Penal liability under Section 26 NGT Act for non-compliance requires proof of responsibility and power over the prohibited act, absent which penalty on individuals like the Mayor is unsustainable.

2025 INSC 775

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

DR. I.S. TOMAR

Vs.

INVERTIS UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS ETC.

( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )

Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014 with Civil Appeal No. 5631-5633 of 2024

Decided on : 23-05-2025

Penal liability under Section 26 NGT Act for non-compliance requires proof of responsibility and power over the prohibited act, absent which penalty on individuals like the Mayor is unsustainable.

A. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Section 26(1) — Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Tribunal — Scope of liability — Strict construction of penal provision — Liability contingent upon establishing responsibility for the prohibited act and existence of power to prevent it — Appellant, as Mayor, not a party to original proceedings, not served, and without executive powers to direct Municipal Corporation to cease dumping — Absence of material showing his responsibility for continued dumping — Cannot be held liable for failure to comply with NGT orders under Section 26(1). (Paras 12, 13, 14)

B. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Section 26(1) — Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Tribunal — Liability of individuals — Mayor vs. Commissioner — Executive powers of Municipal Corporation vest in the Commissioner — Mayor’s role and lack of executive power preclude finding of failure to comply for continued dumping. (Paras 1, 9, 12(v), 14)

C. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Section 26(1) — Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Tribunal — Mens Rea / Wilful Default — Imposition of civil imprisonment and fine on Commissioner — Absence of finding of wilful default on the part of the Commissioner — Such penalty cannot be justified without establishing wilful breach. (Para 20)

D. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rule 2A — Disobedience of injunction — Applicability to NGT proceedings — Appellant not a party to proceedings where prohibitory orders were issued and not claiming through the Municipal Corporation — Rule 2A not applicable to impose penalty on the appellant. (Para 18)

E. Environmental Law — Municipal Solid Waste Management — Dumping of waste in violation of NGT orders — Liability of Municipal Corporation — Failure to remove waste from site after prohibitory orders — Breach sufficient to justify daily penalty imposed by NGT. (Paras 19, 20)

F. Courts and Tribunals — National Green Tribunal — Allegations of bias — Utterances by public official — Making allegations of bias or that the NGT had “pre-decided” the issue amounts to scandalizing the Tribunal — Apology tendered for such utterances, if accepted, may preclude further action for contempt/scandalizing but not necessarily for non-compliance with orders by an entity under their purview. (Paras 7, 15, 16, 17)

G. Public Authorities — Mayor of Municipal Corporation — Role and responsibilities — Holding a responsible post and being the first citizen — Duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution to protect the environment — Duty to bring violations of Municipal Solid Waste Rules to the notice of the Commissioner — Conduct and statements reflecting on the public office and environmental responsibility. (Para 16)

H. Practice and Procedure — NGT proceedings — Service of notice — Appellant not a party to the original applications and not served with notice — Grounds for challenging liability. (Paras 9, 12(i), 12(ii))

I. Practice and Procedure — Appeals — Stay of NGT order by Supreme Court retrospectively nullifying period of alleged contravention — While the particular order might have been stayed, other prohibitory orders might still be effective, and admission of non-compliance by the entity is key. (Para 6, 11, 12(iii), 19)

J. Practice and Procedure — Evidence — Local Commissioner Report — Report indicating continued dumping of solid waste at the site constitutes evidence of non-compliance by the responsible entity. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J. – The issue involved in these appeals is very limited. Whether the appellants can be subjected to a penalty by the National Green Tribunal (for short ‘the NGT’) in exercise of powers under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short ‘the NGT Act’) on account of their failure to comply with the orders passed by it. The appellants are Dr. I.S. Tomar, the then Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly (in Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014) the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly and its Commissioner (in Civil Appeal Nos. 5631-5633 of 2024).

2. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 24th October 2013, of the NGT, wherein the NGT, inter alia, found that the Mayor and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, had violated the orders dated 28th May 2013 and 18th July 2013. Accordingly, the NGT punished the Mayor and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, with civil imprisonment till rising of the Court and a payment of a fine of Rs.5 lakhs each. The NGT also imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, for causing degradation to the environment and injury to public health for the period from 28th May 2013 to 27th July 2013. Paragraph No. 45 of the impugned Judgment reads thus:

FACTUAL ASPECTS

3. Rayons-Enlighting Humanity, Invertis University, and a group of residents of Village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly, had filed separate Original Applications before the NGT, challenging the establishment and operation of a municipal solid waste management plant, a project of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, located at Village Razau Paraspur, Bareilly. The applicants before the NGT contended that the plant was set up in violation of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (for short ‘MoEFCC’) and prayed for quashing of the circular dated 15th January 2008 of the MoEFCC which permitted the establishment and operation of the plant.

4. The NGT heard arguments on all three Original Applications. While reserving its judgment on 28th May 2013, the NGT directed that in the meanwhile, no municipal solid waste shall be dumped at the site in question.

5. The NGT, vide its order dated 18th July 2013, allowed the Original Applications. The NGT directed the immediate closure of the solid waste management plant. It restrained the Corporation from dumping any further municipal waste.

It also ordered the removal of all municipal waste within four weeks from the date of the order.

6. Against this order of the NGT dated 18th July 2013, Civil Appeal No. 7215 of 2013 was filed before this Court, and this Court vide order dated 13th September 2013, stayed the directions issued by the NGT.

7. After the pronouncement of the judgment dated 18th July 2013 by the NGT, the applicants before the NGT filed three different miscellaneous applications. These miscellaneous applications were converted into Original Applications by the NGT. The applicants before the NGT alleged that dumping of solid waste had continued at the site in question, despite the clear directions of the NGT. A specific allegation was also made against the Appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014 who served as the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation that he was not only instrumental in violation of the orders of the NGT but he has been making undesirable statements against the judgment of the NGT by saying that the interest of common people has been defeated against money power and the judgment is a ‘one-sided’ judgment. These statements were made to a press reporter from a newspaper Amar Ujala and were also reported by other newspapers.

8. On these applications, the NGT delivered the impugned Judgment dated 24th October 2013. On the Appellant’s remarks in his press interview, the NGT declined to initiate any proceedings against him in view of the unconditional apology tendered. The NGT, inter alia, also found that the appellant and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, had intentionally violated the orders of the NGT dated 28th May 2013 and 18th July 2013. Accordingly, the NGT punished the appellant and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, with civil imprisonment till rising of the Court and payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs each. The NGT also imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh per day on the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, for causing degradation to the environment and injury to public health for the period from 28th May 2013 to 27th July 2013. The NGT also directed the removal of the solid waste. It was also brought to the notice of the NGT that this Court by order dated 13th September 2013 had stayed the directions contained in paragraph 49 of NGT’s judgment dated 18th July 2013.

SUBMISSIONS

Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the appellant was not a party to the Original Application No. 99 of 2013 on which orders dated 28th May, 2013 and 18th July, 2013 were passed. Learned counsel pointed out that at the relevant time, the appellant was the Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Bareilley. Respondent No. 4 in the Original Application was the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, through its Commissioner. He submitted that all the executive powers of the Municipal Corporation vest in the Commissioner, and therefore, assuming that orders of the NGT were breached by continuing the dumping of municipal solid waste at the site in question, there is no violation by the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that for certain utterances attributed to the appellant, he has tendered an unconditional apology in writing. He pointed out that in the Miscellaneous Applications filed before the NGT for taking an action under Section 26 of the NGT Act, the appellant was respondent No. 5. He submitted that the apology tendered by the appellant has been accepted, as can be seen from paragraph 33 of the impugned Judgment. The NGT has not assigned any reasons for holding that the appellant has violated the orders dated 28th May, 2013 and 18th July, 2013. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason for punishing the appellant with civil imprisonment till rising of the Court and directing payment of Rs. 5 lakhs.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the statements made by the appellant to a press reporter of the daily Amar Ujala were highly objectionable. The appellant went to the extent of alleging that everything was pre-decided by the NGT. He submitted that this amounts to scandalizing the NGT. He submitted that the appellant, being the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, was also responsible for implementing both the orders of the NGT. He submitted that, in fact, NGT has been very lenient with the appellants as the maximum imprisonment which can be granted under Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the NGT Act is of three years. Even a fine amount is reasonable considering the environmental damage caused by the acts of the Municipal Corporation.

