief prayed for stands virtually granted
due to non-interference by the State in the
routine practices as stated by the learned
Additional Advocate General for the State.

(31) For the reasons stated above, all
the three writ petitions are disposed of in
terms of the order dated 17.05.2025 and
what we have observed above.

(32) The parties will bear their own
costs of litigation.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 844
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 4816 of 2024
Along with other connected cases

Suez India Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board &
Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aprajita Bansal, Anilesh Tewari, Gursimran Kaur

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Asit Srivastava, Ashok Kumar Verma, C.S.C.,
Namit Sharma, Rishabh Kapoor

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the U.P. Pollution Control Board
has the authority to impose environmental
compensation and recover the same from
an industry under any statutory provision?

HEADNOTE

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 - Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 - National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 - Ss. 31A, 33A, 14, 15,
16 - Power to impose environmental
compensation
-
Jurisdiction
of
U.P.
Pollution Control Board - Held, the Board
has
no
adjudicatory
power
to
impose
compensation. Such power lies exclusively with
the National Green Tribunal (NGT) - Directions
imposing environmental compensation are set
aside.

HELD
7 All. Suez India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors.
845
State has not enacted any law empowering the
State Pollution Control Board to impose or
recover environmental compensation from any
industry. The power to issue administrative
directions for prevention or control of water and
air pollution does not include the power to
impose or recover compensation.State Pollution
Control Board has no power to adjudicate or
impose environmental compensation upon any
person or industry. The adjudicatory function for
determining
liability
for
environmental
compensation under Section 15 of the NGT Act
is vested exclusively in the NGT, and such
function cannot be delegated to the State
Pollution Control Board. State Pollution Control
Board may, however, file an application before
the NGT under Section 15 read with Section 18
of the NGT Act seeking appropriate direction for
payment of compensation. Orders passed by the
State
Pollution
Control
Board
imposing
environmental
compensation
upon
the
petitioners-impugned in the writ petitions
quashed. (Paras 47, 61, 80, 82, 83) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Thandava Co-operative Sugars Ltd. v. Central
Pollution Control Board, 2020 SCC OnLine NGT
1823; Nutra Specialities (P) Ltd. v. Member
Secretary, CPCB, 2020 SCC OnLine NGT 1572 ;
Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Splendor
Landbase Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 400;
Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust
v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 13 SCC 525
List of Acts
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
List of Keywords
Environmental compensation - Jurisdiction -
Pollution Control Board - National Green
Tribunal - Adjudicatory power - Polluter pays -
Administrative
direction-
Environmental
jurisprudence
CASE ARISING FROM
Common challenge to orders of U.P. Pollution
Control
Board
imposing
environmental
compensation on industrial units, including brick
kilns

Appearances for Parties
Advs. For Petitioner: Aprajita Bansal, Anilesh
Tewari, Gursimran Kaur, Salil Kumar Srivastava,
Rahul Srivastava, Jalaj Kumar Gupta, and
others.
Advs. For Respondents: Asit Srivastava, Ashok
Kumar Verma, C.S.C., Namit Sharma, Rishabh
Kapoor, A.S.G.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

