Environmental Compensation Can’t Be Imposed Without Giving Notice to Violator

Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 29th March 2020

Public Works Department, GNCTD v Central Pollution Board [Writ Petition (civil) 2693/2020; Delhi High Court]

Facts:

            In the present petition, the Public Works Department of the Delhi Government had challenged the Demand Letters dated 8^th April, 2019, 15^th May, 2019 and 17^th September, 2019. These letters were issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) demanding Environmental Compensation of ₹ 1 crore from the petitioner under Section 5 of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 

            The other side, Mr. Baklendu Shekhar representing the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) submitted that prior to the issuance of the impugned orders, the respondent had carried out inspections repeatedly. Meetings had been conducted regularly with the petitioner for adhering to the “Guidelines of dust mitigation measures in handling construction material and C&D Wastes”. The petitioner non-complied with the guidelines that the Impugned Direction had first passed.

Judgment:

            Justice Navin Chawla, who was hearing the case questioned the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to reconsider its decision after providing a hearing opportunity to the petitioner. The Delhi High Court upholding the principles of natural justice stated that an order imposing environmental costs cannot be passed without giving a prior notice to the alleged violator. 

            When the court sought to inquire, the respondent admitted that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner with regards to Environmental Compensation. The court therefore observed that the petitioner was not granted a pre-decisional or a post-decisional hearing on the levy of the Environmental Compensation by the respondent. Further, it was directed by the court that the respondent was to reconsider the contents of the present petition as a representation of the petitioner against levy of the Environmental Compensation. 

            Keeping in light the principles of natural justice, the court directed the respondent to pass a speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If such order is averse to the petitioner, they shall be at the liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. The court therefore upheld the natural justice principles with an equal opportunity of hearing.