# TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS

- **Citation:** [2017] 12 S.C.R. 956
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1359 of2017
- **Bench:** Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/techi-tagi-tara-v-rajendra-singh-bhandari-ors-31775
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - ss.2(m), 14 and 15 -
Challenge to the constitution of State Pollution Control Boards
(SPCBs) before National Green Tribunal - NGT while observing
that membe1:s appointed in .SPCBs of various States lacked expertise/
qualifications as suggested by Central Govt., issued directions to
State Governments to reconsider the appointments already made
and also laid guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs - Proprie(v
of - Held: NGT exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the State
Governments to reconsider the appointme/1/s and in laying down
guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs - For NGT to exercise its
jurisdiction, there must be a substantial question relating to the
environment and that question must arise in a dispute - There must
be a clainiant raising that dispute which dispute is capable of
settlement by NGT by grant of some relief uls.15 - However,
appointment of the Chairperson and members of SPCBs can neither
be classified as a substantial question relating to the environment
nor can it be a 'dispute' as such or even for the purpose of the
· 2010 Act -Such appointments can be disputes for constitutional
courts to resolve through a writ of quo warranto -Directions issued
by NGT set aside as being without jurisdiction - Howeve1; in view
of the fact that many disconcerting jl1cts have come out with regard
to appointments/nominations made to SPCBs, directions issued to
executive in all the States to frame guidelines/recruitment mies within
six months and ensure that suitable professionals and experts are
appointed to the SPCBs - Further, it is leji open to public spirited
individuals to move appropriate High Court for issuance of a writ
of quo warranto if any person who does not meet the statutory or
constitutional requirements is appointed as a Chairperson or a
member of any SPCB or is presently continuing as such - Constitution
of India -Arts. 21, 48A, 5JA(g) - Water (Prevention and Control of
956
TECH! T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
957
Pollution) Act, 1974 - s. 4(2). 8 - Air (Prevention and Control of A
Pol/11tion) Act, 1981 - s.5(2), 10.
Environment - State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs)
constituted u/ss. 4(2) ~[Water Act and 5(2) ofAir Act -Appointments
to - importance of deliberative process - Discussed - Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - s. 4(2), 8-Air B
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - s.5(2).
Environment - Preservation and protection of - Duty of -
Discussed.
Words and Phrases - "Dispute" - Meaning of, in the context
of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Explained.
C
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The protection and preservation of the
environment is extremely vital and unless this responsibility is
taken very seriously, particularly by the State Governments and D
the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), there will be adverse
consequences for future generations. Issues of sustainable
development, public trust and intergenerational equity arc not
mere catch words, but arc concepts of great importance in
environmental jurisprudence. Perhaps appreciating and
anticipating this, Article 48A was introduced in the Constitution
E
of India. Article 51A (g) of the Constitution indicates the
fundamental duties of every citizen of the country, one of them
being to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures. Apart from the natural law obligation to protect
and preserve the environment, there is also a constitutional
obligation to do so. Article 21 of the Constitution has been given
a very wide amplitude by several decisions of this Court, including
on issues concerning the environment. [Para 2) [964-D-G]
1.2 One of the principal attributes of good governance is
the establishment of viable institutions comprising professionally
competent persons and the strengthening of such institutions so
that the duties and responsibilities conf

## Text

_Characters 0–39,887 of 69,077. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39887 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 956
TECH! TAGI TARA
v.
RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1359 of2017)
SEPTEMBER22, 2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - ss.2(m), 14 and 15 -
Challenge to the constitution of State Pollution Control Boards
(SPCBs) before National Green Tribunal - NGT while observing
that membe1:s appointed in .SPCBs of various States lacked expertise/
qualifications as suggested by Central Govt., issued directions to
State Governments to reconsider the appointments already made
and also laid guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs - Proprie(v
of - Held: NGT exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the State
Governments to reconsider the appointme/1/s and in laying down
guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs - For NGT to exercise its
jurisdiction, there must be a substantial question relating to the
environment and that question must arise in a dispute - There must
be a clainiant raising that dispute which dispute is capable of
settlement by NGT by grant of some relief uls.15 - However,
appointment of the Chairperson and members of SPCBs can neither
be classified as a substantial question relating to the environment
nor can it be a 'dispute' as such or even for the purpose of the
· 2010 Act -Such appointments can be disputes for constitutional
courts to resolve through a writ of quo warranto -Directions issued
by NGT set aside as being without jurisdiction - Howeve1; in view
of the fact that many disconcerting jl1cts have come out with regard
to appointments/nominations made to SPCBs, directions issued to
executive in all the States to frame guidelines/recruitment mies within
six months and ensure that suitable professionals and experts are
appointed to the SPCBs - Further, it is leji open to public spirited
individuals to move appropriate High Court for issuance of a writ
of quo warranto if any person who does not meet the statutory or
constitutional requirements is appointed as a Chairperson or a
member of any SPCB or is presently continuing as such - Constitution
of India -Arts. 21, 48A, 5JA(g) - Water (Prevention and Control of
956
TECH! T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
957
Pollution) Act, 1974 - s. 4(2). 8 - Air (Prevention and Control of A
Pol/11tion) Act, 1981 - s.5(2), 10.