(1) Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur,
Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Aprajita
Bansal, Sri. Anilesh Tewari, Ms. Gursimran
Kaur, Advocates, Sri Jalaj Kumar Gupta,
Sri Mehdi Khan, Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan,
Sri Rahul Srivastava, Sri Salil Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Sarvesh Kumar, Sri Shivang
Tiwari, Sri Mohd. Khalid Amin Khan, Sri
Saryu Prasad Tiwari, Sri Ratnesh Dwivedi,
Sri Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi, Ms. Aditi
Tripathi, Sri Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Sri
Ankur Yadav, Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla,
Ms. Smita Chitranshi, Sri Sunny Singh, Sri
Kripa Shankar Yadav, Ms. Moni Yadav, Ms.
Preeti Yadav, Sri Pawan Kumar Upadhyay,
Sri Ram Ji Trivedi, Ms. Shraddha Tripathi,
Sri Prashant Shukla, Sri Ashutosh Tiwari,
Sri Saryu Prasad Tiwari, Sri Piyush Pathak,
Ms. Sumedha Sen, Sri Syed Mehfuzur
Rehman, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, Sri
Devesh Chandra Pathak, Sri Amit Dwivedi,
Sri Himanshu Kamboj, Sri Vinod Kumar
Mishra, Sri Prashant Shukla, Ms. Priya
Pandey, Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, Sri
Abhishek Yadav, Dr. Pooja Singh, Sri
Surya Prakash Tiwari, Sri Kazim Ibrahim,
Ms. Pushipla Bisht, Ms. Sukhmani Singh,
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Harsh Vardhan
Mehtroa, Ms. Maria Fatima and Sri
Shashank
Kumar,
learned
counsel
appearing for the petitioners in their
respective writ petitions, and Sri Ashok
Kumar Verma assisted by Sri Tushar
Verma, Sri Asit Srivastava & Sri Vaibhav
Mishra, learned counsel for U.P. Pollution
Control Board, Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned
counsel for the U.P. Jal Nigam, Sri Namit
Sharma, learned counsel for Lucknow
Municipal Corporation and Sri Akash
Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and Sri Asit Srivastava, Sri Chandra
Shekhar Pandey, Sri Devesh Chandra
Pathak, Sri Rishabh Chauhan, Ms. Ranjana
Srivastava, Sri Shivam Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents.

(2) All the aforesaid writ petitions
have been filed challenging various orders
passed by the U.P. Pollution Control Board
imposing environmental compensation on
the petitioners' industries. Validity of the
orders
imposing
environmental
compensation has been challenged in all
the writ petitions on a common ground that
the U.P. Pollution Control Board does not
have the authority to impose environmental
compensation and to recover the same from
an industry, under any statutory provision.

(3) As a common question is involved
in all the aforesaid writ petitions, all the
Writ Petitions are being decided by this
common judgment.

(4) Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior
Advocate who led submissions on behalf of
the petitioners, has submitted that a bare
perusal of the provisions contained in the
NGT Act and the NGT Rules, 2011 makes
it manifest that the legislature has conferred
the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims
regarding payment of compensation for
causing environmental damage upon the
National Green Tribunal, which has been
constituted as an expert body. The NGT Act
is a complete Code in itself which has been
enacted for adjudication of claims relating
to compensation for any damage caused to
the environment. He has submitted that the
functions of the Board are enumerated in
Section 17 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (which will
hereinafter be referred to as 'the Water
Act') and the same do not include
performance of any adjudicatory function.
The U.P. Pollution Control Board does not
have jurisdiction to impose compensation
and recover the same; rather, the Board has
to file an application to the Tribunal as
provided in Section 18 of the NGT Act.

(5) Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate
assisted by Ms. Maria Fatima, learned
Counsel appearing in Writ-C No. 2107 of
2025 has submitted that the jurisdiction can
be conferred by Statute alone and it cannot
be conferred by any Court or Tribunal, not
even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He
has relied upon the judgments in the case of
Benarsi Silk Palace Vs. Commr. of
Income Tax [1964] 52 ITR 220 (All) and
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit
Singh and others: (1993) 2 SCC 507. He
has also relied upon the judgments in the
cases of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Health
Services, Haryana: (2013) 10 SCC 136.

(6) Per Contra, Sri A. K. Verma, the
learned Counsel for the U. P. Pollution
Control Board has submitted that Section
33-A of the Water Act, 1974 and Section
31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 (which will hereinafter
be referred to as 'the Air Act') empower the
Pollution Control Board to issue any
direction to any person. It is in exercise of
7 All. Suez India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors.
847
the aforesaid statutory powers that the U.P.
Pollution Control Board has the authority
to issue a direction to any person for
payment of environmental compensation
and to recover the same. He has further
submitted that any person aggrieved by
such a direction can file an appeal against
the direction(s) issued by the U.P. Pollution
Control Board before the National Green
Tribunal as is provided under Section 33-B
of the Water Act and under Section 31-B of
the Air Act. He has submitted that Section
16 of the NGT Act also provides that any
person aggrieved by and directions issued
by a Board under Section 33-A of the Water
Act.

