# M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1060
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-09-01
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-triveni-engineering-and-industries-ltd-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-38699
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

Issue arose as regards the order passed by the National Green
Tribunal imposing a compensation of ₹18 crores on the appellant for
alleged environmental violations; and whether the tribunal adhered
to fair procedure while conducting its proceedings.
Headnotes†
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.19 - Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - ss.21, 22 - Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 - Environmental degradation -
Environmental compensation - Power of the Control
Board to take samples of effluents and procedure to be
followed - Opportunity of hearing - Complaint against the
appellant-engaged in sugar manufacturing alleging that the
sugar mill of the appellant was discharging untreated waste
in a particular drain resulting in contamination of ground
water in an area of about one and a half kilometer around the
sugar mill having depth upto 50 metres - NGT constituted a
Joint Committee of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and District
Magistrate (DM) to conduct inspection - On basis thereof,
NGT held that there was illegal disposal of untreated effluents,
dilution at the outlet to conceal the real status, absence of
monitoring, absence of record of oil and grease stored and
ETP logbook, compensation of Rs.18 crores at the rate of 2
percent of annual turnover would be justified and that the
compensation recovered may be utilized for restoration of
the environment - Legality:
Held: Impugned orders are in complete violation of the procedures
laid down in the ss.21 and 22 of the 1974 Act, 1986 Act, and the
2010 Act, including s.19 thereof - Impugned decisions which entail
adverse civil consequences upon the appellant were passed without
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
301
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
following the due procedure laid down under the statute as well
as the elementary principles of natural justice - Thus, such orders
are illegal and null and void - NGT exercises judicial functions -
Thus, it is all the more necessary for the NGT to adhere to a
fair procedure which is statutorily laid down of which principles
of natural justice are an inalienable part - Rigor of s.19(1) of
the 2010 Act is qua the procedure to be adopted by the NGT in
conducting its proceedings - It cannot be stretched to abandon
the statutory procedure laid down u/s.21 and 22 of the Water Act
and by outsourcing investigation to administrative committees by
overlooking the statutory provisions and basing its decisions on
the recommendation of such administrative committee - This is not
within the remit of NGT - In the quest for doing justice, NGT has
ended up doing just the reverse - Ordinarily, in a case where there
is violation of the principles of natural justice, parties are relegated to
the adjudicatory forum to re-do the exercise after following the due
process - However, the entire exercise has been vitiated because
of non-conforming to the laid down procedure contemplated u/
ss.21 and 22 of the 1974 Act - Relegating the parties back to the
NGT would serve no useful purpose - However, UPPCB free to
carry out inspection and take remedial measures qua the sugar
mill of the appellant by following the statutory procedure, including
adherence to the principles of natural justice - Impugned orders
passed by the NGT set aside. [Paras 30-34]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,584 of 80,057. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39584 for what follows._

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 300 : 2025 INSC 1060
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd.
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8119-8120 of 2022)
01 September 2025
[Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the order passed by the National Green
Tribunal imposing a compensation of ₹18 crores on the appellant for
alleged environmental violations; and whether the tribunal adhered
to fair procedure while conducting its proceedings.