Environment - State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs)
constituted u/ss. 4(2) ~[Water Act and 5(2) ofAir Act -Appointments
to - importance of deliberative process - Discussed - Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - s. 4(2), 8-Air B
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - s.5(2).
Environment - Preservation and protection of - Duty of -
Discussed.
Words and Phrases - "Dispute" - Meaning of, in the context
of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Explained.
C
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The protection and preservation of the
environment is extremely vital and unless this responsibility is
taken very seriously, particularly by the State Governments and D
the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), there will be adverse
consequences for future generations. Issues of sustainable
development, public trust and intergenerational equity arc not
mere catch words, but arc concepts of great importance in
environmental jurisprudence. Perhaps appreciating and
anticipating this, Article 48A was introduced in the Constitution
E
of India. Article 51A (g) of the Constitution indicates the
fundamental duties of every citizen of the country, one of them
being to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures. Apart from the natural law obligation to protect
and preserve the environment, there is also a constitutional
obligation to do so. Article 21 of the Constitution has been given
a very wide amplitude by several decisions of this Court, including
on issues concerning the environment. [Para 2) [964-D-G]
1.2 One of the principal attributes of good governance is
the establishment of viable institutions comprising professionally
competent persons and the strengthening of such institutions so
that the duties and responsibilities conferred on them are
performed with dedication and sincerity in public interest. This
is applicable not only to administrative bodies but more so to
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A statutory authorities - more so, because statutory authorities are
the creation of a law made by a competent legislature,
representing the will of the people. State Pollution Control Boards
(or SPCBs) constituted under the provisions of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air
B
c
D
E
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 fall in this
category but many of them possess only a few or sometimes none
of the above attributes of good governance and again a few or
none of them arc adequately empowered. This is a serious
problem haunting the SPCBs for at least two decades (if not more).
[Paras 3, 4] [965-D-E]
2.1 On a combined reading of Sections 2(m), 14 and 15 of
the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, it is clear to that for
exercise of jurisdiction by NGT there must be a substantial
question relating to the environment and that question must arise
in a dispute- it should not be an academic question. There must
also be a claimant raising that dispute which dispute is capable of
settlement by the NGT by the grant of some relief which could
be in the nature of compensation or restitution of property
damaged or restitution of the environment and any other
incidental or ancillary relief connected therewith. The appointment
of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs cannot be classified
in any circumstance as a substantial question relating to the
environment. At best it could be a substantial question relating
to their appointment. Moreover, their appointment is not a
dispute as normally understood. [Paras 17, 18] (979-D-E;
979-F-G]
F
2.2 In the context of the 2010 Act, a dispute would be the
assertion of a right or an interest or a claim met by contrary claims
on the other side. In other words, the dispute must be one of
substance and not of form. The appointments concerned in the
present case arc not 'disputes' as such or even disputes for the
G purposes of the 2010 Act- they could be disputes for a
constitutional court to resolve through a writ of quo warranto,
but certainly not for the NGT to venture into. The failure of the
State Government to appoint professional and experienced
persons to key positions in the SPCBs or the failure to appoint
any person at all might incidentally result in an ineffective
H
TECHI TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
959
implementation of the Water Act and the Air Act, but this cannot A
be classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT would
have jurisdiction. Such a failure might be of a statutory obligation
over which, in the present context and not universally, only a
constitutional court would have jurisdiction and not a statutory
body like the NG'I'. The anxiety of the NGT to preserve and B
protect the environment as a part of its statutory functions, is
understood but these concepts cannot be extended to the extent
of enabling the NGT to consider who should be appointed as a
Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or who should not be so
appointed. Additionally, no relief as postulated by Section 15 of
the Act could be granted to a claimant, assuming that a substantial C
question relating to the environment does arise and that a dispute