(7)
Relying
upon
the
aforesaid
provisions of the NGT Act, Sri Verma has
submitted that when Section 31-B of the
Air Act confers appellate jurisdiction upon
the National Green Tribunal in respect of
directions issued under Section 31-A of the
Air Act; Section 33-B of the Water Act and
Section 16 of the NGT Act confer appellate
jurisdiction upon the National Green
Tribunal in respect of directions issued
under Section 33-A of the Water Act, the
National Green Tribunal would not have
the original jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the subject matter regarding which it has
appellate jurisdiction.

(8) Shri Verma has submitted that the
Water Act is a social legislation and it
should be given a purposive interpretation.
The Board's power under Section 33-A of
the Water Act are very wide and unfettered.
The Board has the power to award
compensation in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 33-A of the Water Act
and Section 31-A of the Air Act. The orders
passed under Section 33-A of the Water Act
or Section 31-A of the Air Act are
appealable under Section 16 of the NGT
Act.

(9) The learned Counsel for the State
Pollution Control Board has submitted that
Section 17 of the Water Act enumerates the
functions of the State Board and subSection (1) (l) (ii) of Section 17 provides
that the functions of a State Board include
requiring any person concerned to construct
new systems for the disposal of sewage and
trade effluents or to modify, alter or extend
any such existing system or to adopt such
remedial measures as are necessary to
prevent, control or abate water pollution.
Sub-Section (1) (o) of Section 17 provides
that the functions of the State Board will
include to perform such other functions as
may be prescribed or as may, from time to
time, be entrusted to it by the Central Board
or the State Government.

(10) Shri Verma has also submitted
that Section 18(2) of the NGT Act provides
that an application for grant of relief or
compensation or settlement of dispute may
be made to the Tribunal without prejudice
to the provisions contained in Section 16 of
the NGT Act. Therefore, the provision
regarding filing of an application by the
Pollution Control Board contained in
Section 18(2)(f) of the NGT Act is without
prejudice to the appellate powers of the
Tribunal contained in Section 16 of the
NGT Act and the appellate power under
Section 16 will have a precedence over the
provisions contained in Section 18(2). He
has also submitted that Section 19 of the
NGT Act lays down the procedure and
powers of the Tribunal. A cumulative
reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it
clear that the Pollution Control Board has
power to issue directions including the
direction for payment of compensation.
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(11) Sri Verma has submitted that
'water pollution' is included in the term
'water' occurring in item - 17 of List - II
contained in Schedule 7 appended to the
Constitution of India, and therefore, it is a
State subject. He has also submitted that
the entries occurring in Schedule - 7 should
be given the widest interpretation. Sri
Verma has drawn our attention to the
directive
principles
of
State
policy
contained in Part IV of the Constitution of
India. Article 48-A provides that the State
shall endeavor to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests
and wild life of the country. Part IV-A of
the
Constitution
of
India
enlists
fundamental duties and Article 51-A(g)
provides that it shall be the duty of every
citizen of India to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures.

(12) The learned Counsel for the
Board has submitted that the State
Authorities have to strike a balance
between
sustainable
development
and
protection of environment. The State has to
ensure that a polluter pays compensation
for any damage caused by him to the
environment.

(13) He has further submitted that
Chapter VI of the Air Act contains
provisions
regarding
penalties
and
procedure
and
it
provides
that
the
adjudicating officer may impose penalty.
The power to impose penalty under the Air
Act vests in the Adjudicating Officer. He
has also submitted that in case the industry
operates without consent of the Board, it
may be prosecuted. However, in case of
other violations, penalty can be imposed by
the
Adjudicating
Officer
without
prosecution.

