Holding

The NGT’s orders imposing environmental compensation are illegal and void for contravening the statutory procedures of the Water Act and the principles of natural justice, and the appeals are allowed.

Summary

The appellant, M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, was ordered by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to pay Rs.18 crore as environmental compensation for alleged illegal discharge of untreated effluents and related violations. The appellant challenged the orders on the ground that it was never made a party to the NGT proceedings, was denied a hearing, and that the NGT relied on a joint committee report that did not follow the statutory procedures under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Supreme Court examined whether the NGT complied with the procedural requirements of the NGT Act, 2010 and the Water Act, and whether the principles of natural justice were violated. It held that the NGT had bypassed the mandatory sampling and notice procedures, failed to implead the appellant, and based its orders on an unchallenged expert report, rendering the orders illegal and void. Consequently, the Court set aside the NGT orders and allowed the appeals, without awarding costs.

Issues considered

The NGT’s order imposing Rs.18 crore compensation violated the procedural requirements of Sections 21 and 22 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Whether the appellant was denied the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, by not being made a party to the proceedings.
Whether the NGT can rely on a joint committee’s report without ensuring statutory compliance and giving the appellant an opportunity to contest it.
Whether the NGT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is valid when it departs from the statutory procedure.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Companies Act, 1913
Companies Act, 1956
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 14A, s. 15, s. 15A, s. 2(a), s. 2(b), s. 2(c), s. 2(f), s. 7, s. 8
Indian Penal Code, 1860
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s. 15, s. 17, s. 19
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s. 21, s. 22, s. 24, s. 43

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the order passed by the National Green Tribunal imposing a compensation of ₹18 crores on the appellant for alleged environmental violations; and whether the tribunal adhered to fair procedure while conducting Act, 2010 – s.19 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – ss.21, 22 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environmental degradation – Environmental compensation – Power of the Control Board to take samples of effluents and

Subjects

Environmental degradationEnvironmental compensationOpportunity of hearingSugar manufacturerDischarging untreated wasteContamination of ground waterJoint CommitteeInspectionIllegal disposal of untreated effluentsAbsence of monitoringAbsence of record of oil and grease storedETP logbookCompensation of Rs.18 crores at the rate of 2 percent of annual turnoverRestoration of the environmentPrinciples of natural justice

Judgment

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 300 : 2025 INSC 1060

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd.
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8119-8120 of 2022)
01 September 2025
[Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the order passed by the National Green
Tribunal imposing a compensation of ₹18 crores on the appellant for
alleged environmental violations; and whether the tribunal adhered
to fair procedure while conducting its proceedings.

Headnotes†
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.19 – Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – ss.21, 22 – Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 – Environmental degradation –
Environmental compensation – Power of the Control
Board to take samples of effluents and procedure to be
followed – Opportunity of hearing – Complaint against the
appellant-engaged in sugar manufacturing alleging that the
sugar mill of the appellant was discharging untreated waste
in a particular drain resulting in contamination of ground
water in an area of about one and a half kilometer around the
sugar mill having depth upto 50 metres – NGT constituted a
Joint Committee of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and District
Magistrate (DM) to conduct inspection – On basis thereof,
NGT held that there was illegal disposal of untreated effluents,
dilution at the outlet to conceal the real status, absence of
monitoring, absence of record of oil and grease stored and
ETP logbook, compensation of Rs.18 crores at the rate of 2
percent of annual turnover would be justified and that the
compensation recovered may be utilized for restoration of
the environment – Legality:
Held: Impugned orders are in complete violation of the procedures
laid down in the ss.21 and 22 of the 1974 Act, 1986 Act, and the
2010 Act, including s.19 thereof – Impugned decisions which entail
adverse civil consequences upon the appellant were passed without
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 301

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

following the due procedure laid down under the statute as well
as the elementary principles of natural justice – Thus, such orders
are illegal and null and void – NGT exercises judicial functions –
Thus, it is all the more necessary for the NGT to adhere to a
fair procedure which is statutorily laid down of which principles
of natural justice are an inalienable part – Rigor of s.19(1) of
the 2010 Act is qua the procedure to be adopted by the NGT in
conducting its proceedings – It cannot be stretched to abandon
the statutory procedure laid down u/s.21 and 22 of the Water Act
and by outsourcing investigation to administrative committees by
overlooking the statutory provisions and basing its decisions on
the recommendation of such administrative committee – This is not
within the remit of NGT – In the quest for doing justice, NGT has
ended up doing just the reverse – Ordinarily, in a case where there
is violation of the principles of natural justice, parties are relegated to
the adjudicatory forum to re-do the exercise after following the due
process – However, the entire exercise has been vitiated because
of non-conforming to the laid down procedure contemplated u/
ss.21 and 22 of the 1974 Act – Relegating the parties back to the
NGT would serve no useful purpose – However, UPPCB free to
carry out inspection and take remedial measures qua the sugar
mill of the appellant by following the statutory procedure, including
adherence to the principles of natural justice – Impugned orders
passed by the NGT set aside. [Paras 30-34]

Case Law Cited
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 SCR 457 : (1969) 2 SCC
262; S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 44 :
(1990) 4 SCC 594 – followed.
Grasim Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC
Online SC 3585 – relied on.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha [2021] 10
SCR 1 : 2021 SCC Online SC 1298; T. Takano v. Securities and
Exchange Board of India [2022] 16 SCR 212 : (2022) 8 SCC 162;
State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal [2023] 7 SCR 476 : (2023)
6 SCC 1; Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State
of Gujarat [2022] 1 SCR 1006 : (2023) 13 SCC 525; Sanghar
Zuber Ismail v. Union of India [2021] 8 SCR 525 : (2021) 17 SCC
827; Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Company
Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1601 – referred to.
302 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Environment (Protection) Act,
1986; Companies Act, 1956; Companies Act, 1913; Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Securities
and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair
Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003.

List of Keywords
Environmental degradation; Environmental compensation;
Opportunity of hearing; Sugar manufacturer; Discharging untreated
waste; Contamination of ground water; Joint Committee; Inspection;
Illegal disposal of untreated effluents; Absence of monitoring;
Absence of record of oil and grease stored; ETP logbook;
Compensation of Rs.18 crores at the rate of 2 percent of annual
turnover; Restoration of the environment; Principles of natural justice.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 8119-8120
of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2022 and 15.02.2022
of the National Green Tribunal at Delhi in OA No. 71 of 2021

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Prateek
Kumar, Arshit Anand, Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Naman Gupta,
E. C. Agrawala.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sudeep Kumar, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

These two civil appeals filed under Section 22 of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 are directed against orders dated 15.02.2022 and
16.09.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench,
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 303

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

New Delhi (‘NGT’ for short) in Original Application No. 71/2021
(Chandra Shekhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh).
2. By the order dated 15.02.2022, NGT held that the project proponent
(appellant herein) had violated the environmental norms which included
illegal disposal of untreated effluent, dilution at outlet with fresh water
to conceal real status, absence of flow meter at boiler/mill house to
avoid monitoring, absence of record of oil and grease stored and
absence of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) logbook. Thereafter, NGT
observed that the joint committee needed to assess the past violations
and recover compensation in accordance with law having regard to
the nature of the violation, period of violation, cost of remediation and
turnover of the project proponent (appellant). The joint committee was
directed to submit a supplementary report in this regard.
2.1. By the second order dated 16.09.2022, NGT considered the
supplementary report filed by the joint committee on 10.08.2022
and held that compensation of Rs. 18 crores at the rate of 2
percent of annual turnover would be justified. It was directed
that the amount may be deposited by the project proponent
(appellant) with the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, within
one month to be utilized for restoration of the environment.
3. At the outset, a brief recital of facts is considered necessary.
4. Appellant i.e. M/s. Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited is a
public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
It is engaged in diverse business activities including manufacture
of sugar. It is stated that appellant has seven sugar manufacturing
units across the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4.1. In the year 1952, appellant under its earlier name, Ganga
Sugar Corporation Limited, which was incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1913, had acquired the sugar manufacturing
unit at village Sheikhpura, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar District in the
State of Uttar Pradesh (sugar mill). It is stated that the sugar
mill is a functional unit, having all the necessary permissions
as required under the applicable statutes.
4.2. It appears from the record that in the month of March, 2021,
respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the NGT which
was registered as Original Application No. 71/2021 (O.A. No.
71/2021) alleging that the sugar mill of the appellant was
discharging untreated waste in a particular drain resulting in
304 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