Headnotes†
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.19 - Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - ss.21, 22 - Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 - Environmental degradation -
Environmental compensation - Power of the Control
Board to take samples of effluents and procedure to be
followed - Opportunity of hearing - Complaint against the
appellant-engaged in sugar manufacturing alleging that the
sugar mill of the appellant was discharging untreated waste
in a particular drain resulting in contamination of ground
water in an area of about one and a half kilometer around the
sugar mill having depth upto 50 metres - NGT constituted a
Joint Committee of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and District
Magistrate (DM) to conduct inspection - On basis thereof,
NGT held that there was illegal disposal of untreated effluents,
dilution at the outlet to conceal the real status, absence of
monitoring, absence of record of oil and grease stored and
ETP logbook, compensation of Rs.18 crores at the rate of 2
percent of annual turnover would be justified and that the
compensation recovered may be utilized for restoration of
the environment - Legality:
Held: Impugned orders are in complete violation of the procedures
laid down in the ss.21 and 22 of the 1974 Act, 1986 Act, and the
2010 Act, including s.19 thereof - Impugned decisions which entail
adverse civil consequences upon the appellant were passed without
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
301
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
following the due procedure laid down under the statute as well
as the elementary principles of natural justice - Thus, such orders
are illegal and null and void - NGT exercises judicial functions -
Thus, it is all the more necessary for the NGT to adhere to a
fair procedure which is statutorily laid down of which principles
of natural justice are an inalienable part - Rigor of s.19(1) of
the 2010 Act is qua the procedure to be adopted by the NGT in
conducting its proceedings - It cannot be stretched to abandon
the statutory procedure laid down u/s.21 and 22 of the Water Act
and by outsourcing investigation to administrative committees by
overlooking the statutory provisions and basing its decisions on
the recommendation of such administrative committee - This is not
within the remit of NGT - In the quest for doing justice, NGT has
ended up doing just the reverse - Ordinarily, in a case where there
is violation of the principles of natural justice, parties are relegated to
the adjudicatory forum to re-do the exercise after following the due
process - However, the entire exercise has been vitiated because
of non-conforming to the laid down procedure contemplated u/
ss.21 and 22 of the 1974 Act - Relegating the parties back to the
NGT would serve no useful purpose - However, UPPCB free to
carry out inspection and take remedial measures qua the sugar
mill of the appellant by following the statutory procedure, including
adherence to the principles of natural justice - Impugned orders
passed by the NGT set aside. [Paras 30-34]
Case Law Cited
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 SCR 457 : (1969) 2 SCC
262; S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 44 :
(1990) 4 SCC 594 - followed.
Grasim Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC
Online SC 3585 - relied on.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha [2021] 10
SCR 1 : 2021 SCC Online SC 1298; T. Takano v. Securities and
Exchange Board of India [2022] 16 SCR 212 : (2022) 8 SCC 162;
State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal [2023] 7 SCR 476 : (2023)
6 SCC 1; Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State
of Gujarat [2022] 1 SCR 1006 : (2023) 13 SCC 525; Sanghar
Zuber Ismail v. Union of India [2021] 8 SCR 525 : (2021) 17 SCC
827; Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Company
Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1601 - referred to.
302
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Environment (Protection) Act,
1986; Companies Act, 1956; Companies Act, 1913; Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Securities
and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair
Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003.
List of Keywords
Environmental degradation; Environmental compensation;
Opportunity of hearing; Sugar manufacturer; Discharging untreated
waste; Contamination of ground water; Joint Committee; Inspection;
Illegal disposal of untreated effluents; Absence of monitoring;
Absence of record of oil and grease stored; ETP logbook;
Compensation of Rs.18 crores at the rate of 2 percent of annual
turnover; Restoration of the environment; Principles of natural justice.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 8119-8120
of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2022 and 15.02.2022
of the National Green Tribunal at Delhi in OA No. 71 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Prateek
Kumar, Arshit Anand, Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Naman Gupta,
E. C. Agrawala.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sudeep Kumar, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
These two civil appeals filed under Section 22 of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 are directed against orders dated 15.02.2022 and
16.09.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench,
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
303
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
New Delhi ('NGT' for short) in Original Application No. 71/2021
(Chandra Shekhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh).
2.
By the order dated 15.02.2022, NGT held that the project proponent
(appellant herein) had violated the environmental norms which included
illegal disposal of untreated effluent, dilution at outlet with fresh water
to conceal real status, absence of flow meter at boiler/mill house to
avoid monitoring, absence of record of oil and grease stored and
absence of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) logbook. Thereafter, NGT
observed that the joint committee needed to assess the past violations
and recover compensation in accordance with law having regard to
the nature of the violation, period of violation, cost of remediation and
turnover of the project proponent (appellant). The joint committee was
directed to submit a supplementary report in this regard.
2.1. By the second order dated 16.09.2022, NGT considered the
supplementary report filed by the joint committee on 10.08.2022
and held that compensation of Rs. 18 crores at the rate of 2
percent of annual turnover would be justified. It was directed
that the amount may be deposited by the project proponent
(appellant) with the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, within
one month to be utilized for restoration of the environment.
3.
At the outset, a brief recital of facts is considered necessary.
4.
Appellant i.e. M/s. Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited is a
public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
It is engaged in diverse business activities including manufacture
of sugar. It is stated that appellant has seven sugar manufacturing
units across the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4.1. In the year 1952, appellant under its earlier name, Ganga
Sugar Corporation Limited, which was incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1913, had acquired the sugar manufacturing
unit at village Sheikhpura, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar District in the
State of Uttar Pradesh (sugar mill). It is stated that the sugar
mill is a functional unit, having all the necessary permissions
as required under the applicable statutes.