(14) Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, the
learned Counsel appearing for the Central
Pollution Board has relied upon the
decision in the case of Paryavaran
Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India:
(2017) 5 SCC 326, in which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has granted liberty to
private individual(s) and organizations, to
address complaints to the Pollution Control
Board if any industry is in default. On the
receipt of any such complaint, the Pollution
Control Board concerned shall be obliged
to verify the same and take such action
against the defaulting industry, as may be
permissible in law. Such action would be in
addition to the discontinuation of industrial
activity forthwith. The Pollution Control
Boards were also directed to initiate such
civil or criminal action, as may be
permissible in law, against all or any of the
defaulters. It is in furtherance of the
aforesaid
directions
that
Original
Application No. 593/2017, Paryavaran
Suraksha Samiti and another v. Union of
India and others, was registered before the
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi which is still continuing and
directions are issued in the said case from
time to time. By means of directions issued
by the NGT in the aforesaid case, the Board
has been empowered to impose and recover
compensation from the defaulting industrial
units.

(15) In Rylands v. Fletcher: (186173) All ER Rep 1, it was laid down that if a
person brings on to his land and collects
and keeps there anything likely to do harm
and such thing escapes and does damage to
another, he is liable to compensate for the
damage caused.

(16) In the year 1986, the Environment
(Protection)
Act,
1986,
(which
will
hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act of
7 All. Suez India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors.
849
1986') was enacted on 23.05.1986 to
provide for the protection and improvement
of environment and for matters connected
therewith. Section 3 of the Act of 1986
provides for the powers of the Central
Government to take measures to protect
and improve environment.

(17) In the case of M.C. Mehta and
another v. Union of India and others:
(1987) 1 SCC 395 (decided on 20.12.1986),
a Constitution Bench consisting of five
Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court dealt
with the question as to what is the measure
of liability of an enterprise which is
engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous industry, if by reason of an
accident occurring in such industry, persons
die or get injured. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred to the rule that was evolved
in Rylands v. Fletcher (Supra) and held
that: -

"31. ...We have to develop our
own law and if we find that it is necessary
to construct a new principle of liability to
deal with an unusual situation which has
arisen and which is likely to arise in future
on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous
industries
which
are
concomitant to an industrial economy,
there is no reason why we should hesitate
to evolve such principle of liability merely
because it has not been so done in England.
... We would therefore hold that where an
enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity and harm
results to anyone on account of an accident
in the operation of such hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity resulting, for
example, in escape of toxic gas the
enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable
to compensate all those who are affected by
the accident and such liability is not subject
to any of the exceptions which operate visa-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability
under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher
(supra)."

(18) The Public Liability Insurance
Act, 1991 was enacted by the Parliament to
provide for public liability insurance for the
purpose of providing immediate relief to
the persons affected by accidents occurring
while handling any hazardous substance
and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.

(19) In the year 1995, the National
Environment Tribunal Act, 1995, was
enacted to provide for strict liability for
damages arising out of any accident
occurring while handling any hazardous
substance and for the establishment of a
National
Environment
Tribunal
for
effective and expeditious disposal of cases
arising from such accident, with a view to
giving relief and compensation for damages
to persons, property and the environment
and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.

(20)
In
spite
of
the
aforesaid
enactments, the National Environment
Tribunal was not constituted. Taking
cognizance of this situation, in Vellore
Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of
India and others: (1996) 5 SCC 647, the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
issued
the
following directions:-

"1. The Central Government
shall constitute an authority under Section
3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 and shall confer on the said authority
all the powers necessary to deal with the
situation created by the tanneries and other
polluting industries in the State of Tamil
Nadu. The authority shall be headed by a
retired judge of the High Court and it may
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have other members -- preferably with
expertise in the field of pollution control
and environment protection -- to be
appointed by the Central Government. The
Central Government shall confer on the
said
authority
the
powers
to
issue
directions
under
Section
5
of
the
Environment Act and for taking measures
with respect to the matters referred to in
clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) (ix), (x) and
(xii) of sub-Section (2) of Section 3. The
Central Government shall constitute the
authority before September 30, 1996.