contamination of ground water in an area of about one and a
half kilometer around the sugar mill having depth upto 50 metres.
4.3. By order dated 22.03.2021, NGT constituted a joint committee
of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttar Pradesh
Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and District Magistrate (DM),
Muzaffarnagar. The joint committee was directed to conduct
inspection and thereafter to file status report within two months.
4.4. It appears that the sugarcane crushing season for the year
2020-21 came to an end on 22.05.2021. Joint committee in its
report dated 02.07.2021 stated that because of various reasons
including conclusion of the sugarcane crushing season and the
sugar mill remaining closed on account of the covid pandemic,
inspection could not be carried out and prayed for further time
to carry out fresh inspection.
4.5. Thereafter, regional office of UPPCB, Muzaffarnagar carried
out inspection of the sugar mill and the area around it on
13.09.2021 and observed that no contamination was found in
the ground water samples. However, it was observed that further
investigation could be carried out when the industry become
operational during the next crushing season.
4.6. O.A. No. 71/2021 was heard on 21.09.2021. NGT on perusal of
the report declared that it was not satisfied with the stand of the
State PCB. NGT was of the view that there was no justification
for carrying out inspection when the sugar mill was not functional
due to off season. NGT, therefore, directed the joint committee to
conduct inspection when the unit was functional and thereafter
to furnish a report to it on or before 15.12.2021. It was clarified
that the report should indicate status of compliance with the
standards as prior to the season, quality of treated effluence
and utilization as per protocol/agreement with the users/farmers,
further indicating that it should be mentioned whether effluents
were reaching any drain leading to river/waterbody with direction
to check the quality of ground water as per parameters relevant
to the industry in question, particularly fluoride etc. Reference
was made to an order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the NGT in
O.A. No. 539/2019 (Adil Ansari Vs. M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills
Limited) wherein it was directed that ETPs must continue to
run for maintenance of bio-mass even during the off season.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 305

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

4.7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2021, the joint
committee conducted inspection on 08.12.2021 and submitted
report dated 11.01.2022. After extensively referring to the
observations, conclusions and recommendations of the joint
committee, NGT passed the first impugned order dated 15.02.2022
observing that the report showed violation of the environmental
norms by the project proponent (appellant), such as, illegal
disposal of untreated effluents etc. while stating that such violation
was required to be remedied in terms of the recommendations
made in the report. For the past violations, the joint committee
was directed to assess the compensation in accordance with
law, having regard to the nature of violation, period of violation,
cost of remediation and turn over of the project proponent. Joint
committee was further directed to submit a supplementary report
with copy to the project proponent (appellant) for its response.
4.8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, supplementary report
was filed by the joint committee on 10.08.2022 whereafter the
matter was taken up for hearing on 16.09.2022. NGT recorded
that no response was filed by the project proponent (appellant).
NGT referred to the report which mentioned that compensation
amounts to Rs. 34,20,000.00 for 114 days of violation at the rate
of Rs. 30,000.00 per day which works out to Rs. 18 crores at
the rate of 2 percent of the annual turnover of Rs. 900 crores.
After hearing the learned counsel for the UPPCB, NGT was of
the view that having regard to the established illegal discharge
of untreated effluents, dilution at the outlet to conceal the real
status, absence of monitoring, absence of record of oil and
grease stored and ETP logbook, compensation of Rs. 18 crores
at the rate of 2 percent of annual turnover would be justified. It
was ordered vide the second impugned order dated 16.09.2022
that the compensation recovered may be utilized for restoration
of the environment. Project proponent (appellant) was directed
to deposit the aforesaid amount with the District Magistrate,
Muzaffarnagar within one month. The compensation amount was
directed to be utilized within six months in terms of the action
plan to be prepared by the joint committee, clarifying that UPPCB
would be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022,
appellant has preferred the related appeals. By order dated 02.11.2022,
permission to file appeal was granted and delay was condoned.
306 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Thereafter, notice was issued. This Court also passed an interim
order staying the operation of the impugned orders dated 15.02.2022
and 16.09.2022 so far as imposing compensation on the appellant.
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022 are non est in the eye
of law in as much as those orders were passed by the NGT in
complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Though the
entire allegations in O.A. No. 71/2021 were directed against the
appellant and though the impugned orders have adversely affected
the appellant yet appellant was not made a party to the proceedings
in O.A. No. 71/2021. NGT failed to appreciate that the appellant was
a necessary party and without issuing notice and giving opportunity
of hearing to the appellant, no adverse order against the appellant
such as the ones dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022 could have been
passed. That being the position, not only the impugned orders but
also the entire proceedings in O.A. No. 71/2021 being in absolute
violation of the principle of audi alteram partem are liable to be set
aside and quashed on this ground alone.
6.1. Learned senior counsel asserts that no opportunity of hearing,
not to speak of any fair opportunity of hearing, was afforded to
the appellant before rendering the findings vide the impugned
orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022.
6.2. Adverting to the reports of the joint committee dated 11.01.2022
and 10.08.2022, learned senior counsel submits that findings
recorded in the reports are scientifically not possible. Those are
materially different from the readings shown by the data retrieved
and recorded by the inspection team during the inspection on
08.12.2021. The joint committee relied upon the reports prepared
by third party laboratories which were based on erroneous data.
As a result, there are glaring contradictions in the above reports.
6.3. Learned senior counsel also questioned the methodologies
adopted by the joint committee in carrying out the inspection and
thereafter in submitting the reports. According to him, NGT and
the joint committee gave a complete go-bye to the procedure
laid down under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. That apart, the reports of
the joint committee suffered from factual mistakes in as much as
appellant has been maintaining ETP logbook at all times which
were provided to the joint committee officials when they had
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 307

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

visited the sugar mill for inspection. Likewise, boiler ash records
were also maintained. Had an opportunity of hearing being given
to the appellant, it could have explained its position qua the joint
committee reports. NGT accepted the erroneous reports of the
joint committee without subjecting the same to further scrutiny
by permitting the appellant to have its say in the matter.
6.4. Learned senior counsel also referred to the provisions of Section
19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 which states
that though the NGT shall not be bound by the procedure laid
down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it shall be guided
by the principles of natural justice. There is clear infraction of
Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 in the
present case which has vitiated the impugned orders.
6.5. Summing up his arguments, learned senior counsel submitted
that the impugned orders are wholly untenable in law as well
as on facts and those are as such liable to be set aside.
7. Learned senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand has
supported the impugned orders passed by the NGT. It is submitted
that without treatment of the effluent, water was being discharged
from the sugar mill of the appellant; the same was being released
into the drain which has contaminated the ground water of the area
in and around the sugar mill where about 10 to 15 thousand people
reside. The entire population is thus exposed to the polluted water
and resultant health hazards.
7.1. Learned senior counsel submits that NGT took cognizance of this
alarming situation and constituted the joint committee to carry
out necessary inspection. Joint committee carried out inspection
in a scientific manner and thereafter submitted reports to the
NGT. The reports being prepared by a committee of experts
was rightly accepted by the NGT. Based on the observations
and conclusions reached by the joint committee, NGT passed
the impugned orders which calls for no interference.
7.2. Learned senior counsel submits that principles of natural justice
cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula. NGT was careful
enough to direct the joint committee to furnish copies of its
reports to the project proponent (appellant). Appellant was,
therefore, very much aware of the contents of the two reports,
yet it did not contest the same before the NGT. That being the
308 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