does exist. [Paras 19, 20] [980-C-GJ
2.3 While it is beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT and also
beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to lay down specific
rules and guidelines for recruitment of the Chairperson and D
members of the SPCBs, there should be considerable
deliberation before an appointment is made and only the best
should be appointed to the SPCB. It is necessary in this regard
for the Executive to consider and frame appropriate rules for the
appointment of such persons who would add lustre and value to
the SPCB. The entire scheme of Article 48A, Article 51A(g) and E
Article 21 of the Constitution, including the principles that have
been accepted and adopted internationally as well as by this Court
such as the principles of sustainable development, public trust
and intergenerational equity arc a clear indication that in matters
relating to the protection and preservation of the environment
F
(through the appointment of officials to the SPCBs) the Central
Government as well as the State Governments have to walk the
extra milc.[Paras 22, 23] [981-E-F, HJ
3~ Some States have implemented the order of the NGT
and removed some members while others have approached G
Supreme Court and obtained an interim stay order. Those officials
who were removed pursuant to the order of the NGT (including
the appellant Techi Tagi Tara) have an independent cause of action
and it is left open to them to challenge their removal in appropriate
and independent proceedings. This is an issue between the
removed official and the State Government- the removal is not a H
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A public interest issue and the situation cannot be reversed.
[Para 21) (981-B-C]
Guidelines by various Committees for the appointment of the
Chairperson and members of the SPCBs -
3.1 The Bhattacharya Committee (1984) proposed that the
B structural organization of SPCBs should consist of technical
services, scientific services, planning, legal services,
administrative services, accounts, training cell and research and
development. The Committee, inter-alia, called for (a)
c
D
E
discouraging the flow of deputationists to the Boards, (b)
upgrading regional laboratories, (c) providing each Board with at
least one mobile laboratory, (d) creating a centralized training
institute, (e) providing, on priority, funds to establish air control
activity, and (f) bestowing the power to make posts at least up to
the rank of environmental engineers/scientists with the Boards.
[Para 26] [983-D-F]
3.2 Similarly, the Belliappa Committee (1990) recommended
(a) introducing elaborate monitoring, reporting and J>rganizational
systems at the national level along with four regional centres and
one training cell in each Board, (b) effecting suitable changes in
the Boards recruitment policy to enable them induct persons with
suitable academic qualifications, and (c) ensuring that the
Chairman and Member-Secretary arc appointed for a minimum
of three years. [Para 27] [983-G; 984-A]
3.3 The Administrative Staff College of India (1994)
recommended, inter alia, that (a) the SPCBs be reoriented for
F
implementing the instrument mix of legislation and regulation,
fiscal incentives, voluntary agreements, information campaigns
and educational programmes, (b) an Annual Environmental Quality
Report be prepared by every SPCB for the concerned State, (c)
an inventory of discharges and effluents disaggregated to the
G district level be prepared, (d) a research cell be formed in each
SPCB and a network be established with the proposed clean
technology centre and (f) model environmental impact
assessments be prepared for major categories of industries.
[Para 28) [984-B-C]
H
TECHI T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
961
3.4 The Menon Committee made recommendations that A
are a part of the communication dated 16th August, 2005 of the
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF). It was also
recommended that (a) in general, State Governments should not
interfere with recruitment policies of the SPCBs, especially where
the Boards arc making efforts to equip their institutions with B
more and better trained engineering and scientific staff, (b) the
statutory independence and functional autonomy given to the
SPCBs should be protected and the Boards should be kept free
from political interference. The Boards should be enabled to make
independent decisions in this regard and (c) the Chairperson of
the SPCB should be a full-time appointee for a period of five
C
years and the Member-Secretary of the SPCB should also be
appointed for a period of five years. [Para 29) (984-D-E]
4. Notwithstanding all these suggestions, recommendations
and guidelines the SPCBs continue to be manned by persons
who do not necessarily have the necessary expertise or D
professional experience to address the issues for which the
SPCBs were established by law. The concern really is not one of
a lack of professional expertise - there is plenty of it available in
the country - but the lack of dedication and willingness to take
advantage of the resources available and instead benefit someone
close to the powers that be. With this couldn't-care-less attitude, E
the environment and public trust arc the immediate casualties.
It would be appropriate that the Executive in all the States frame
appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months,
considering the institutional requirements of the SPCBs and the
law laid down by statute, by Supreme Court and as per the reports
F
of various committees and authorities and ensure that suitable
professionals and experts arc appointed to the SPCBs. Further,
it is left open to public spirited individuals to move the appropriate
High Court for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto if any person
who docs not meet the statutory or constitutional requirements
is appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or is
G
presently continuing as such. [Paras 31-33] [984-H; 985-A-B;
986-F-G; 987-A]
Binay Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand (2002) 50
BLJR 2223 - approved.
H
962
A
B
c
D·
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
Prabhakar v. Joint Directo1; Sericulture Department
(2015) 15 SCC I : (2015] 9 SCR 890; State of Punjab
v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) 5 sec 1 : (2013] 5 SCR 18;
Ashok Kumar fodav v. State of Hm:vana (1985) 4 SCC
417 : [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657; In Rio Dr. Ram Ashray
Yadav (2000) 4 SCC 309 : [2000] 2 SCR 688 - relied
on.
State of UP. v. Jeet S. Bisht. (2007) 6 SCC 586 : [2007]
7 SCR 705 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2002) 50 BLJR 2223
approved
Paras
[20151 9 SCR 890
relied on
Para 18
[2013] 5 SCR 18
relied on
Para 23
(1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657
relied on
Para 25
(2000] 2 SCR 688
relied on
Para 25
(2007] 7 SCR 705
referred to
Para 32
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1359
of2017.
From the impugned final Order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original
Application No.318/20 I 3
WITH
CivilAppealNo. 1561 of2017
Civil Appeal No. 4917of2017
Civil Appeal No. 4936of2017
G .
Ci vii Appeal No. 5735 of2017
Civil Appeal No. 1360of2017
Civil Appeal No. 2481 of2017
Civil Appeal No. 526 of2017
H
Civil Appeal Nos. 8377-8378 of2017
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
963
Civil Appeal No. 9498 of2017
A
CivilAppealNo.10471 of2017
Civil Appeal Nos. 10472-10473 of2017.
P.S. Narasimha, ASG, A. Mariarputham, Adv. Gen., Ranji Thomas,
Subramonium Prasad, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Y.N. Raghupathy, Nishant
B
Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms.Deepa Kulkarni, Amit Agarwal, Sanjay
Kumar Visen, M.R. Shamshad, Tushar Mehta, Dhruv Pali, Himanshu
Pal, Ms.Aruna Mathru, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham,
Amit Arora Ms.Simran 1 eet (for Mis ArputhumAruna and Co.), Guntur
Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms.Monika,
Sukrit R. Kapoor, S.S. Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Ankit Raj, Vaibhav
C
Prakash, Ms.Ruchi Kohli, R. Rakesh Sharma, K.V. Vijayakumar,
Abhishek, P.S. Narasimha, P. Yenkat Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi (for
Mis Venkat Palwai Law Associates), Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Naresh
Kumar Gaur, Ashok Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
A.S. Nadkarni, ASG, D.K. Singh, AAG, Yivek Gupta, Mukesh
D
Verma, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Yash Pal Dhingra, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms.
Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Atul Jha, Sandeep
Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ms.Ruchira Gupta, Shishir Deshpande,
Ms.Mona Sinha, Arjun Garg, Ranjan Mukherjee, P.V. Yogeswaran, M.
K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael,
E
Z.H. Isaac Raiding, Som Raj Choudhary, Raja Chattejee, Chanchal Kumar
Ganguli, Piyush Sachdev, Ms. Runa Bhuyan, Shubham Bhalla, Ritesh
Khatri, Gaurang Kanth, Chandan Kumar, Ms.Eshita Baruah, K.V.
Jagdishvaran, Ms. G Indira, V.G Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,
Manu Sundaram, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jasal Wahi, Ms.Mamta
Singh, Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Ms. Puja Singh, D.K. Singh, Anuvrat
F
Sharma, Koma! Mundhra, Saurabh Agrawal, Ad vs. for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. This batch of appeals is directed
lh
against the judgment and order dated 24 August, 2016 passed by the
G
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the
NGT') in Original Application No. 318 of 2013. 1 On a reading of the
judgment and order passed by the NGT, it is quite clear that the Tribunal
was perturbed and anguished that some persons appointed to the State
'Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. State ofUttarakhand and others
H
964
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
Pollution Control Boards (for short 'SPCBs') did not have, according to
the NGT, the necessary expertise or qualifications to be members or
chairpersons of such high powered and specialized statutory bodies and
therefore did not deserve their appointment or nomination. While we
fully commiserate with the NGT and share the pain and anguish, we are
of the view that the Tribunal has, at law, exceeded its jurisdiction in
directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointments and in
laying down guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs, however wellmcaning they might be. Therefore, we set aside the decision of the NGT,
but note that a large number of disconcerting facts have been brought
out in the judgment which need serious consideration by those in authority,
particularly the State Governments that make appointments or
nominations to the SPCBs. Such appointments should not be made
casually or without due application of mind considering the duties, functions
and responsibilities of the SPCBs.