2. The authority so constituted by
the Central Government shall implement
the "Precautionary Principle" and the
"Polluter Pay Principle". The authority
shall, with the help of expert opinion and
after giving opportunity to the polluters
concerned
assess
the
loss
to
the
ecology/environment in the affected areas
and
shall
also
identify
the
individuals/families who have suffered
because of the pollution and shall assess
the compensation to be paid to the said
individuals/families. The authority shall
further determine the compensation to be
recovered from the polluters as cost of
reversing the damaged environment. The
authority shall lay down just and fair
procedure for completing the exercise.

3. The authority shall compute
the compensation under two heads namely,
for reversing the ecology and for payment
to individuals. A statement showing the
total amount to be recovered, the names of
the polluters from whom the amount is to
be recovered, the amount to be recovered
from each polluter, the persons to whom the
compensation is to be paid and the amount
payable to each of them shall be forwarded
to the Collector/District Magistrate of the area
concerned. The Collector/District Magistrate
shall recover the amount from the polluters, if
necessary, as arrears of land revenue. He shall
disburse the compensation awarded by the
authority to the affected persons/families.

4. The authority shall direct the
closure of the industry owned/managed by a
polluter in case he evades or refuse to pay the
compensation awarded against him. This shall
be in addition to the recovery from him as
arrears of land revenue.

5. An industry may have set up the
necessary pollution control device at present
but it shall be liable to pay for the past pollution
generated by the said industry which has
resulted in the environmental degradation and
suffering to the residents of the area."

(21) In the year 1997, the National
Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997
was enacted to provide for the establishment of
a National Environment Appellate Authority to
hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas
in which any industries, operations or processes
or class of industries, operations or processes
shall not be carried out or shall be carried out
subject to certain safeguards under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and for
matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.

(22) The Water Act was been enacted in
the year 1974 with the following object:-

"An Act to provide for the prevention
and control of water pollution and the
maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of
water, for the establishment, with a view to
carrying out the purposes aforesaid, of Boards
for the prevention and control of water
pollution, for conferring on and assigning
to such Boards powers and functions
relating thereto and for matters connected
therewith."

(23) Section 3 of the Water Act
provides for constitution of the Central
Pollution Control Board, whereas Section 4
7 All. Suez India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors.
851
of the Act, 1974 provides for constitution
of the State Pollution Control Boards.

(24) Chapter IV of the Water Act
contains provisions regarding powers and
functions of the Board. Section 16 of the
Water Act provides for functions of the
Central
Board,
whereas
Section
17
provides for the functions of the State
Boards. The relevant provisions of Section
17 of the Water Act are being reproduced
here-in-below:-

"17. Functions of State Board.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
functions of a State Board shall be-

(a) to plan a comprehensive
programme for the prevention, control or
abatement of pollution of streams and wells
in the State and to secure the execution
thereof;

(b)
to
advise
the
State
Government on any matter concerning the
prevention, control or abatement of water
pollution;

(c) to collect and disseminate
information relating to water pollution and
the prevention, control or abatement
thereof;

(d) to encourage, conduct and
participate in investigations and research
relating to problems of water pollution and
prevention, control or abatement of water
pollution;

(e)
to
collaborate
with
the
Central Board in organising the training of
persons engaged or to be engaged in
programmes relating to prevention, control
or abatement of water pollution and to
organise
mass
education
programmes
relating thereto;