position, the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant
are without any substance.
7.3. He finally submits that the civil appeals being devoid of merit
are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received
the due consideration of the Court.
9. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to some of the relevant
statutory provisions.
10. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (briefly
‘the Water Act’ hereinafter) is an act to provide for the prevention
and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring
of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment with a view to
carrying out the purposes aforesaid, of pollution control boards for
the prevention and control of water pollution, for conferring on and
assigning to such boards, powers and functions relating thereto and
for matters connected therewith. Section 2 is the definition clause.
Section 2(dd) defines ‘outlet’ to include any conduit, pipe or channel,
open or closed, carrying sewage or trade effluent or any other
holding arrangement which causes, or is likely to cause, pollution.
10.1. The expression ‘pollution’ is also defined. As per Section 2(e),
‘pollution’ means contamination of water. Section 2(e) reads
thus:
“pollution” means such contamination of water or
such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological
properties of water or such discharge of any sewage
or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid
substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as
may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such
water harmful or injurious to public health or safety,
or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural
or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of
animals or plants or of aquatic organisms.
10.2. ‘Sewage effluent’ has been defined in Section 2(g) and means
effluent from any sewerage system or sewage disposal works
and includes sullage from open drains. Section 2(gg) defines
‘sewer’ to mean any conduit pipe or channel, open or closed,
carrying sewage or trade effluent.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 309

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

10.3. ‘Stream’ has been defined in Section 2(j) and as per the said
definition, stream includes:
(i) river;
(ii) water course (whether flowing or for the time being
dry);
(iii) inland water (whether natural or artificial);
(iv) sub-terranean waters;
(v) sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the case
may be, to such point as the State Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify
in this behalf.
10.4. ‘Trade effluent’ has been defined in Section 2(k) in the following
manner:
“trade effluent” includes any liquid, gaseous or solid
substance which is discharged from any premises
used for carrying on any industry, operation or
process or treatment and disposal system, other than
domestic sewage.
10.5. Section 21 of the Water Act is included in Chapter V which deals
with prevention and control of water pollution. Sub-section (1)
of Section 21 empowers the State Pollution Control Board or
any officer authorized by it to take samples of water from any
stream or well or samples of any sewage or trade effluent which
is passing from any plant or vessel or from or over any place into
such stream or well for the purposes of analysis. Sub-section (2)
however clarifies that the result of any analysis of a sample of
any sewage or trade effluent taken under sub-section (1) shall
not be admissible as an evidence in any legal proceedings unless
the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) are complied with.
Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 21 are as follows:
21. Power to take samples of effluents and
procedure to be followed in connection
therewith. —(1) A State Board or any officer
empowered by it in this behalf shall have power to
take for the purpose of analysis samples of water from
any stream or well or samples of any sewage or trade
effluent which is passing from any plant or vessel or
from or over any place into any such stream or well.
310 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(2) The result of any analysis of a sample of any
sewage or trade effluent taken under sub-section
(1) shall not be admissible in evidence in any legal
proceeding unless the provisions of sub-sections (3),
(4) and (5) are complied with.
10.6. As noticed above, analysis of any sample of any sewage
or trade effluent taken under sub-section (1) would not be
admissible as a piece of evidence in any legal proceedings
unless the procedure contemplated under sub-sections (3),
(4) and (5) are complied with. Let us therefore take note of
the provisions contained in sub- sections (3), (4) and (5) of
Section 21 which are extracted as under:

* * * * *

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4) and
(5), when a sample (composite or otherwise as may
be warranted by the process used) of any sewage or
trade effluent is taken for analysis under sub-section
(1), the person taking the sample shall—
(a) serve on the person in charge of, or having
control over, the plant or vessel or in occupation of
the place (which person is hereinafter referred to as
the occupier) or any agent of such occupier, a notice,
then and there in such form as may be prescribed
of his intention to have it so analysed;
(b) in the presence of the occupier or his agent, divide
the sample into two parts;
(c) cause each part to be placed in a container
which shall be marked and sealed and shall also be
signed both by the persons taking the sample and
the occupier or his agent;
(d) send one container forthwith,—
(i) in a case where such sample is taken from any
area situated in a Union Territory, to the laboratory
established or recognised by the Central Board under
Section 16; and
(ii) in any other case, to the laboratory established
or recognised by the State Board under Section 17;
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 311

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(e) on the request of the occupier or his agent, send
the second container,—
(i) in a case where such sample is taken from any
area situated in a Union Territory, to the laboratory
established or specified under sub-section (1) of
Section 51; and
(ii) in any other case, to the laboratory established or
specified under sub-section (1) of Section 52.
(4) When a sample of any sewage or trade effluent
is taken for analysis under sub-section (1) and the
person taking the sample serves on the occupier or
his agent, a notice under clause (a) of sub-section
(3) and the occupier or his agent wilfully absents
himself, then,—
(a) the sample so taken shall be placed in a container
which shall be marked and sealed and shall also
be signed by the person taking the sample and the
same shall be sent forthwith by such person for
analysis to the laboratory referred to in sub-clause
(i) or sub-clause (ii), as the case may be, of clause
(e) of sub-section (3) and such person shall inform
the Government analyst appointed under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, of Section
53, in writing about the wilful absence of the occupier
or his agent; and
(b) the cost incurred in getting such sample analysed
shall be payable by the occupier or his agent and
in case of default of such payment, the same shall
be recoverable from the occupier or his agent, as
the case may be, as an arrear of land revenue or of
public demand:
Provided that no such recovery shall be made unless
the occupier or, as the case may be, his agent has
been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard
in the matter.
(5) When a sample of any sewage or trade effluent
is taken for analysis under sub-section (1) and the
312 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

person taking the sample serves on the occupier or
his agent a notice under clause (a) of sub-section
(3) and the occupier or his agent who is present
at the time of taking the sample does not make
a request for dividing the sample into two parts
as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (3), then,
the sample so taken shall be placed in a container
which shall be marked and sealed and shall also
be signed by the person taking the sample and the
same shall be sent forthwith by such person for
analysis to the laboratory referred to in sub-clause
(i) or sub-clause (ii), as the case may be, of clause
(d) of sub-section (3).
10.7. As can be seen from the above, the person who is taking
the sample is required to serve on the person in charge of
or having control over the plant or vessel etc. a notice of his
intention to have the sample analyzed; take and divide the
sample into two parts in the presence of the occupier or his
agent. One container after being sealed and signed by both
the persons taking the sample and the occupier or his agent
is taken to the laboratory established or recognized by the
pollution control board (whether central or state) and send
the other container in the same manner to the laboratory
established under Section 51(1) in case of a union territory
and Section 52(1) in any other case. In case the occupier or
his agent willfully absents himself from the aforesaid process,
then the person taking the sample shall inform the government
analyst in writing about the willful absence of the occupier or
his agent.
10.8. Section 22 of the Water Act is concerned with reports of the
result of analysis on samples taken under Section 21. Section
22 reads thus:
22. Reports of the result of analysis on samples
taken under section 21.—(1) Where a sample
of any sewage or trade effluent has been sent for
analysis to the laboratory established or recognised
by the Central Board or, as the case may be, the
State Board, the concerned Board analyst appointed
under sub-section (3) of Section 53 shall analyse the
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 313