4.2. It appears from the record that in the month of March, 2021,
respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the NGT which
was registered as Original Application No. 71/2021 (O.A. No.
71/2021) alleging that the sugar mill of the appellant was
discharging untreated waste in a particular drain resulting in
304
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
contamination of ground water in an area of about one and a
half kilometer around the sugar mill having depth upto 50 metres.
4.3. By order dated 22.03.2021, NGT constituted a joint committee
of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttar Pradesh
Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and District Magistrate (DM),
Muzaffarnagar. The joint committee was directed to conduct
inspection and thereafter to file status report within two months.
4.4. It appears that the sugarcane crushing season for the year
2020-21 came to an end on 22.05.2021. Joint committee in its
report dated 02.07.2021 stated that because of various reasons
including conclusion of the sugarcane crushing season and the
sugar mill remaining closed on account of the covid pandemic,
inspection could not be carried out and prayed for further time
to carry out fresh inspection.
4.5. Thereafter, regional office of UPPCB, Muzaffarnagar carried
out inspection of the sugar mill and the area around it on
13.09.2021 and observed that no contamination was found in
the ground water samples. However, it was observed that further
investigation could be carried out when the industry become
operational during the next crushing season.
4.6. O.A. No. 71/2021 was heard on 21.09.2021. NGT on perusal of
the report declared that it was not satisfied with the stand of the
State PCB. NGT was of the view that there was no justification
for carrying out inspection when the sugar mill was not functional
due to off season. NGT, therefore, directed the joint committee to
conduct inspection when the unit was functional and thereafter
to furnish a report to it on or before 15.12.2021. It was clarified
that the report should indicate status of compliance with the
standards as prior to the season, quality of treated effluence
and utilization as per protocol/agreement with the users/farmers,
further indicating that it should be mentioned whether effluents
were reaching any drain leading to river/waterbody with direction
to check the quality of ground water as per parameters relevant
to the industry in question, particularly fluoride etc. Reference
was made to an order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the NGT in
O.A. No. 539/2019 (Adil Ansari Vs. M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills
Limited) wherein it was directed that ETPs must continue to
run for maintenance of bio-mass even during the off season.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
305
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
4.7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2021, the joint
committee conducted inspection on 08.12.2021 and submitted
report dated 11.01.2022. After extensively referring to the
observations, conclusions and recommendations of the joint
committee, NGT passed the first impugned order dated 15.02.2022
observing that the report showed violation of the environmental
norms by the project proponent (appellant), such as, illegal
disposal of untreated effluents etc. while stating that such violation
was required to be remedied in terms of the recommendations
made in the report. For the past violations, the joint committee
was directed to assess the compensation in accordance with
law, having regard to the nature of violation, period of violation,
cost of remediation and turn over of the project proponent. Joint
committee was further directed to submit a supplementary report
with copy to the project proponent (appellant) for its response.
4.8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, supplementary report
was filed by the joint committee on 10.08.2022 whereafter the
matter was taken up for hearing on 16.09.2022. NGT recorded
that no response was filed by the project proponent (appellant).
NGT referred to the report which mentioned that compensation
amounts to Rs. 34,20,000.00 for 114 days of violation at the rate
of Rs. 30,000.00 per day which works out to Rs. 18 crores at
the rate of 2 percent of the annual turnover of Rs. 900 crores.
After hearing the learned counsel for the UPPCB, NGT was of
the view that having regard to the established illegal discharge
of untreated effluents, dilution at the outlet to conceal the real
status, absence of monitoring, absence of record of oil and
grease stored and ETP logbook, compensation of Rs. 18 crores
at the rate of 2 percent of annual turnover would be justified. It
was ordered vide the second impugned order dated 16.09.2022
that the compensation recovered may be utilized for restoration
of the environment. Project proponent (appellant) was directed
to deposit the aforesaid amount with the District Magistrate,
Muzaffarnagar within one month. The compensation amount was
directed to be utilized within six months in terms of the action
plan to be prepared by the joint committee, clarifying that UPPCB
would be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance.
5.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022,
appellant has preferred the related appeals. By order dated 02.11.2022,
permission to file appeal was granted and delay was condoned.