(f) to inspect sewage or trade
effluents,
works
and plants
for
the
treatment of sewage and trade effluents and
to review plans, specifications or other
data relating to plants set up for the
treatment
of
water,
works
for
the
purification thereof and the system for the
disposal of sewage or trade effluents or in
connection with the grant of any consent as
required by this Act;

(g) to lay down, modify or annul
effluent standards for the sewage and trade
effluents and for the quality of receiving
waters (not being water in an inter-State
stream) resulting from the discharge of
effluents and to classify waters of the State;

(h) to evolve economical and
reliable methods of treatment of sewage
and trade effluents, having regard to the
peculiar conditions of soils, climate and
water resources of different regions and
more
especially
the
prevailing
flow
characteristics of water in streams and
wells which render it impossible to attain
even the minimum degree of dilution;

(i)
to
evolve
methods
of
utilisation of sewage and suitable trade
effluents in agriculture;

(j) to evolve efficient methods of
disposal of sewage and trade effluents on
land, as are necessary on account of the
predominant conditions of scant stream
flows that do not provide for major part of
the year the minimum degree of dilution;

(k) to lay down standards of
treatment of sewage and trade effluents to
be discharged into any particular stream
taking into account the minimum fair
weather dilution available in that stream
and the tolerance limits of pollution
permissible in the water of the stream, after
the discharge of such effluents;

(l) to make, vary or revoke any
order-

(i) for the prevention, control or
abatement of discharges of waste into
streams or wells;

(ii)
requiring
any
person
concerned to construct new systems for
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the disposal of sewage and trade effluents
or to modify, alter or extend any such
existing system or adopt such remedial
measures as are necessary to prevent,
control or abate water pollution;

(m)
to
lay
down
effluent
standards to be complied with by persons
while causing discharge of sewage or
sullage or both and to lay down, modify or
annul effluent standards for the sewage and
trade effluents;

(n)
to
advise
the
State
Government with respect to the location of
any industry the carrying on of which is
likely to pollute a stream or well;

(o)
to
perform
such
other
functions as may be prescribed or as may,
from time to time, be entrusted to it by the
Central Board or the State Government.

(2) The Board may establish or
recognise a laboratory or laboratories to
enable the Board to perform its functions
under this section efficiently, including the
analysis of samples of water from any
stream or well or of samples of any sewage
or trade effluents."

(25) Section 18(1)(b) of the Water Act
provides that in performance of its
functions under the Act, every State Board
shall be bound by such directions in writing
as the Central Board or the State
Government may give to it.

(26) Section 32 of the Water Act
empowers the Board to take emergency
measures in the case of pollution of streams
or wells or on land and this provision is
being quoted below:-

"32. Emergency measures in case
of pollution of stream or well.-(1) Where it
appears to the State Board that any
poisonous, noxious or polluting matter is
present in any stream or well or on land by
reason of the discharge of such matter in such
stream or well or on such land or has entered
into that stream or well due to any accident
or other unforeseen act or event, and if the
Board is of opinion that it is necessary or
expedient to take immediate action, it may for
reasons to be recorded in writing, carry out
such operations as it may consider necessary
for all or any of the following purposes, that
is to say,-

(a) removing that matter from the
stream or well or on land and disposing it of
in such manner as the Board considers
appropriate;

(b) remedying or mitigating any
pollution caused by its presence in the stream
or well;

(c) issuing orders immediately
restraining
or
prohibiting
the
person
concerned from discharging any poisonous,
noxious or polluting matter into the stream or
well or on land, or from making insanitary
use of the stream or well.

(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) does not include the power to
construct any works other than works of a
temporary character which are removed on
or before the completion of the operations."

(27) Section 33 of the Water Act
provides as follows: -

"33. Power of Board to make
application
to
courts
for
restraining
apprehended pollution of water in streams
or wells.-(1) Where it is apprehended by a
Board that the water in any stream or well is
likely to be polluted by reason of the disposal
or likely disposal of any matter in such
stream or well or in any sewer or on any
land, or otherwise, the Board may make an
application to a court, not inferior to that
of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class, for restraining
the person who is likely to cause such
pollution from so causing.
7 All. Suez India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors.
853

(2) On receipt of an application
under sub-section (1) the court may make
such order as it deems fit. ... "

(28) There is no provision in the
Water Act which confers any power of
judicial or quasi-judicial nature on the State
Board.

