Environmental Compliance - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that Pollution Control Boards can impose restitutionary and compensatory damages, including ex-ante bank guarantees, under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts. This power is distinct from punitive penalties and is grounded in the 'Polluter Pays' principle to remediate environmental damage. Facts Of The Case: The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) issued show cause notices in 2006 to multiple entities, including residential and commercial complexes, for operating without the mandatory "consent to establish" and "consent to operate" under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. As a condition for granting consent, the DPCC demanded the payment of fixed sums a...

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the NGT's decision that the petrol pump complied with environmental norms under CPCB guidelines. It imposed costs of ₹50,000 for suppressing parallel proceedings before the High Court, emphasizing judicial integrity. The Court clarified that challenges under state municipal laws remain open for independent adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over the construction of a petrol pump by Reliance BP Mobility Ltd. on Khasra No. 109/1/2 in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The appellants, including Arun Kumar Sharma and others, challenged the project before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), alleging violations of environmental guidelines, including improper distance from residential areas, schools, and hospitals as per CPCB norm...

Tag: Environmental Compliance

Parallel Proceedings Lead to Heavy Costs: Supreme Court Slams Appellant for Hiding Facts, Upholds Environmental Compliance