306
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Thereafter, notice was issued. This Court also passed an interim
order staying the operation of the impugned orders dated 15.02.2022
and 16.09.2022 so far as imposing compensation on the appellant.
6.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022 are non est in the eye
of law in as much as those orders were passed by the NGT in
complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Though the
entire allegations in O.A. No. 71/2021 were directed against the
appellant and though the impugned orders have adversely affected
the appellant yet appellant was not made a party to the proceedings
in O.A. No. 71/2021. NGT failed to appreciate that the appellant was
a necessary party and without issuing notice and giving opportunity
of hearing to the appellant, no adverse order against the appellant
such as the ones dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022 could have been
passed. That being the position, not only the impugned orders but
also the entire proceedings in O.A. No. 71/2021 being in absolute
violation of the principle of audi alteram partem are liable to be set
aside and quashed on this ground alone.
6.1. Learned senior counsel asserts that no opportunity of hearing,
not to speak of any fair opportunity of hearing, was afforded to
the appellant before rendering the findings vide the impugned
orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022.
6.2. Adverting to the reports of the joint committee dated 11.01.2022
and 10.08.2022, learned senior counsel submits that findings
recorded in the reports are scientifically not possible. Those are
materially different from the readings shown by the data retrieved
and recorded by the inspection team during the inspection on
08.12.2021. The joint committee relied upon the reports prepared
by third party laboratories which were based on erroneous data.
As a result, there are glaring contradictions in the above reports.
6.3. Learned senior counsel also questioned the methodologies
adopted by the joint committee in carrying out the inspection and
thereafter in submitting the reports. According to him, NGT and
the joint committee gave a complete go-bye to the procedure
laid down under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. That apart, the reports of
the joint committee suffered from factual mistakes in as much as
appellant has been maintaining ETP logbook at all times which
were provided to the joint committee officials when they had
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
307
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
visited the sugar mill for inspection. Likewise, boiler ash records
were also maintained. Had an opportunity of hearing being given
to the appellant, it could have explained its position qua the joint
committee reports. NGT accepted the erroneous reports of the
joint committee without subjecting the same to further scrutiny
by permitting the appellant to have its say in the matter.
6.4. Learned senior counsel also referred to the provisions of Section
19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 which states
that though the NGT shall not be bound by the procedure laid
down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it shall be guided
by the principles of natural justice. There is clear infraction of
Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 in the
present case which has vitiated the impugned orders.
6.5. Summing up his arguments, learned senior counsel submitted
that the impugned orders are wholly untenable in law as well
as on facts and those are as such liable to be set aside.
7.
Learned senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand has
supported the impugned orders passed by the NGT. It is submitted
that without treatment of the effluent, water was being discharged
from the sugar mill of the appellant; the same was being released
into the drain which has contaminated the ground water of the area
in and around the sugar mill where about 10 to 15 thousand people
reside. The entire population is thus exposed to the polluted water
and resultant health hazards.
7.1. Learned senior counsel submits that NGT took cognizance of this
alarming situation and constituted the joint committee to carry
out necessary inspection. Joint committee carried out inspection
in a scientific manner and thereafter submitted reports to the
NGT. The reports being prepared by a committee of experts
was rightly accepted by the NGT. Based on the observations
and conclusions reached by the joint committee, NGT passed
the impugned orders which calls for no interference.
7.2. Learned senior counsel submits that principles of natural justice
cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula. NGT was careful
enough to direct the joint committee to furnish copies of its
reports to the project proponent (appellant). Appellant was,
therefore, very much aware of the contents of the two reports,
yet it did not contest the same before the NGT. That being the
308
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
position, the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant
are without any substance.
7.3. He finally submits that the civil appeals being devoid of merit
are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8.
Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received
the due consideration of the Court.
9.
At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to some of the relevant
statutory provisions.
10. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (briefly
'the Water Act' hereinafter) is 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 pollution control 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. Section 2 is the definition clause.
Section 2(dd) defines 'outlet' to include any conduit, pipe or channel,
open or closed, carrying sewage or trade effluent or any other
holding arrangement which causes, or is likely to cause, pollution.
10.1. The expression 'pollution' is also defined. As per Section 2(e),
'pollution' means contamination of water. Section 2(e) reads
thus:
"pollution" means such contamination of water or
such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological
properties of water or such discharge of any sewage
or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid
substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as
may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such
water harmful or injurious to public health or safety,
or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural
or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of
animals or plants or of aquatic organisms.
10.2. 'Sewage effluent' has been defined in Section 2(g) and means
effluent from any sewerage system or sewage disposal works
and includes sullage from open drains. Section 2(gg) defines
'sewer' to mean any conduit pipe or channel, open or closed,
carrying sewage or trade effluent.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
309
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
10.3. 'Stream' has been defined in Section 2(j) and as per the said
definition, stream includes:
(i)
river;
(ii)
water course (whether flowing or for the time being
dry);
(iii) inland water (whether natural or artificial);
(iv) sub-terranean waters;
(v)
sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the case
may be, to such point as the State Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify
in this behalf.
10.4. 'Trade effluent' has been defined in Section 2(k) in the following
manner:
"trade effluent" includes any liquid, gaseous or solid
substance which is discharged from any premises
used for carrying on any industry, operation or
process or treatment and disposal system, other than
domestic sewage.
10.5. Section 21 of the Water Act is included in Chapter V which deals
with prevention and control of water pollution. Sub-section (1)
of Section 21 empowers the State Pollution Control Board or
any officer authorized by it to take samples of water from any
stream or well or samples of any sewage or trade effluent which
is passing from any plant or vessel or from or over any place into
such stream or well for the purposes of analysis. Sub-section (2)
however clarifies that the result of any analysis of a sample of
any sewage or trade effluent taken under sub-section (1) shall
not be admissible as an evidence in any legal proceedings unless
the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) are complied with.
Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 21 are as follows:
21. Power to take samples of effluents and
procedure to be followed in connection
therewith. -(1) A State Board or any officer
empowered by it in this behalf shall have power to
take for the purpose of analysis samples of water from
any stream or well or samples of any sewage or trade
effluent which is passing from any plant or vessel or
from or over any place into any such stream or well.
310
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(2) The result of any analysis of a sample of any
sewage or trade effluent taken under sub-section
(1) shall not be admissible in evidence in any legal
proceeding unless the provisions of sub-sections (3),
(4) and (5) are complied with.
10.6. As noticed above, analysis of any sample of any sewage
or trade effluent taken under sub-section (1) would not be
admissible as a piece of evidence in any legal proceedings
unless the procedure contemplated under sub-sections (3),
(4) and (5) are complied with. Let us therefore take note of
the provisions contained in sub- sections (3), (4) and (5) of
Section 21 which are extracted as under:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4) and
(5), when a sample (composite or otherwise as may
be warranted by the process used) of any sewage or
trade effluent is taken for analysis under sub-section
(1), the person taking the sample shall-
(a) serve on the person in charge of, or having
control over, the plant or vessel or in occupation of
the place (which person is hereinafter referred to as
the occupier) or any agent of such occupier, a notice,
then and there in such form as may be prescribed
of his intention to have it so analysed;
(b) in the presence of the occupier or his agent, divide
the sample into two parts;
(c) cause each part to be placed in a container
which shall be marked and sealed and shall also be
signed both by the persons taking the sample and
the occupier or his agent;
(d) send one container forthwith,-
(i) in a case where such sample is taken from any
area situated in a Union Territory, to the laboratory
established or recognised by the Central Board under
Section 16; and
(ii) in any other case, to the laboratory established
or recognised by the State Board under Section 17;
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
311
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(e) on the request of the occupier or his agent, send
the second container,-
(i) in a case where such sample is taken from any
area situated in a Union Territory, to the laboratory
established or specified under sub-section (1) of
Section 51; and
(ii) in any other case, to the laboratory established or
specified under sub-section (1) of Section 52.
(4) When a sample of any sewage or trade effluent
is taken for analysis under sub-section (1) and the
person taking the sample serves on the occupier or
his agent, a notice under clause (a) of sub-section
(3) and the occupier or his agent wilfully absents
himself, then,-
(a) the sample so taken shall be placed in a container
which shall be marked and sealed and shall also
be signed by the person taking the sample and the
same shall be sent forthwith by such person for
analysis to the laboratory referred to in sub-clause
(i) or sub-clause (ii), as the case may be, of clause
(e) of sub-section (3) and such person shall inform
the Government analyst appointed under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, of Section
53, in writing about the wilful absence of the occupier
or his agent; and
(b) the cost incurred in getting such sample analysed
shall be payable by the occupier or his agent and
in case of default of such payment, the same shall
be recoverable from the occupier or his agent, as
the case may be, as an arrear of land revenue or of
public demand:
Provided that no such recovery shall be made unless
the occupier or, as the case may be, his agent has
been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard
in the matter.
(5) When a sample of any sewage or trade effluent
is taken for analysis under sub-section (1) and the
312
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
person taking the sample serves on the occupier or
his agent a notice under clause (a) of sub-section
(3) and the occupier or his agent who is present
at the time of taking the sample does not make
a request for dividing the sample into two parts
as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (3), then,
the sample so taken shall be placed in a container
which shall be marked and sealed and shall also
be signed by the person taking the sample and the
same shall be sent forthwith by such person for
analysis to the laboratory referred to in sub-clause
(i) or sub-clause (ii), as the case may be, of clause
(d) of sub-section (3).
10.7. As can be seen from the above, the person who is taking
the sample is required to serve on the person in charge of
or having control over the plant or vessel etc. a notice of his
intention to have the sample analyzed; take and divide the
sample into two parts in the presence of the occupier or his
agent. One container after being sealed and signed by both
the persons taking the sample and the occupier or his agent
is taken to the laboratory established or recognized by the
pollution control board (whether central or state) and send
the other container in the same manner to the laboratory
established under Section 51(1) in case of a union territory
and Section 52(1) in any other case. In case the occupier or
his agent willfully absents himself from the aforesaid process,
then the person taking the sample shall inform the government
analyst in writing about the willful absence of the occupier or
his agent.
10.8. Section 22 of the Water Act is concerned with reports of the
result of analysis on samples taken under Section 21. Section
22 reads thus:
22. Reports of the result of analysis on samples
taken under section 21.-(1) Where a sample
of any sewage or trade effluent has been sent for
analysis to the laboratory established or recognised
by the Central Board or, as the case may be, the
State Board, the concerned Board analyst appointed
under sub-section (3) of Section 53 shall analyse the
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
313
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
sample and submit a report in the prescribed form of
the result of such analysis in triplicate to the Central
Board or the State Board, as the case may be.
(2) On receipt of the report under sub-section (1),
one copy of the report shall be sent by the Central
Board or the State Board, as the case may be, to
the occupier or his agent referred to in Section 21,
another copy shall be preserved for production before
the court in case any legal proceedings are taken
against him and the other copy shall be kept by the
concerned Board.
(3) Where a sample has been sent for analysis under
clause (e) of sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of
Section 21, to any laboratory mentioned therein, the
Government analyst referred to in that sub-section
shall analyse the sample and submit a report in the
prescribed form of the result of the analysis in triplicate
to the Central Board or, as the case may be, the
State Board which shall comply with the provisions
of sub-section (2).
(4) If there is any inconsistency or discrepancy
between, or variation in the results of, the analysis
carried out by the laboratory established or recognised
by the Central Board or the State Board, as the
case may be, and that of the laboratory established
or specified under Section 51 or Section 52, as the
case may be, the report of the latter shall prevail.
(5) Any cost incurred in getting any sample analysed
at the request of the occupier or his agent shall be
payable by such occupier or his agent and in case
of default the same shall be recoverable from him as
arrears of land revenue or of public demand.
10.9. As is evident from the above, after a sample of any sewage or
trade effluent is sent to the concerned laboratory, the competent
analyst shall analyse the samples and submit a report in the
prescribed form of the result of such analysis to the pollution
control board. A copy of such report shall also be forwarded
to the occupier or his agent.
314
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10.10. Section 24 prohibits release or disposal of polluting matter
into any stream or well or sewer or on land. Sub-section (1)
of Section 24 is relevant and reads as under:
24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for
disposal of polluting matter, etc.-(1) Subject to
the provisions of this section,-
(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit any
poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined
in accordance with such standards as may be laid
down by the State Board to enter (whether directly
or indirectly) into any stream or well or sewer or on
land; or
(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter
into any stream any other matter which may tend,
either directly or in combination with similar matters,
to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream
in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial
aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its
consequences.
10.11. As per Section 43 of the Water Act, whoever contravenes the
provisions of Section 24 shall be punishale with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than one year and six
months but which may extend to six years and with fine.
11. We now come to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (briefly 'the
Environment Act' hereinafter). It is an act to provide for the protection
and improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith.
Section 2(a) defines 'environment' in the following manner:
"environment" includes water, air and land and the interrelationship which exists among and between water,
air and land, and human beings, other living creatures,
plants, micro-organism and property.