2. Why is it important to be more than careful in making such
appointments? There can be no doubt that the protection and preservation
of the environment is extremely vital for all of us and unless this
responsibility is taken very seriously, particularly by the State Governments
and the SPCBs, we arc inviting trouble that will have adverse
consequences for future generations. Issues of sustainable development,
public trust and intergenerational equity arc not mere catch words, but
are concepts of great importance in environmental j urisprudcnce. Perhaps
appreciating and anticipating this, Article 48A was introduced in the
Constitution and this Article reads as follows:
"Protection and improvement of environment and
safeguarding of forests and wild life - The State shall endeavour
to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wild life of the country."
Similarly Article 5 IA (g) of the Constitution indicates the fundamental
duties of every citizen of the country, one of them being to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild
life, and to have compassion for living creatures. 2 It is quite clear that
2 51 A. Fundamental dutics.-lt shall be the duty of every citizen of India-
( a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
(h) to (k) xxx xxx xxx
TECHI T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
965
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)
apart from the natural law obligation to protect and preserve the
A
environment, there is also a constitutional obligation to do so.
Unfortunately, despite this, our society has been witnessing over the last
few decades, to repeated onslaughts against the environment, sometimes
in the name of development and sometimes because our society just
does not seem to care. In this context we may also mention Article 21
of the Constitution which has been given a very wide amplitude by several
decisions of this Court, including on issues concerning the environment.
B
The judgment of the NGT draws attention to some of these aspects but
essentially points to the 'who-cares' attitude adopted by several State
Governments. It is this attitude that compelled a public spirited
environmentally conscious individual to challenge the composition of the
C
SPCB in the State of Uttarakhand and consequently the necessity of
being extra careful in making appointments to the SPCB.
3. One of the principal attributes of good governance is the
·establishment of viable institutions comprising professionally competent
persons and the strengthening of such institutions so that the duties and
D
responsibilities conferred on them are performed with dedication and
sincerity in public interest. This is applicable not only to administrative
bodies but more so to statutory authorities - more so, because statutory
authorities are the creation of a law made by a competent legislature,
representing the will of the people.
4. State Pollution Control Boards (or SPCBs) constituted under
the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and theAir (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 3 fall in
this category but many of them possess only a few or sometimes none
E
of the above attributes of good governance and again a few or none of F
them are adequately empowered. This is a serious problem haunting the
SPCBs for at least two decades (if not more).
5. The composition of the SPCB is provided for in Section 4(2) of
the Water Act and this reads as follows (Section 5(2) of the Air Act is
similar):
G
"4(2) A State Board shall consist of the following members,
namely:-
3 Henceforth the Water Act and the Air Act
H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A
(a) a chairman, being a person having special knowledge or
practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental
protection or a person having knowledge and experience in
administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid, to be
nominated by the State Government:
B .
Provided that the chairman may be either whole-time or parttime as the State Government may think fit;
(b) such number of officials, not exceeding five, to be nominated
by the State Government to represent that Government;
( c) such number of persons, not exceeding five, to be nominated
C
by the State Government from amongst the members of the local
authorities functioning within the State;
( d) such number of non-officials, not exceeding three, to be
nominated by the State Government to represent the interests of
agriculture, fishery or industry or trade or any other interest which,
D
in the opinion of the State Government, ought to be represented;
( e) two persons to represent the companies or corporations
owned, controlled or managed by the State Government, to be
nominated by that Government;
E ·
(t) A full-time member-secretary, possessing qualifications,
knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or
management aspects of pollution control, to be appointed by the
State Government."