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

sample and submit a report in the prescribed form of
the result of such analysis in triplicate to the Central
Board or the State Board, as the case may be.
(2) On receipt of the report under sub-section (1),
one copy of the report shall be sent by the Central
Board or the State Board, as the case may be, to
the occupier or his agent referred to in Section 21,
another copy shall be preserved for production before
the court in case any legal proceedings are taken
against him and the other copy shall be kept by the
concerned Board.
(3) Where a sample has been sent for analysis under
clause (e) of sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of
Section 21, to any laboratory mentioned therein, the
Government analyst referred to in that sub-section
shall analyse the sample and submit a report in the
prescribed form of the result of the analysis in triplicate
to the Central Board or, as the case may be, the
State Board which shall comply with the provisions
of sub-section (2).
(4) If there is any inconsistency or discrepancy
between, or variation in the results of, the analysis
carried out by the laboratory established or recognised
by the Central Board or the State Board, as the
case may be, and that of the laboratory established
or specified under Section 51 or Section 52, as the
case may be, the report of the latter shall prevail.
(5) Any cost incurred in getting any sample analysed
at the request of the occupier or his agent shall be
payable by such occupier or his agent and in case
of default the same shall be recoverable from him as
arrears of land revenue or of public demand.
10.9. As is evident from the above, after a sample of any sewage or
trade effluent is sent to the concerned laboratory, the competent
analyst shall analyse the samples and submit a report in the
prescribed form of the result of such analysis to the pollution
control board. A copy of such report shall also be forwarded
to the occupier or his agent.
314 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

10.10. Section 24 prohibits release or disposal of polluting matter
into any stream or well or sewer or on land. Sub-section (1)
of Section 24 is relevant and reads as under:
24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for
disposal of polluting matter, etc.—(1) Subject to
the provisions of this section,—
(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit any
poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined
in accordance with such standards as may be laid
down by the State Board to enter (whether directly
or indirectly) into any stream or well or sewer or on
land; or
(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter
into any stream any other matter which may tend,
either directly or in combination with similar matters,
to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream
in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial
aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its
consequences.
10.11. As per Section 43 of the Water Act, whoever contravenes the
provisions of Section 24 shall be punishale with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than one year and six
months but which may extend to six years and with fine.
11. We now come to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (briefly ‘the
Environment Act’ hereinafter). It is an act to provide for the protection
and improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith.
Section 2(a) defines ‘environment’ in the following manner:
“environment” includes water, air and land and the inter-
relationship which exists among and between water,
air and land, and human beings, other living creatures,
plants, micro-organism and property.
11.1. ‘Environmental pollutant’ has been defined in Section 2(b) to
mean any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such
concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment.
‘Environmental pollution’ is defined under Section 2(c) and
means the presence in the environment of any environmental
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 315

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

pollutant. Section 2(f) defines ‘occupier’ in relation to any
factory or premises, to mean a person who has control over the
affairs of the factory or the premises and includes, in relation
to any substance, the person in possession of the substance.
11.2. Sections 7, 8, 14A, 15 and 15A are included in Chapter III which
deals with prevention, control and abatement of environmental
pollution. Section 7 says that no person carrying on any industry,
operation or process shall discharge or emit or permit to be
discharged or emitted any environmental pollutant in excess
of such standards as may be prescribed. Similarly, Section 8
says that no person shall handle or cause to be handled any
hazardous substance except in accordance with such procedure
and after complying with such safeguards as may be prescribed.
11.3. Section 14A has been introduced by way of an amendment
in the year 2023 with effect from 01.04.2024. It provides for
penalty in the event of contravention of Sections 7 and 8.
Section 14A is extracted hereunder:
14A. Penalty for contravention of section 7 or
section 8.—(1) If any person, contravenes provisions
of Section 7 or Section 8 or the rules made thereunder,
he shall be liable to penalty in respect of each such
contravention, which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees but which may extend to fifteen lakh rupees.
(2) Where any person continues contravention under
sub-section (1), he shall be liable to additional penalty
of fifty thousand rupees for every day during which
such contravention continues.
11.4. Be it stated that Section 15 was also introduced in the
Environment Act by way of the 2023 amendment with
effect from 01.04.2024. Section 15 deals with penalty for
contravention of the provisions of the Environment Act, rules,
orders and directions. Section 15 reads thus:
15. Penalty for contravention of provisions of
Act, rules, orders and directions.—(1) Where any
person contravenes or does not comply with any of
the provisions of this Act or the rules made or orders
or directions issued thereunder for which no penalty
is provided, he shall be liable to penalty in respect
316 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of each such contravention which shall not be less
than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to
fifteen lakh rupees.
(2) Where any person continues contravention under
sub-section (1), he shall be liable to additional penalty
of ten thousand rupees for every day during which
such contravention continues.
11.5. Similarly, Section 15A provides for penalty for contravention
by companies. Section 15A is as follows:
15A. Penalty for contravention by companies.—
(1) Where any company contravenes any of the
provisions of this Act, the company shall be liable to
penalty for each such contravention which shall not
be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend
to fifteen lakh rupees.
(2) Where any company continues contravention
under sub-section (1), the company shall be liable to
additional penalty of one lakh rupees for every day
during which such contravention continues.
12. To provide for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the
effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental
protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources
including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and
giving relief and compensation for damages to person and property
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, the National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has been enacted. Section 2(1)(c) defines
the word ‘environment’. It says ‘environment’ includes water, air and
land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between
water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants,
micro-organism and property.
12.1. Section 2(1)(m) defines ‘substantial question relating to
environment’ and is as follows:
2(m) “substantial question relating to environment”
shall include an instance where,—
(i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory
environmental obligation by a person by which,—
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 317

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(A) the community at large other than an
individual or group of individuals is affected
or likely to be affected by the environmental
consequences; or
(B) the gravity of damage to the environment
or property is substantial; or
(C) the damage to public health is broadly
measurable;
(ii) the environmental consequences relate to a
specific activity or a point source of pollution.
12.2. As per Section 14, National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the
jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question
relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal
right relating to environment) is involved.
12.3. Section 15 deals with the relief, compensation and restitution
that NGT may provide. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 reads
as under:
15. Relief, compensation and restitution.—(1) The
Tribunal may, by an order, provide,—
(a) relief and compensation to the victims of
pollution and other environmental damage
arising under the enactments specified in the
Schedule I (including accident occurring while
handling any hazardous substance);
(b) for restitution of property damaged;
(c) for restitution of the environment for such
area or areas,
as the Tribunal may think fit.
12.4. Section 17 deals with liability to pay relief or compensation
in certain cases. As per sub-section (1), where death of, or
injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage to any
property or environment has resulted from an accident or the
adverse impact of an activity or operation or process under
any enactment specified in Schedule I, the person responsible
shall be liable to pay such relief or compensation for such
318 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

death, injury or damage. Sub-section (2) says that if the death,
injury or damage cannot be attributed to any single activity or
operation or process but is the combined or resultant effect of
several such activities, operations and processes, NGT may
apportion the liability for relief compensation amongst those
responsible for such activities, operations and processes on
an equitable basis. In case of an accident, NGT shall apply
the principle of no fault.
12.5. We now come to Section 19 which deals with the procedure
and powers of NGT. Sub-section (1) says that NGT shall not
be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural
justice. For the purposes of discharging its functions, NGT shall
have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of
the matters mentioned in sub-section (4) and as per Clause (i),
it has the mandate to pass an interim order (including granting
an injunction or stay) after providing the parties concerned an
opportunity to be heard on any application made or appeal
filed under the said Act. Sub-section (5) makes it abundantly
clear that all proceedings before NGT shall be deemed to be
judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219
and 228 for the purposes of Section 196 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and the NGT shall be deemed to be a civil court
for the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
13. Having adverted to the relevant statutory provisions, let us examine
as to how the NGT proceeded in this matter. We have already noticed
that a joint committee was constituted by NGT comprising of CPCB,
UPPCB and District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar to conduct inspection
of the sugar mill of the appellant when it was functional and thereafter
to file status report with regard to handling of the effluents. Pursuant
thereto, inspection was carried out on 08.12.2021 whereafter report was
submitted on 11.01.2022. General observations of the joint committee
as extracted in the impugned order dated 15.02.2022 are as follows:
3.0 OBSERVATIONS
1. The unit M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries
Limited, Sugar Unit, Village Sheikhpura, Khatauli, Dist.-
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 319