Civil Appeal Nos. 5631-5633 of 2024

11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no finding has been recorded that there was a willful breach of the orders passed by the NGT. Moreover, the order passed by NGT on 18th July, 2013 remained stayed till 23rd March, 2018 in Civil Appeal preferred by the appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that Civil Appeal No.7215 of 2013 was filed against the Order dated 18th July, 2013. The said appeal was withdrawn by the then Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, without any authority. The submission is that the directions issued under the impugned Judgment are too harsh. The response of the first respondent is that the Corporation has made a clear violation as can be seen from the report of the Commissioner.

CONSIDERATION

Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014

12. After considering the submissions made across the Bar and after perusing the impugned Judgment and other documents, following factual aspects emerge as far as Civil Appeal Nos. 4599-4601 of 2014 are concerned:

13. Section 26 of the NGT Act reads thus:

14. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 is a penal provision. Therefore, it must be strictly construed. The direction of the NGT was to stop the dumping of municipal solid waste. To prove the failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the direction, it must be established that it was the appellant who was responsible for dumping solid wastes at the site after prohibitory orders were passed by the NGT. A person can be said to have failed to comply with the direction issued by the NGT, provided it is shown that the person against whom a direction is issued has the power to prevent the act which was prohibited by the NGT. As it is not shown that the appellant had executive powers to direct the Municipal Corporation to stop dumping on the site, it is impossible to record a finding that there was a failure on the part of the appellant to comply with both orders.

15. Perhaps, the appellant was responsible for creating a peculiar situation against himself. While talking to press reporter of daily Amar Ujala, he gave following answers:

16. Firstly, the appellant was holding a responsible post of the first citizen of the city, of which he was the Mayor. Secondly, as a citizen of India, it was his fundamental duty, as per Clause (g) of Article 51A, to protect the environment. Thirdly, as the Mayor of the city, it was his duty to bring to the notice of the Commissioner, the violations of the provisions of Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2016. Fourthly, making an allegation that the NGT had “pre-decided” the issue amounts to scandalizing the NGT and fifthly, the appellant ought to have appreciated that the order of the NGT was for protecting the environment.

17. The appellant has tendered an unconditional apology for the utterances to the media. As can be seen from the impugned Judgment, the NGT was rightly disturbed to see huge heaps of municipal solid waste lying at the site. As can be seen from paragraph 33 of the impugned Judgment, with some reluctance, the NGT accepted the appellant’s unconditional apology for his utterances.

18. After accepting the apology of the appellant, as there was no failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the orders, penal provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 could not have been invoked against the appellant. The NGT has purported to invoke the provisions of Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant was not a party to the proceedings in which prohibitory orders were made. Moreover, it cannot be said that the appellant was claiming through the Municipal Corporation, which was a party before the NGT.

Civil Appeal Nos.5631-33 of 2024

19. In the applications under Section 26(1) of the NGT Act on 05th August, 2013, an Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner. He submitted a report dated 13th August, 2013. The Court Commissioner, in his report, observed that solid waste was being dumped at the site. The stand of the Municipal Corporation was that after the Orders dated 28th May, 2013 and 18th July, 2013 were passed, the Corporation took steps to remove the waste. However, not all the waste could be removed. The direction issued under Order dated 18th July, 2013 was against the Municipal Corporation not to dump any waste at the site and to remove all the municipal waste already dumped at the site within four weeks. However, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it was accepted that the entire municipal waste could not be removed. Thus, admittedly, there was a breach of the very important direction issued under Order dated 18th July, 2013, to remove the waste from the site.

20. By the impugned Order, the Municipal Corporation was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per day. This direction was fully justified. The Commissioner was penalized by sentencing him to civil imprisonment till rising of the Court and payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs. There is no finding recorded that there was a wilful default on the part of the Commissioner. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment and penalty cannot be justified.

21. Hence, we pass the following order: