SC sets aside part of NGT judgment

The Supreme Court today set aside the Judgment of NGT, Bhopal to the extent it directed the State of MP to deposit of Rs.25 crores by way of security and directions on all dealers or petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles which do not displaying valid PUC Certificates.

A bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Indira Banerjee directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to strictly implement compliance of Rules 115 and 116 and penalize all those who contravene the said Rules in accordance with the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. The Registration Certificate of vehicles which do not possess a valid PUC Certificate shall be forthwith suspended and/or cancelled, and penal measures initiated against the owner and/or the person(s) in possession and/or control of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law.

The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal, directing that motor vehicles not complying with the requirement of displaying a valid “Pollution Under Control” (PUC) Certificate would suffer the consequence of suspension and/or revocation of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, and would also not be provided with fuel by any dealer or petrol pump, as well as an order dated 03.08.2015 rejecting the application of review, but granting the State further period of sixty days for compliance of the order under review on condition of the State making a deposit of Rs.25 crores with the Registrar of the Tribunal within a week by way of security for compliance with the order, failing which the security deposit would be utilized for environmental needs under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

The Supreme Court has observed, “Over the last several decades, there has been a growing concern worldwide, over pollution and the consequential decline in air quality. Increase in pollution has led to loss of vegetative cover and ecological/biological diversity, excessive concentration of harmful chemicals in the ambient atmosphere, growing risks of environmental accidents and has posed a threat to life support systems.”

“In the United Nations Conference on Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972 it was resolved to protect environment including the quality of air, and to control air pollution. At the said conference the Indian Government voiced environmental concern and emphasized on the need to take steps to improve the environment,” noted by the Court. The court said, Keeping view the decisions taken at the Stockholm Conference, the Indian Parliament enacted the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Act, to, inter alia, provide for the prevention and abatement of our pollution.   

The Court said, “It is well settled that when a Statute or a Statutory Rules prescribed a penalty for any act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated in the Statute or a Statutory Rules can be imposed. It is well settled that when Statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done only in that manner. There can be no doubt that strong measures must be taken to protect the environment and improve the air quality whenever there is contravention of statutory rules causing environmental pollution. Stringent action has to be taken, but in accordance with law. Stoppage of supply of fuel to vehicles not complying with the requirement to have and/or display a valid PUC Certificate is not contemplated either in the 1989 Rules or in the NGT Act. Motor Vehicles not complying with the requirement of possessing and/or displaying a valid PUC Certificate cannot be debarred from being supplied fuel.”

It further said, “In passing blanket direction, directing the appellant State Government to ensure that no dealer and/or outlet and/or petrol pump should supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate, de hors the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the learned Tribunal overlooked the fact that no vehicle can either be repaired to comply with pollution norms, nor tested for compliance with the political norms upon repair, without fuel.”

“This Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to pass orders directing the Appellant State Government to issue orders, instructions or directions on dealers, outlets and petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate. The first two questions are answered accordingly,” said the Court.

It held, the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are binding on and enforceable against the Appellant State. As observed above, the learned Tribunal had the power, authority and jurisdiction to direct the Appellant State to strictly implement compliance with Rules 115 and 116. An order of the Tribunal under the NGT Act is enforceable in the manner provided in Section 25 of the NGT Act. There is no provision in the NGT Act for deposit of security to secure compliance of an order of the Tribunal. The penalty for failure to comply with an order of the Tribunal entails the penalty prescribed in Sections 26 and 28 of the NGT Act. The learned Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to direct the appellant State to deposit Rs.25 crores to secure compliance with its order. In any case such an order should not have been passed in review when the initial order did not contain any direction for security deposit. The third question is accordingly answered. 

Read the order here;