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Muzaffarnagar is engaged in production of refined sugar
by Defco melt Phosphatation followed by Ion Exchange
Process (IER) with consented capacity of 16000 TCD.
2. The unit has started its crushing season 2021-22 on
07th November, 2021 and the unit was operational on the
date of visit i.e. 08th December 2021.
3. As informed by the unit ETP was started on 27/09/2021
for stabilization purpose in compliance to notified standards
in MoEF&CC Notification G.S.R. 35(E) dated 14th January,
2016
4. The unit has valid Consent to Operate under section
21/22 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 (as amended) for 65 TPH boiler, which is valid up
to 31.12.2023 and for two boilers of 120 TPH, which is
valid up to 31.12.2024.
5. The unit has valid Consent to Operate under section
25/26 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 (as amended) for discharge of effluent, which is
valid up to 31.12.2023.
6. The unit has valid Authorization issued under the
provisions of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management
and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 for storage
and disposal of hazardous wastes valid up to 13.01.2023.
7. As per Daily Manufacturing Reports (DMRs) provided by
the unit, the average actual crush rate (TCD) is 11975.56
TCD (for duration of 20th November 07th December, 2021),
against the consented capacity of 16000 TCD.
8. The unit is an integrated backend refinery sugar
unit with 45 MW cogeneration power plant for in-house
activity in sugar manufacturing process and the unit has
valid Consent to Operate under section 25/26 of Water
(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (as amended)
for discharge of effluent, which is valid up to 31.12.2024.
9. Being a Sugar Refinery SO2 gas is not used in sugar
manufacturing process, hence provision of separate
Sulphur Recovery System (SRS) is not required.
320 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

10. The unit has installed Ion Exchange Resin Technology
for decoloring of sugar syrups. The Ion Exchange resin
gets saturated/ exhausted after repeated usage and has
to be regenerated. The unit re-generates exhausted resin
using caustic brine solutions.
11. The unit has submitted the details about the Brine
recovery system, which is as follows:

Overall Operating Parameters
Feed capacity 7500 LPH
Operating hr 20 hr
Overall permeate 6775 LPH
Final Reject 725 LPH
Overall Recovery 90 % ± 2%

12.. The unit has 03 boilers with capacity of 120 TPH (02
nos.) for co-gen and one boiler with capacity of 65 TPH
for sugar manufacturing process with valid consent. 65
TPH boiler has stack height of 40m from ground level
and two boilers of 120 TPH has stack height of 74 meter
from ground level.
13. The unit has 02 DG sets having capacity of 1010 KVA
each with acoustic enclosure.
14. As informed, the unit transfers used oil to third party
(Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd.) for its disposal on quarterly
basis. The unit has provided membership certificate
(UPWMP – KNP – HzW – CHW – TSDF - 2174) with
Ramky Group, valid up to 23.02.2022.
15. The unit has Permitted Quantity (kg/day) of 10.0 kg/day
of Used Oil under Schedule I (Category 5.1) and Wastes
or residues containing oil under Schedule I (Category
5.2) of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and
Trans- Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 as per consent
issued by UPPCB. The unit has not provided the details
of quantity provided to Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd.
16. The unit has not installed flow meter at mill house and
boiling house to quantify the effluent generation separately.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 321

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

The effluent generated from the mill house and boiling
house is being collected in a collection tank and further it
goes to ETP inlet by gravity for further treatment.
17. The unit has setup environmental laboratory; however,
the unit has not maintained the ETP log book for daily
analysis of sugar effluent parameter.
18. As informed by the unit representative, the boiler ash
is used to fill low laying area, however, the unit has not
provided record of generated boiler ash.
19. It was observed that the unit has not maintained the
record of Press mud generation, however, it was informed
that press mud was provided to local farmers as organic
manure.
20. The unit has two underground reservoirs (UGR) for hot
water and cold-water recirculation system having capacities
of 300 m3 and 400 m3 each.
14. The joint committee also observed that there were two ponds filled
with waste water at the backside of the sugar mill. It is stated that
the inspecting team collected the samples from the ponds for physio-
chemical analysis. Thereafter, the observations of the joint committee
alongwith the analysis results were extracted by the NGT in the
impugned order dated 15.02.2022 which reads as follows:
21. The Joint Team has observed two ponding (Pond 1-
large in size and Pond 2- small in size) filled with waste
water at the back side of the press mud storage area. The
team has collected the sample from pond for physico-
chemical analysis. The analysis results of the collected
samples are mentioned as below:
Table-1: Analysis results of Ponding behind press mud
storage area
Sample pH COD BOD TSS TDS Cl- Color SO42- NO3- NO2- PO4-
Analysis N N P

Pond-1 5.8 750 420 43 592 190 65 39 6.89 0.04 2.11
(Large)

Pond-2 5.1 1267 587 94 472 260 57 419 7.69 BDL 2.70
(Small)
322 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

22. Analysis result of sample collected from pond-1
shows acidic pH-5.8, Color-65, high BOD-420 mg/l and
COD- 750 mg/l, which indicate the characteristics of
untreated effluent.
23. Analysis result of sample collected from pond-2 shows
acidic pH-5.1, Color-57, high BOD-587 mg/l and COD-1267
mg/l, which reflect the characteristics of Refined Sugar
effluent (pH-5.5- 6.5, Color- Light brown, BOD- 600-1000
mg/l, COD- 1500-2500 mg/l).
15. The joint committee also collected water samples from the sugar mill
drain. The findings of the joint committee qua the samples collected
from the sugar mill drain reads as under:
24. The team has also collected water samples from Sugar
mill drain (name of the drain is Sugar mill drain), river Kali
East i.e. upstream and downstream of the Sugar mill drain
& Canal near sugar mill (Lat-29.269901, Long-77.743243).
The analysis results are mentioned as below:
Table-2: Analysis results of Sugar mill Drain,
River Kali East i.e. upstream and downstream
of the Sugar mill drain & Canal near sugar mill

Sample River Kali Sugar River Kali Canal near
Analysis East u/s Mill East d/s Sugar mill
Sugar Mill drain Sugar (29.269901
drain Mill drain 77.743243)

pH 6.5 6.8 6.6 7.9

COD (mg/l) 198 402 529 7.0

BOD (mg/l) 68 98 166 -

TSS (mg/l) 79 567 901 33

TDS (mg/l) 196 120 328 122

Cl- (mg/l) 47 64 66 46

Color 30 46 43 BDL

SO42- (mg/l) 451 57 52 44

NO3-N (mg/l) 1.95 2.62 1.87 1.3
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 323

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

NO2-N (mg/l) BDL BDL BDL -

PO4-P (mg/l) 0.64 0.75 0.73 0.07

Conductivity - - - 216
(µmho/cm)

Total - - - 303
hardness as
CaCO3 (mg/l)

Total - - - 322
Alkalinity as
CaCO3 (mg/l)

Fluoride - - - 0.3
(mg/l)