6. One of the earliest communications on our record encouraging
F
professionalism in the SPCBs with a view to empowering them is a
letter of 26th September, 1997 addressed by the Secretary in the Ministry
of Environment and Forest (MoEF) of the Government of India to the
Chief Secretary of every State highlighting the importance of the SPCBs,
the fact that their activities are science and technology based and the
G
necessity of taking relevant factors into consideration while making
appointments to the SPCBs. The letter reads as follows:
H
"Secretary
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government oflndia
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
967
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
September 26, 1997
A
D.0. No. PS/Secy (E&F)/CPCB/97
Dear
The State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees
in Union Territories have been assigned an important role for
prevention and control of pollution from different sources. In
B
recent years, additional responsibilities have been assigned to them
for enforcement of various statutes. Hence, these organizations
need to be suitably strengthened so that they can cope up with the
tasks. In fact, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has also had occasion
to observe on the unsatisfactory performance of State Boards in c
discharging their functions.
The activities of the Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control
Committees are essentially science and technology based. The
Chairman and Member Secretaries are the key functionaries of
the Boards/Committees who are expected to have requisites
D
professional knowledge and experience for providing effective
leadership to their organizations. Under the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 the specific requirements for
appointment to these posts have been laid down.
However, in some State Boards/Committees, the appointments to
these posts are made without due consideration to such
requirements as envisaged under the Acts. Also, another major
problem being faced by these organizations is on account of
frequent changes of Chairmen and Member Secretaries. I request·
you to kindly ensure that appropriate persons arc appointed for
these key positions and they are not frequently changed. Where
the incumbents do not have the prescribed criteria they should be
replnced.
It is requested that this issue may kindly receive your personal
attention on a top priority basis.
With regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Vishwanath Anand)"
E
F
G
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A
7. More importantly and perhaps keeping the diverse nature of
activities of the SPCBs in mind, a conference was held in Coimbatore
on 29th and 30th January, 2001 of the Ministers of Environment and
Forests of the State Governments. The conference recommended, inter
alia, the induction of academicians, professionals, experts and
B
technologists for the effective functioning of the SPCBs. As a follow-up
to the recommendations, a letter was addressed by the Secretary in the
MoEF to the Chief Secretary of every State on 3rd July, 2001. This
letter reads as follows:
"P.V. Jayakrishnan
Secretary
C
D.O. No. PS/Secy (E&F)/CPCB/2001
July3,2001
Dear
In the National Conference of Ministries of Environment
D
and Forests held at Coimbatore on January 29-30, 2001, several
important recommendations were made regarding effective
functioning of the State Pollution Control Boards/ Committees.
E
F
G
H
These include the following:
(i) Induction of academicians, legal professionals, health
experts and technologists as members of the Boards/
Committees.
(ii) Appointment of multi-disciplinary staff
(iii) Ban on recruitment shall be relaxed for the posts
of scientists and engineers in the Pollution Control Boards/
Committees.
(iv) Training of personnel, for which programme shall be drawn
up by the Central Pollution Control Board.
(v) Streamlining of Consent/ Authorization procedures.
(vi) Invcntorization of polluting sources and pollution load.
(vii) Formulation of Annual Action Plans.
(viii) Publication ofannnal State Environment Report.
(ix) Strengthening and upgrading of water and air quality
monitoring and laboratory facilities.
.
TECHI T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
969
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
We had taken up the matter with the respective State Pollution
A
Control Boards/Committees. Since most of the action points
require intervention of the State Governments, I request you kindly
to take necessary action for implementation of the
recommendations.
I look forward to your response at the earliest.
With regards.
Yours Sincerely,
B
Sd/-
(P.V. Jayakrishnan)
C
To Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs"
8. These communications seem to have had little or no impact at
least in one instance as is evident from a reading of a decision of the
Jharkhand High Coui1 dated 15th May, 2002 in Bi11ay Kumar Sinha v.
D
State of Jlturkhamf concerning the Chairperson of the SPCB of that
State. The High Court was compelled to make the following scathing
and unfortunate observations:
"4. On 4th April 2002, when the Chairman appeared before us
and we stmtcd talking to him in order to elicit his views and opinion
E
on the aforesaid questions, what we found has been aptly and
clearly recorded in our order of that day. The extracts read thus:-
"Shri Thakur Bal M ukund Nath Shahdeo, Chairman, State Pollution
Control Board has appeared before us today in person. During
the course of our conversation with him, we found (to our total
horror, surprise, dismay and amazement) that he does not know
F
anything at all about any aspect relating to pollution, or the control
of pollution. In course ofour extensive conversation with him, we
found that the only academic qualification that he boasts of is
'matriculation'. He has no other academic or technical qualification
whatsoever. When, by referring to Section 5(2)(a) of the Air
0
(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, we asked him
whether he has any special knowledge or any practical experience
in respect of any matter relating to the environmental pollution,
his answer was in the negative. We must record that during the
'(2002) 50 BLJR 2223
H
970
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
course of our conversation with Sri Shahdeo, we were constantly
helped and assisted by Mr. Poddar, learned Addi. Advocate
General. We actually impressed upon Mr. Poddar the need of
assisting Sri Shahdeo in answering our questions. Mr. Poddar very
kindly lent his helping hand to us. What emerged was that Mr.
Shahdeo has neither any general or special knowledge, nor any
academic qualification, nor any experience whatsoever that may
have anything to do with any matter or any aspect relating to the
pollution, air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, or any other
pollution of any kind. What to speak of his-having special
knowledge or practical experience, he has neither any knowledge,
general or special, nor any experience, practical or otherwise with
respect to any matters relating to environmental pollution. We
repeatedly asked him to inform us about one single such fact by
which he could lay his claim to hold this office. He failed to inform
us of even a single fact which could qualify him to hold this office.
His only claim was that he is a politico-social worker. We asked
him also as to how he came to be appointed on this post. He says
that he made an application to Mrs. Neelam Nath, Secretary,
Forests, we asked him whether such an application was invited
from him. He says that the application was invited from him. We
asked him whether invitation was extended to him personally by
Mrs. Neelam Nath or did it appear in any advertisement. He says
that he, on his own, gave such an application and that it was neither
invited personally from him nor through any advertisement. Prima
facic, it appears to us that a person who does not have the requisite
qualification, experience, or knowledge has been appointed on
the post of Chairman, Pollution Control Board. Before we proceed
any further, we would like Mr. Poddar, learnedA.A.G. to produce
before us the original records of the Govt. relating to the
appointment of Mr. Shahdeo."
5. It was from this point onwards that a case arose within a case.
Both the issues started being dealt with simultaneously by us,
namely, the issue relating to Sundera Mineral & Chemical Industry
and the propriety, legality and validity of the appointment of Mr.
Shahdeo."
A little later in the judgment it was held:
TECHI T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
971
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
"41. Looked at from the aforesaid legal perspective and in view
A
of our clear findings that Shri Shahdeo did not possess the
qualifications required of the Chairman, State Pollution Control
Board, we have no hesitation, but to hold that it would be a violation
of the law to allow him to continue as the Chairman of the State
Board. We accordingly order and declare that the appointment of B
Shri Shahdeo as Chairman, State Board, was not legal and valid
and hence improperly made and therefore, on these grounds we
order and direct that he cannot continue to function as such. By
issuance of a writ of quo-warranto, therefore, the appointment of
Shri Shahdeo as Chairman, State Board, is quashed and set aside.
Shri Shahdeo shall forthwith and with immediate effect cease to
C
hold the office of Chairman, State Board. The post of Chairman,
State Board is hereby declared to be vacant, and with immediate
effect."
9. Notwithstanding the above decision, communications and orders,
the State Governments continued to display disinterest in the matter of D
professional appointments to the SPCBs. This led to another
communication from the MoEF on 16th August, 2005 (which still did not
have the desired effect) and this communication reads as follows:
"Supreme Court Matter
Most Immediate
E
By Speed Post
No. 23-8/2004-HSMD (Vol.II)
Government oflndia
Ministry of Environment & Forests
(Supreme Court Monitoring Committee)
Room No, 927, Paryavaran Bhawan ·
C.G.0. Complex, Lodhi Road
NewDelhi-110003 108
Dated 16th August, 2005
F
~
G
·The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs
(As per the list enclosed)
Sub: Constitution of the State Pollution Control Board/Pollution
Control Committees (SPCBs PCCs) - regarding
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
A
Dear Sir,
The Supreme Court by its order dated 14-10-2003 in the Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 657/1995 set up a Monitoring Committee to
ensure time-bound implementation of various directions given in
the said order.5 The committee has been visiting several States to
B
monitor the status of implementation of these directions.
During its interaction with various pollution control officials, the
Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) has noticed that
the State Pollution Control Board (SPCBs), Pollution Control
Committee (PCCs) of UTs were not constituted in accordance
c
with the provisions given in the Water Act, 1994 and the Air Act,
1981.