(29) The National Green Tribunal Act,
2010 (which will hereinafter be referred to
as 'the NGT Act') was enacted on
02.06.2010 with the following object:-

"An Act to provide for the
establishment
of
a
National
Green
Tribunal for the effective and expeditious
disposal of cases relating to environmental
protection and conservation of forests and
other
natural
resources
including
enforcement of any legal right relating to
environment
and
giving
relief
and
compensation for damages to persons and
property
and
for
matters
connected
therewith or incidental thereto."

(30) Thus NGT has been established
with the object of effective and expeditious
disposal of cases relating to compensation
relating to environment. The composition
of NGT is provided in Section 4 (1) of the
NGT Act which is as follows:-

"4. Composition of Tribunal -
(1) The Tribunal shall consist of,-

(a) a full-time Chairperson;

(b) not less than ten but subject to
not maximum of twenty full-time Judicial
Members as the Central Government may,
from time to time, notify;

(c) not less than ten but subject to
maximum twenty full-time Expert Members,
as the Central Government may, from time
to time, notify."

(31) The qualifications of Chairperson,
Judicial Member and Expert Member are
provided in Section 5 of the NGT Act,
which is as follows:-

"5.
Qualifications
for
appointment of Chairperson, Judicial
Member and Expert Member.-(1) A
person
shall
not
be
qualified
for
appointment as the Chairperson or Judicial
Member of the Tribunal unless he is, or has
been, a Judge of the Supreme Court of
India or Chief Justice of a High Court:

Provided that a person who is or
has been a Judge of the High Court shall
also be qualified to be appointed as a
Judicial Member.

(2) A person shall not be
qualified for appointment as an Expert
Member, unless he,-

(a) has a degree in Master of
Science (in physical sciences or life
sciences) with a Doctorate degree or
Master of Engineering or Master of
Technology and has an experience of fifteen
years in the relevant field including five
years practical experience in the field of
environment
and
forests
(including
pollution control, hazardous substance
management,
environment
impact
assessment, climate change management,
biological diversity management and forest
conservation) in a reputed National level
institution; or

(b) has administrative experience
of fifteen years including experience of five
years
in
dealing
with
environmental
matters in the Central or a State
Government or in a reputed National or
State level institution.

(3) The Chairperson, Judicial
Member and Expert Member of the
Tribunal shall not hold any other office
during their tenure as such.
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(4) The Chairperson and other
Judicial and Expert Members shall not, for
a period of two years from the date on
which they cease to hold office, accept any
employment in, or connected with the
management or administration of, any
person who has been a party to a
proceeding before the Tribunal under this
Act:

Provided that nothing contained
in this section shall apply to any employment
under the Central Government or a State
Government or local authority or in any statutory
authority or any corporation established by or
under any Central, State or Provincial Act or a
Government company as defined in section 617 of
the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)."

(32) The aforesaid provision makes it
manifest that NGT has been constituted as a body
of experts.

(33) Chapter III of the NGT Act deals with
jurisdiction, powers and proceedings of the
Tribunal. Section 14 of the NGT Act provides that
the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all civil
cases where a substantial question relating to
environment (including enforcement of any legal
right relating to environment), is involved and
such question arises out of the implementation of
the enactments specified in Schedule I.