25. Analysis result of sample collected from River Kali
East u/s Sugar Mill drain shows pH- 6.5, COD- 198 mg/l,
BOD-68 mg/l, TSS-79 mg/l, TDS- 196 mg/l, Chloride-47
mg/l, SO42--451 mg/l, NO3-N-1.96 mg/l, NO2-N-BDL,
PO4-P-0.64 mg/l.
26. Analysis result of sample collected from River Kali
East d/s Sugar Mill drain shows pH- 6.6, COD- 529 mg/l,
BOD-166 mg/l, TSS-901 mg/l, TDS- 328 mg/l, Chloride-66
mg/l, SO42--52 mg/l, NO3-N-1.87 mg/l, NO2-N-BDL,
PO4-P-0.73 mg/l indicate the effect of effluent carried by
sugar mill drain i.e. pH- 6.8, COD- 402 mg/l, BOD-98 mg/l,
TSS-567 mg/l, TDS-120 mg/l, Chloride-64 mg/l, SO42--46
mg/l, NO3-N-2.67 mg/l, NO2-N-BDL, PO4-P-0.75 mg/l.
27. The increase in BOD, COD and TSS in River Kali
East at downstream of Sugar mill drain is due to turbulent
flow conditions contributing in higher TSS, thereby BOD
& COD increased. The entire flow in drain was sewage.
Direct discharge or outlet into the Sugar mill drain was
not evident during inspection.
28. Analysis result of samples collected from Canal
near Sugar mill shows pH- 7.9, COD- 7.0 mg/l, TSS-33
mg/l, TDS- 122 mg/l, Chloride-46 mg/l, SO42--44 mg/l,
NO3-N-1.3 mg/l, PO4-P-0.07 mg/l.
324 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

16. Similar analysis of water samples collected from borewells and
handpumps of the sugar mill and nearby areas were made and
results have been recorded. Likewise, analysis results of samples
collected from the Sewage Treatment Plant and Effluent Treatment
Plant have been recorded. Thereafter, the joint committee concluded
in the following manner:
5.0 CONCLUSION
A. Compliance with the Standards:
1. The analysis results of sample collected from ETP
outlet after filtration show pH - 7.5, COD- 15 mg/l,
BOD - 05 mg/l, TSS - BDL, TDS - 272 mg/l, Oil &
Grease - BDL & from lagoon show pH-7.6, COD- 04
mg/l, BOD - 01 mg/l, TSS - BDL, TDS - 532 mg/l, which
are complying w.r.t. the Notified standards in MoEF&CC
Notification G.S.R. 35 (E) dated 14th January, 2016.
2. However, it seems from the percentage reduction by
two Aeration Tank (in series) in BOD-99.27%, COD-
97.73% & TSS- 100% as compared from Primary
Clarifier outlet to Secondary Clarifier-1, indicate
dilution with fresh water by the unit.
3. MLSS value of 1674 mg/l in Aeration Tank-I of ETP
indicates presence of less biomass against desired
level (2500-3000 mg/l).
4. Also, Secondary Clarifier-2 outlet charac- teristics TSS
- BDL and TDS - 136 mg/l (compared to Secondary
Clarifier -1 outlet TDS 680 mg/l with same influent)
indicate provisions of dilutions using fresh water in
the outlet.
5. The effluent stored (Pond 1 & Pond 2) behind press
mud is an illegal disposal of untreated effluent and
the characteristics i.e. BOD (420 mg/l and 587 mg/l)
and COD (750 mg/l and 1267 mg/l) confirm stored/
disposed effluent was untreated which is a violation
of consent conditions issued by UPPCB.
B. Quality of treated effluents and utilisation as per
protocol/agreement with the users /farmers:
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 325

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

1. The unit has stored treated effluent in lagoon after ETP
filtration units, which was in semi filled condition. The
analysis results of sample collected from lagoon are
complying w.r.t. the Notified standards in MoEF&CC
Notification G.S.R. 35(E) dated 14th January, 2016.
2. The unit has not provided any agreement for providing
treated effluent for irrigation to users/farmers, however
as informed by the unit representative, treated effluent
used in the plant.
C. Effluents are reaching any drain leading to river/
water body:
1. Provision of direct discharge or outlet point from
unit into the sugar mill drain was not evident during
inspection. The entire flow in Sugar mill drain was
carrying sewage. The increase in BOD, COD and
TSS in River Kali East at downstream of Sugar mill
drain is due to turbulent flow conditions contributing
in higher TSS, thereby BOD & COD increased.
D. Ground water quality be checked as per parameters
relevant to the industry in question, particularly,
fluoride etc.:
1. The analysis result of sample collected from 01 borewell
located inside and 04 handpumps located outside the
unit premises shows fluoride within permissible limit
i.e.1.5 mg/l as per BIS IS 10522:2012 Standards.
2. However, analysis results of samples collected from
borewells within unit premises and all 04 Handpumps
outside the unit premises are within permissible limit
as per drinking water standard BIS IS 10500:2012
except Fe- 0.62mg/l, 4.78 mg/l, 0.46 mg/l from
Handpump Sugar Mill near canal, Handpump Sugar
Mill near drain and Handpump near Main gate of
sugar mill respectively. Selenium (Se)- 0.02 mg/l is
also detected which is beyond the permissible limit
i.e. 0.01 mg/l as per drinking water standard BIS IS
10500:2012 in the sample collected from Handpump
near Main gate of sugar mill.
326 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

E. Others:
1. The unit M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries
Limited, Sugar Unit, Village Sheikhpura, Khatauli,
Distt Muzaffarnagar is an integrated refinery sugar
unit with 45 MW cogen and having consented capacity
of 16000 TCD. As per Daily Manufacturing Reports
(DMRs) provided by the unit, the average actual
crush rate (TCD) is 11975.56 TCD (for duration of
20th November 07th December, 2021).
2. The unit has valid Consent to Operate under section
21/22 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 (as amended) for 65 TPH boiler, which
is valid up to 31.12.2023 and for two boilers of 120
TPH, which is valid up to 31.12.2024.
3. The unit has valid Consent to Operate under section
25/26 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 (as amended) for discharge of effluent, which is
valid up to 31.12.2023. The unit has valid Authorization
issued under the provisions of Hazardous and
Other Wastes (Management and Trans-Boundary
Movement) Rules, 2016 for storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes valid up to 13.01.2023.
4. The unit has a membership of TSDF with Ramky
Enviro Engineers Ltd. as informed for disposal of used
oil and wastes or residues containing oil on quarterly
basis. Membership is valid up to 23.02.2022.
5. The unit has not installed flow meter at mill house
and boiling house to quantify the effluent generation
separately.
6. The unit has environmental laboratory for daily
analysis of sugar effluent parameter, however, the
unit has not maintained the ETP log book.
7. The unit has not provided record of generated Boiler
ash.
8. The unit has not maintained the record of Press mud
generation.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 327

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

9. The unit has permission to abstract total 430 m3/hr
of groundwater from four existing bore-wells as per
No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Uttar Pradesh
Ground Water Department (UPGWD), which is valid
up to 13.01.2023.
10. The unit has Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) with
capacity of 500 KLD for the treatment of domestic
waste water generated from its residential colony/mill
staff having population around 1000-1200 people.
The analysis results (BOD-10 mg/l and COD-39 mg/l)
of samples collected from STP inlet indicate dilution
with fresh water by the unit.
11. The unit has installed flowmeters at the inlet & outlet of
STP, however, flowmeters were found non-operational
at the time of inspection.
17. On the aforesaid basis, the joint committee made the following
recommendations:
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The unit shall not discharge partially treated effluent
into the drain and on land within or outside the unit
premises.
2. The unit shall install flow meters at mill house and
boiling house to quantify the effluent generation
separately.
3. The unit shall maintain the proper records for quantity
of used oil & grease as per valid Authorization issued
under the provisions of Hazardous and Other Wastes
(Management and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules,
2016 for storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.
4. The unit shall maintain proper record of Press Mud
which is provided to the local farmers.
5. The unit shall maintain the ETP log book for daily
analysis of raw and treated effluent parameters.
6. The unit shall maintain the proper record of boiler
ash generation, sludge and their disposal.
328 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