Chairperson of the Board :-
3. The statutory provisions require that Chairpersons appointed
shall be persons having "special knowledge or practical experience
D
in respect of matters relating to environmental protection or a
person having knowledge and experience in administering
institutions dealing with the matter aforesaid"
4. The SCMC has found that in the several cases, the Chief
Secretaries, Environment Secretaries, politicians, MLAs, literary
E
persons and non-technical persons have been appointed as
Chairperson of SPCBs/PCCs.
F
G
H
5. The MGK Menon Committee had recommended in its report
that "The Chairman of the Pollution Control Boards & Committees
should be individuals with a sense of vision and a feeling for the
future. They must have an understanding of the complexity of
modem science and technology since they will be dealing with
highly technical issue. They must have an understanding oflaw.
The chairperson would have to be fully involved in the task of
environment construction and planning appointment of the
Chairperson of the Board should be on full time basis.
Member Secretary of the Board:-
6. Similarly, in respect of the post of Member Secretary the
statutory provisions (Water Act) require that he be full-time,
'Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India
TECH! TAGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
973
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
possessing qualifications, knowledge and experience of scientific,
A
engineering or management aspects of pollution control.
7. In relation to appointment of Member Secretaries, the Menon
Committee has recommended that: '"The incumbent should possess
a post-graduate degree in science, engineering or technology, and
have adequate experience of working in the area of environment
B
protection".
8. The SCMC has found that in several States, persons from IFS
or from the PWD especially from the PHE departments, are either
being appointed or deputed to the post of Member Secretary without
the necessary statutory qualifications.
c
Members:-
9. No effort is being made to appoint persons with adequate
scientific, technical or legal background from the environmental
field as members of the Board. Board members are increasingly
D
being appointed for political purposes. This is leading to ineffective
and inefficient functioning ofSPCBs/PCCs.
l 0. Though the Boards are to function as statutory bodies under
the Air Act, 1981, no specialists in air pollution (as required by the
Air Act, 1981) are being appointed as members. This is a serious
lacuna in constitution of the Boards.
11. During its visits to various States to monitor implementation of
the order dated 14. l 0.2003, the SCMC has observed that the order
of the Supreme Court being efficiently carried out in States that
have competent Chairperson or Member Secretaries. In other
States, due to lack of proper attention at the highest level,
implementation is found to be tardy and without much progress.
E
F
12. The SCMC discussed these issues at its meeting held on 2803-2005 came to the firm conclusion that only technically qualified
professionals should be appointed to the critical positions of
Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members of the Pollution
G
Control Boards so that their functioning can be strengthened as
required in terms of paragraph - 41.l of the Supreme Court's
order dated 14.10.2003.
H
974
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 12 S.C.R.
13. The committee is also of the view that recommendations of
the MGK Menon Committee be fully respected and the
Chairperson should be appointed on full-time basis. Without the
officers it is not possible for any Board to function effectively in
view of the numerous laws and statutes that demand efficient
and effective actions from State Pollution Control Boards.
14. We draw your kind attention to several reports on strengthening
of State Pollution Control Boards. These include:
1) The Bhattacharia Committee, 1984
2) The Belliappa Committee, 1990
3) The ASCI Study, 1994
4) Study of the Sub Group, 1994
15. All these studies were considered during the Evaluation Study
on "Function of the Pollution Control Board" prepared by the
Programme Evaluation Organization of the Planning Commission.
16. The Planning Commission report concluded: "Considering the
interesting technicalities involved in the functions to be performed
by these Boards, it is essential that technical persons possessing
scientific knowledge about matters relating to pollution and pollution
control hold the upper hand''.
17. The conference of Ministers of Environment that took place
in Coimbatore also reiterated at the highest political level, the
decision that the SPCBs should be headed and staffed by
technically competent professionals (and not by journalists or
politicians or administrative officers).
18. The composition of the Boards is.therefore under the scrutiny
of the SCMC and no further appointment of Chairpersons or
Member Secretaries should be carried our which do not meet the
norms given in the statute and elucidated by the Menon Committee.
19. In view of the above, you arc requested to inform this monitoring
Committee regarding the qualifications of the Chairperson, Member
Secretary and Members of the Pollution Control Board, Pollution
Control Committee in your State/ Union Territory. Based on the
information, the committee will examine whether the persons
TECH! T AGI TARA v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS.
975
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)
nominated to these positions meet the statutory norms and the
A
requirements as indicated in the MGK Menon Committee Report
and the Order of the Supreme Court dated 14. l 0.2003 and further
necessary action will be taken in the matter.
20.