11.1. 'Environmental pollutant' has been defined in Section 2(b) to
mean any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such
concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment.
'Environmental pollution' is defined under Section 2(c) and
means the presence in the environment of any environmental
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
315
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
pollutant. Section 2(f) defines 'occupier' in relation to any
factory or premises, to mean a person who has control over the
affairs of the factory or the premises and includes, in relation
to any substance, the person in possession of the substance.
11.2. Sections 7, 8, 14A, 15 and 15A are included in Chapter III which
deals with prevention, control and abatement of environmental
pollution. Section 7 says that no person carrying on any industry,
operation or process shall discharge or emit or permit to be
discharged or emitted any environmental pollutant in excess
of such standards as may be prescribed. Similarly, Section 8
says that no person shall handle or cause to be handled any
hazardous substance except in accordance with such procedure
and after complying with such safeguards as may be prescribed.
11.3. Section 14A has been introduced by way of an amendment
in the year 2023 with effect from 01.04.2024. It provides for
penalty in the event of contravention of Sections 7 and 8.
Section 14A is extracted hereunder:
14A. Penalty for contravention of section 7 or
section 8.-(1) If any person, contravenes provisions
of Section 7 or Section 8 or the rules made thereunder,
he shall be liable to penalty in respect of each such
contravention, which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees but which may extend to fifteen lakh rupees.
(2) Where any person continues contravention under
sub-section (1), he shall be liable to additional penalty
of fifty thousand rupees for every day during which
such contravention continues.
11.4. Be it stated that Section 15 was also introduced in the
Environment Act by way of the 2023 amendment with
effect from 01.04.2024. Section 15 deals with penalty for
contravention of the provisions of the Environment Act, rules,
orders and directions. Section 15 reads thus:
15. Penalty for contravention of provisions of
Act, rules, orders and directions.-(1) Where any
person contravenes or does not comply with any of
the provisions of this Act or the rules made or orders
or directions issued thereunder for which no penalty
is provided, he shall be liable to penalty in respect
316
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of each such contravention which shall not be less
than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to
fifteen lakh rupees.
(2) Where any person continues contravention under
sub-section (1), he shall be liable to additional penalty
of ten thousand rupees for every day during which
such contravention continues.
11.5. Similarly, Section 15A provides for penalty for contravention
by companies. Section 15A is as follows:
15A. Penalty for contravention by companies.-
(1) Where any company contravenes any of the
provisions of this Act, the company shall be liable to
penalty for each such contravention which shall not
be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend
to fifteen lakh rupees.
(2) Where any company continues contravention
under sub-section (1), the company shall be liable to
additional penalty of one lakh rupees for every day
during which such contravention continues.
12. 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 person and property
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, the National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has been enacted. Section 2(1)(c) defines
the word 'environment'. It says 'environment' includes water, air and
land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between
water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants,
micro-organism and property.
12.1. Section 2(1)(m) defines 'substantial question relating to
environment' and is as follows:
2(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,-
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
317
M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(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.
12.2. As per Section 14, National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the
jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question
relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal
right relating to environment) is involved.
12.3. Section 15 deals with the relief, compensation and restitution
that NGT may provide. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 reads
as under:
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.
12.4. Section 17 deals with liability to pay relief or compensation
in certain cases. As per sub-section (1), where death of, or
injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage to any
property or environment has resulted from an accident or the
adverse impact of an activity or operation or process under
any enactment specified in Schedule I, the person responsible
shall be liable to pay such relief or compensation for such
318
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
death, injury or damage. Sub-section (2) says that if the death,
injury or damage cannot be attributed to any single activity or
operation or process but is the combined or resultant effect of
several such activities, operations and processes, NGT may
apportion the liability for relief compensation amongst those
responsible for such activities, operations and processes on
an equitable basis. In case of an accident, NGT shall apply
the principle of no fault.
12.5. We now come to Section 19 which deals with the procedure
and powers of NGT. Sub-section (1) says that NGT shall not
be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural
justice. For the purposes of discharging its functions, NGT shall
have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of
the matters mentioned in sub-section (4) and as per Clause (i),
it has the mandate to pass an interim order (including granting
an injunction or stay) after providing the parties concerned an
opportunity to be heard on any application made or appeal
filed under the said Act.