7. The unit shall maintain adequate MLSS & MLVSS
concentration in Aeration Tank-I & II while operating
the ETP to ensure proper stabilization of ETP.
8. The unit shall make proper color coding of pipelines
for water distribution network w.r.t. the defined coding
of color for particular pipe carrying sugar effluent,
treated effluent and fresh water.
9. The unit shall dismantle the Pond-1 and Pond-2
which contains waste water having characteristics
of partially treated industrial effluent.
10. The unit shall restrict the use of Handpump near
Main gate of sugar mill as the sample analysis
shows Selenium (Se)- 0.02 mg/l which is beyond the
permissible limit i.e. 0.01 mg/l as per drinking water
standard BIS IS 10500.
11. The unit shall make flow meters operational installed
at STP inlet and outlet.
18. The impugned order dated 15.02.2022 indicates that the said report
was accepted by the NGT and held that appellant had violated the
environmental norms. On that basis and following further report of
the joint committee dated 10.08.2022, compensation amount of Rs.
18 crores at the rate of 2 percent of annual turnover was worked
out and imposed on the appellant by the NGT vide the second
impugned order dated 16.09.2022, further directing that the same
may be deposited by the appellant with the District Magistrate,
Muzaffarnagar within one month.
19. From a conjoint reading of the report of the joint committee and
the impugned orders of the NGT, the following features are clearly
discernable:
(i) NGT constituted a joint committee to carry out inspection of the
sugar mill of the appellant vis a vis maintenance of pollution
control measures and discharge of effluents.
(ii) This is an adhoc committee when the Water Act, more particularly
Sections 21 and 22 thereof, clearly prescribe a statutory
procedure to be followed while carrying out such inspection
to examine pollution, if any, or the extent of pollution caused
by the project proponent and to suggest remedial measures.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 329

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(iii) The joint committee report dated 11.01.2022 as noticed above,
is silent as to whether it has followed the procedure laid down
in the aforesaid Act more particularly notice to the occupier or
his agent and collection and sealing of samples in the presence
of the occupier or his agent having his signature on the sealed
containers.
(iv) NGT did not deem it appropriate to get the appellant impleaded
as a party respondent in O.A. No. 71/2021 though the entire
proceedings were directed against it.
(v) No opportunity was granted to the appellant to contest the
report of the joint committee and to have its say. Thus, there
is clear violation of the provisions contained in Section 19 of
the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
(vi) It is the categorical stand of the appellant that the joint committee
did not issue any notice to it before carrying out the inspection
and it was not served with a copy of the report of the joint
committee either.
(vii) NGT accepted the report of the joint committee without any
adjudication on it.
(viii) Environmental compensation was quantified without any
adjudication and without granting any opportunity of hearing
to the appellant.
(ix) Environmental compensation was imposed on the appellant
without giving any opportunity to the appellant to contest the
reports of the joint committee and without giving any opportunity
of hearing to the appellant.
20. Let us now refer to and examine some of the relevant case laws
on the subject.
21. In A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India1, a Constitution Bench of this Court
considered the question as to whether principles of natural justice
applied to administrative proceedings, after observing that the dividing
line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is
quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. This Court observed

1 (1969) 2 SCC 262
330 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that horizon of natural justice is constantly expanding. Aim of the
rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to
prevent miscarriage of justice. Rules of natural justice operate in
areas not covered by any law validly made. Natural justice do not
supplant the law of the land but supplement it. This Court answered
the above question in the following manner:
20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure
justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage
of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not
covered by any law validly made. In other words they do
not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The
concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of
change in recent years. In the past it was thought that
it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a
judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria
causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party
without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram
partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged
and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in
good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably.
But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules
came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very
recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the
authority concerned was required by the law under which
it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the
application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of
that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules
of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one
fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable
to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to
draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from
quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered
administrative at one time are now being considered as
quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the
aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative
enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry
may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a
quasi-judicial enquiry. As observed by this Court in Suresh
Koshy George v. University of Kerala [1968 SCC OnLine
SC 9] the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 331

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a
given case must depend to a great extent on the facts
and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law
under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the
Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose.
Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some
principle of natural justice had been contravened the court
has to decide whether the observance of that rule was
necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
22. As observed in A.K. Kraipak (supra), the rules of natural justice are
constantly expanding. A Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.
Mukherjee Vs. Union of India2 held that an administrative authority
exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its
decision. An important consideration for holding so is that the reasons
so recorded would enable the higher forum to effectively exercise
appellate or supervisory powers. Further the requirement of recording
reasons would guarantee consideration by the authority; introduce
clarity in the decisions; and minimise chances of arbitrariness in
decision making. Recording of reasons by an administrative authority
serves a salutary purpose by excluding chances of arbitrariness
and ensuring a degree of fairness in the decision making process.
The Bench clarified that the requirement that reasons be recorded
should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising
quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is
subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. The Bench conclusively
held that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed
with, expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the
reasons for its decision.
23. If this is true for an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial
functions, it is all the more true for a judicial tribunal vested with
adjudicatory powers.
24. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Ankita Sinha3,
this Court referred to its earlier decision involving the same parties
whereby and whereunder the question as to whether National Green

2 (1990) 4 SCC 594
3 2021 SCC Online SC 1298
332 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Tribunal (NGT) can exercise suo motu jurisdiction or initiate suo motu
action was answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, this Court held
that even if NGT intends to initiate suo motu action, it must provide
an opportunity of hearing to persons likely to be affected before
passing any adverse order against them. In that context, this Court
held that the impugned ex-parte preemptory order passed by the
NGT without giving opportunity to the person likely to be affected by
such order be treated as effaced from the record. This Court made
it amply clear that NGT is obliged to hear the party before issuing
any adverse directions which is likely to be directly affected by it,
including an action initiated suo motu.
25. This Court in T. Takano Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India4
examined the issue of disclosure of all relevant materials to the parties
in the context of disclosure of investigative report submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Board of India under Regulation 9 of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations,
2003 to the noticee to whom the show cause was issued and held
that possession of information by both the parties can aid the courts
in determining the truth of the contentions. The role of the court is not
restricted to interpreting the provisions of law but also in determining
the veracity and truth of the allegations made before it. The court
would be able to perform this function accurately only if both parties
have access to information and possess the opportunity to address
arguments and counter arguments related to the information.
25.1. Elaborating further, this Court held that principles of fairness
and transparency of adjudicatory proceedings are the
cornerstones of the principle of open justice. This is the
reason why an adjudicatory authority is required to record its
reasons for every judgment or order it passes. The purpose
of disclosure of information is not merely individualistic that
is to prevent errors in the verdict but is also towards fulfilling
the larger institutional purpose of fair trial and transparency.
Therefore, all relevant materials must be disclosed; otherwise
it would be fundamentally contrary to the principles of natural
justice. In the circumstances, this Court concluded as under:

4 (2022) 8 SCC 162
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 333

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

50.1. A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose
the material that has been relied upon at the stage
of adjudication.
50.2. An ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied
on certain material would not exempt it of its liability
to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a
nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In
all reasonable probability, such material would have
influenced the decision reached by the authority.
50.3. Thus, the actual test is whether the material
that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose
of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural
justice require its due disclosure.
26. State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Agarwal5 is a case where this Court
once again reiterated that principles of natural justice are not mere
legal formalities. They constitute substantive obligations that need
to be followed by decision-making and adjudicating authorities. This
Court held as under:
36. We need to bear in mind that the principles
of natural justice are not mere legal formalities.
They constitute substantive obligations that need
to be followed by decision-making and adjudicating
authorities. The principles of natural justice act as a
guarantee against arbitrary action, both in terms of
procedure and substance, by judicial, quasi-judicial,
and administrative authorities. Two fundamental
principles of natural justice are entrenched in Indian
jurisprudence : (i) nemo judex in causa sua, which
means that no person should be a Judge in their own
cause; and (ii) audi alteram partem, which means
that a person affected by administrative, judicial or
quasi-judicial action must be heard before a decision
is taken. The courts generally favour interpretation
of a statutory provision consistent with the principles
of natural justice because it is presumed that the