(34) The phrase "Substantial question
relating to environment" is defined in Section
2(m) of the NGT Act as follows:-

"(m) "substantial question relating to
environment" shall include an instance where,-

(i) there is a direct violation of a
specific statutory environmental obligation by a
person by which,-

(A) the community at large other than
an individual or group of individuals is affected or
likely to be affected by the environmental
consequences; or

(B) the gravity of damage to the
environment or property is substantial; or

(C) the damage to public health is
broadly measurable;

(ii) the environmental consequences
relate to a specific activity or a point source of
pollution;"

(35) Section 15 of the NGT Act provides for
relief, compensation and restitution and the
relevant parts of this Section read as follows:-

15. Relief, compensation and
restitution.-(1) The Tribunal may, by an
order, provide,-

(a) relief and compensation to
the victims of pollution and other
environmental damage arising under the
enactments specified in the Schedule I
(including accident occurring while handling
any hazardous substance);

(b) for restitution of property damaged;

(c) for restitution of the environment for
such area or areas,

as the Tribunal may think fit.

* * *

(2) The relief and compensation and
restitution of property and environment referred to in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be in
addition to the relief paid or payable under
the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).

* * *

(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to
the damage to public health, property and
environment, divide the compensation or relief
payable under separate heads specified in Schedule
II so as to provide compensation or relief to the
claimants and for restitution of the damaged
property or environment, as it may think fit.

* * *

(36) Schedule - I referred to in
Sections 14 and 15 of the Act lists the
following Acts:-
7 All. Suez India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board & Ors.
855

"1. The Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

2. The Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;

3. The Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980;

4. The Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

5. The Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986;

6. The Public Liability Insurance
Act, 1991;

7. The Biological Diversity Act,
2002"

(37) Schedule II referred to in Section
15 of the NGT Act as follows:-

"Heads
under
which
compensation or relief for damage may be
claimed

(a) Death;

(b) Permanent, temporary, total
or partial disability or other injury or
sickness;

(c) Loss of wages due to total or
partial
disability
or
permanent
or
temporary disability;

(d) Medical expenses incurred for
treatment of injuries or sickness;

(e) Damages to private property;

(f) Expenses incurred by the
Government or any local authority in
providing relief, aid and rehabilitation to
the affected persons;

(g) Expenses incurred by the
Government for any administrative or legal
action or to cope with any harm or
damage,
including
compensation
for
environmental degradation and restoration
of the quality of environment;

(h) Loss to the Government or
local authority arising out of, or connected
with, the activity causing any damage;

(i) Claims on account of any
harm, damage or destruction to the fauna
including milch and draught animals and
aquatic fauna;

(j) Claims on account of any
harm, damage or destruction to flora
including aquatic flora, crops, vegetables,
trees and orchards;

(k) Claims including cost of
restoration on account of any harm or
damage to environment including pollution
of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems;

(l) Loss and destruction of any
property other than private property;

(m)
Loss
of
business
or
employment or both;

(n) Any other claim arising out
of, or connected with, any activity of
handling of hazardous substance."

(38) Section 20 of the NGT Act
provides that "The Tribunal shall, while
passing any order or decision or award,
apply
the
principles
of
sustainable
development, the precautionary principle
and the polluter pays principle."

(39) A bare perusal of the aforesaid
provisions of the NGT Act makes it
manifest that the NGT has been constituted
as an expert body and it has been conferred
with the jurisdiction over all civil cases
where a substantial question relating to
environment is involved. Payment of
compensation for causing damage to
environment is a civil dispute and it
involves a substantial question relating to
environment. Therefore, the NGT has been
conferred with the jurisdiction to decide the
cases relating to award of compensation,
including the compensation under the
Water Act and the Air Act.

(40) Section 18 of the NGT Act
provides as follows:-
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"18. Application or appeal to
Tribunal.-(1) Each application under
Sections 14 and 15 or an appeal under
Section 16 shall, be made to the Tribunal in
such form, contain such particulars, and,
be accompanied by such documents and
such fees as may be prescribed.

(2) Without prejudice to the
provisions contained in Section 16, an
application
for
grant
of
relief
or
compensation or settlement of dispute may
be made to the Tribunal by-

(a) the person, who has sustained
the injury; or