SC stays NGT direction for punitive action against Executive Officer in Dasna, Ghaziabad water body pollution case

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih issued a notice to the respondent and scheduled the matter for December 9. The Supreme Court stayed the NGT's direction to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) to initiate punitive action against the local body.

"In the meantime, there will be a stay on the operation of paragraph 13 of the order dated July 4, 2024, subject to the condition that the appellant deposits the compensation amount with this Court by December 2, 2024," the Supreme Court stated in its October 23 order.

Representing the petitioner, Advocate on Record Sumeer Sodhi and advocate Chaitanya Sharma appeared in the case.

The NGT case pertains to pollution in a pond near Siddha Peeth Devi Temple in Dasna, Ghaziabad, which has been under scrutiny since January 2022 for the contamination of a water body in Dasna village, Pargana Dasna, Ghaziabad.

In its July 4, 2024 order, the NGT directed the UPPCB to explain why punitive, preventive, and remedial actions had not been taken against the local body for violating environmental norms. Subsequently, on August 23, 2024, the NGT imposed an interim environmental compensation of Rs. 23,72,000 on Nagar Panchayat, Dasna.

In an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat challenged these orders. Represented by Sumeer Sodhi, the appellant argued that the officers against whom punitive action was proposed cannot be held responsible, as approvals were pending from the state government. Accepting this submission, the Supreme Court granted interim protection to the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat.

The petitioner raised concerns over the interim orders dated July 4 and August 23, 2024, passed by the NGT's Principal Bench in New Delhi, which directed the UPPCB to take punitive action and imposed an interim environmental compensation of Rs. 23,72,000 on the Nagar Panchayat, Dasna.

"The present case raises substantial legal questions regarding the implementation of environmental norms and the challenges faced by local bodies in adhering to them. As per environmental laws and the Indian Constitution, no person or entity should face penalties without due process and consideration of mitigating factors," the Supreme Court stated.

The case centres on the establishment and operation of a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) by Nagar Panchayat, Dasna. The Tribunal found the STP non-functional and imposed a penalty for alleged violations under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. However, the appellant contends that the Tribunal overlooked several critical factors, including substantial efforts by the Nagar Panchayat towards establishing the STP, which was partially completed. Efforts to secure necessary funding and approvals from the state government to complete the STP infrastructure are ongoing, and the Nagar Panchayat faces genuine technical and financial challenges in fully implementing environmental measures, the petition argued.

The appellant submitted representations to the Tribunal, outlining these challenges. "However, in its impugned interim order, the Tribunal did not adequately consider these factors and imposed a heavy penalty on the appellant. Such punitive orders should not have been issued against the Panchayat, as its role in approvals and establishing STPs is minimal," the petition stated.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal directed the UPPCB to assess the functional efficacy of the STP. The UPPCB report indicated that certain STP components were yet to be installed or made operational.

"The Tribunal failed to acknowledge the efforts and systemic challenges faced by the Nagar Panchayat. Shockingly, despite the appellant's explanations and requests for consideration of aggravating factors, the Tribunal imposed the penalty. The appellant argues that this approach violates principles of natural justice and disregards the practical challenges local bodies face in implementing environmental measures," the petitioner argued.

"The impugned orders are disproportionate. While environmental compliance is essential, the approach must be realistic, considerate of local challenges, and aimed at encouraging compliance rather than imposing punitive measures. The appellant contends that the Tribunal's order, by imposing a substantial penalty without adequately considering these factors, may hinder rather than support environmental protection efforts," the petitioner added. (ANI)