5 (2023) 6 SCC 1
334 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

statutory authorities do not intend to contravene
fundamental rights. Application of the said principles
depends on the facts and circumstances of the case,
express language and basic scheme of the statute
under which the administrative power is exercised, the
nature and purpose for which the power is conferred,
and the final effect of the exercise of that power.
26.1. Further, this Court held in clear terms that every order or
proceeding which involves civil consequences or adversely
affects a citizen should be in accordance with the principles
of natural justice.
27. In Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust Vs. State of
Gujarat 6, this Court dealt with an appeal arising out of an order passed
by the NGT dismissing an original application alleging environmental
degradation and seeking restitution of the environment. This Court
observed that it is important to differentiate expert committees
which are set up by the courts/tribunals from those set up by the
government in exercise of executive powers or under a particular
statute and held as follows:
17. It is first important to differentiate Expert Committees
which are set up by the courts/tribunals from those set
up by the Government in exercise of executive powers
or under a particular statute. The latter are set up due
to their technical expertise in a given area, and their
reports are, subject to judicially observed restraints, open
to judicial review before the courts when decisions are
taken solely based upon them. The precedents of this
Court unanimously note that courts should be circumspect
in rejecting the opinion of these committees, unless they
find their decision to be manifestly arbitrary or mala fide.
On the other hand, the courts/tribunals themselves set up
Expert Committees on occasion. These committees are
set up because the fact-finding exercise in many matters
can be complex, technical and time-consuming, and may
often require the committees to conduct field visits. These
committees are set up with specific terms of reference

6 (2023) 13 SCC 525
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 335

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

outlining their mandate, and their reports have to conform
to the mandate. Once these committees submit their
final reports to the court/tribunal, it is open to the parties
to object to them, which is then adjudicated upon. The
role of these Expert Committees does not substitute the
adjudicatory role of the court or tribunal. The role of an
Expert Committee appointed by an adjudicatory forum is
only to assist it in the exercise of adjudicatory functions
by providing them better data and factual clarity, which
is also open to challenge by all the parties concerned.
Allowing for objections to be raised and considered makes
the process fair and participatory for all the stakeholders.
27.1. This Court also referred to an earlier decision in the case of
Sanghar Zuber Ismail Vs. Union of India7 wherein it was held
that constitution of an expert committee does not absolve
NGT of its duty to adjudicate. The adjudicatory functions
of NGT cannot be assigned to committees, even expert
committees. The decisions have to be that of NGT. NGT has
been constituted as an expert adjudicatory authority under the
statute. The discharge of its functions cannot be obviated by
tasking committees to carry out a function which vests in the
NGT. Adverting to the facts of that case, this Court held that
NGT had abdicated its jurisdiction by entrusting judicial function
to an administrative expert committee. An expert committee
may be able to assist NGT, for instance, by carrying out a
fact finding exercise but the adjudication has to be by NGT.
28. This Court in Grasim Industries Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh8
noticed that NGT had followed a similar procedure as in the present
case. The procedure followed by NGT has been summed up in the
following manner:
4. After the NGT entertained the O.A. on the basis of
the letter addressed by Respondent No. 1, it initially
directed the plant of the appellant to be examined by
the State Pollution Control Board. After the receipt
of the report of the State Pollution Control Board,

7 (2021) 17 SCC 827
8 2024 SCC Online SC 3585
336 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Court appointed a Joint Committee to give its
report. The said Joint Committee made certain
recommendations and the NGT passed the impugned
order on the basis of the said recommendations.
5. The material placed on record would also reveal
that the appellant herein was not made a party to
the proceedings before the learned NGT or before
the Joint Committee. Though an application for
impleadment was filed by the appellant, the same
was rejected by the learned NGT.
6. It further appears that even the Joint Committee
appointed by the NGT neither gave any notice to
the appellant nor an opportunity was given of being
heard. Though, this objection was specifically taken
by the appellant, the NGT observed “We asked the
learned Counsel whether the stand of the unit is that
the violations found never existed or whether they
existed but have been remedied. His answer is later.
It is patent that there were violations.
28.1. It was in the above context that this Court held that the
procedure followed by NGT was totally unknown to the
settled principles of natural justice. Neither was any notice
given by the joint committee to the appellant before giving an
adverse report against the appellant nor the NGT permitted
impleadment of the appellant as a party respondent. NGT
could not have proceeded further with the matter even at
the initial stage without impleading the appellant as a party
respondent. Approach adopted by the NGT clearly smacks
of condemning a person unheard. NGT cannot outsource an
opinion and base its decision on such opinion.
29. In Delhi Pollution Control Committee Vs. Lodhi Property Company
Limited 9, this Court examined the challenge of Delhi Pollution
Control Board to a judgment of the Delhi High Court whereby it
was held that Delhi Pollution Control Board is not empowered to
levy compensatory damages in exercise of powers under Section

9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1601
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 337

M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 on the ground that such an action amounts to imposition
of penalty provided for in Chapters VI and VII of the aforesaid Acts
and, as such, the procedure contemplated thereunder will be the
only method for imposing and collecting compensatory damage.
The core question in that case was whether the regulatory boards
in exercise of powers under Section 33A of the Water Act and
Section 31A of the Air Act can impose and collect as restitutionary
and compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require
furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential
environmental damage? The above question was answered in the
affirmative by holding that pollution control boards can impose and
collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages, fixed sums
of monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante
measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of
the aforesaid powers. However, what is relevant for our present
consideration is the following declaration:

39. * * * * *
(c) it is further directed that the power to impose or collect
restitutionary or compensatory damages or the requirement
to furnish bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure under
Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts shall be
enforced only after detailing the principle and procedure
incorporating basic principles of natural justice in the
subordinate legislation.
30. Having surveyed the relevant case law on the subject, let us revert
back to the present case. From the conspectus of facts and law, it
is clearly evident that the impugned orders are in complete violation
of the procedures laid down in the Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
more particularly Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act and the
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, including Section 19 thereof. It is
crystal clear that the impugned decisions which entail adverse civil
consequences upon the appellant were passed without following the
due procedure laid down under the statute as well as the elementary
principles of natural justice. We, therefore, have no hesitation in
declaring such orders to be illegal and null and void.
338 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

31. NGT exercises judicial functions. Therefore, it is all the more
necessary for the NGT to adhere to a fair procedure which is statutorily
laid down of which principles of natural justice are an inalienable
part. Rigor of Section 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act,
2010 is qua the procedure to be adopted by the NGT in conducting
its proceedings. It cannot be stretched to abandon the statutory
procedure laid down under Sections 21 and 22 of the Water Act
and by outsourcing investigation to administrative committees by
overlooking the statutory provisions and basing its decisions on the
recommendation of such administrative committee. This is not within
the remit of NGT.
32. As we have noticed above, this is a classic case where in the quest
for doing justice, NGT has ended up doing just the reverse.
33. Ordinarily, in a case where there is violation of the principles of
natural justice, parties are relegated to the adjudicatory forum to
re-do the exercise after following the due process. But in this case,
the entire exercise has been vitiated because of non-conforming
to the laid down procedure contemplated under Sections 21 and
22 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. In
such circumstances, relegating the parties back to the NGT in our
considered opinion would serve no useful purpose. However, we
clarify that it will always be open to the UPPCB to carry out inspection
and take remedial measures qua the sugar mill of the appellant by
following the procedure laid down under the Water Act and after
complying with the due process statutorily laid down thereunder,
including by adhering to the principles of natural justice.
34. Accordingly and in the light of the above, the impugned orders dated
15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022 passed by the NGT in O.A. No. 71/2021
are hereby set aside. Consequently, the civil appeals are allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to cost.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain