STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERSversusANAND ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER

80                      [2022]REPORTS
              SUPREME COURT    13 S.C.R. 80               [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A              STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
                                       v.
           ANAND ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER
       (Petition For Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 10084-85/2022)
B                                JULY 12,2022
              [M. R. SHAH AND B. V NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
            Principle/Doctrines – Principle of Natural justice –
     Opportunity of hearing before imposing damages u/s. 33 of the
     Wild Life (Protection ) Act,1972 – College of the respondents is in
C
     close vicinity of a Sanctuary – The effluent flowing out of the premise
     of college is causing serious environmental damage in the Sanctuary
     area – Forest Department issued several notices from the year 2003
     onward to the college to stop discharging the effluent in the
     sanctuary area but the respondents continued to discharge the
D    effluent, which resulted in serious environmental damage in the area
     – Forest department by an order dated 30.12.2011 had imposed
     damages of Rs. 10 crore upon the respondents – The High Court set
     aside the order of imposing the damages – On appeal, held: The
     imposing of damages of Rs. 10 crore is in gross violation of principles
     of natural justice – No opportunity of hearing by the forest
E
     department was given to the respondents – Admittedly, no show cause
     notice was issued to the respondents – Authority cannot impose
     damages and for that authority has to initiate appropriate
     proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/
     ascertain the damages – Authority could not have straightway
F    imposed damages in exercise of powers u/s. 33 of the 1972 Act –
     Order of High Court was not interfered with – SLPs disposed of –
     Wild Life (Protection ) Act,1972.
           EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special
     Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10084-85 of 2022.
G          From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2019 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ (C) Nos. 8339 of 2012 and Writ (C)
     Nos. 8340 of 2012.
           V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra,
     Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for petitioners.
H
                                       80
    STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. ANAND                                 81
         ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER

      The Order of the Court was passed by                                     A
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 8339/2012 and 8340/2012, by which
the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the            B
respondents herein and has set aside the order/notice imposing damages
of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) for violation of the
Environmental Protection Act, 1986, which was imposed in exercise of
powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the
State of Uttar Pradesh through its Forest Department has preferred the         C
present special leave petitions.
       2. That the respondents herein are running an educational institution
in the area at Agra-Mathura Road and that too in the close vicinity of the
National Chambal Sanctuary Project undertaken by the State Government.
That due to the effluent flowing out of the premises of the college that       D
borders the Sanctuary has resulted in serious threat to the ecology of the
area as well as causing environmental damage and consequently has
endangered the flora and fauna as well as the wild life in the sanctuary.
The Forest department issued various notices to the respondents right
from the year 2003 onwards regarding threat to the environment on
account of effluent flowing in the sanctuary area from the huge multi          E
storied building of the institution. However, the respondents continued
to discharge the effluent which, according to the Forest Department,
resulted in serious environmental damage in the area and consequently
endangered the wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, by order dated
30.12.2011 the Forest Department of the State imposed damages of               F
Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) upon the respondents. The said
order imposing damages upon the respondents was the subject matter
before the High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that subsequently notice dated 10.02.2012 was issued
to the original writ petitioners to ensure compliance of the provisions of
the Water (Control and Removal of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air             G
(Control and Removal of Pollution) Act, 1981 and also the Environmental
Protection Act, 1986.
      2.1 Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the original
writ petitioners that the order imposing damages was in gross violation
                                                                               H
82            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    of principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was ever issued
     to them in respect of the proposed action of imposing damages. It was
     also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the authority
     passing the order imposing damages is not vested with any such power
     under any law for the time being in force. It was also the case on behalf
     of the original writ petitioners that the amount of damages imposed is
B
     too excessive without there being any statistical basis for the same and
     assessment for loss based on any cogent and convincing material. Before
     the High Court and even before this Court, the State/Forest Department
     relied upon Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which
     reads as under:
C          “33. Control of sanctuaries – The Chief Wild Life Warden shall
           be the authority who shall control, manage and maintain all
           sanctuaries and for that purpose, within the limits of any sanctuary,-
           (a) may construct such roads, bridges, buildings, fences or barrier
           gates, and carry out such other works as he may consider
D          necessary for the purposes of such sanctuary:
           Provided that no construction of commercial tourist lodges, hotels,
           zoos and safari parks shall be undertaken inside a sanctuary except
           with the prior approval of the National Board.

E          (b) Shall take such steps as will ensure the security of wild animals
           in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and wild
           animals therein;
           (c) may take such measures, in the interests of wild life, as he
           may consider necessary for the improvement of any habitat;
F          (d) may regulate, control or prohibit, in keeping with the interests
           of wild life, the grazing or movement of 2 live-stock.”
            2.2 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
     allowed the aforesaid two writ petitions and set aside the order/notice
     imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores, by holding that under the Wild
G    Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest Department/State has no
     jurisdiction and/or authority to impose damages. The High Court has
     also observed that imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores was in
     breach of principles of natural justice as before imposing such damages,
     no opportunity of being heard was given to the original writ petitioners
     and as such there was no material to impose damages of Rupees Ten
H    Crores.
   STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. ANAND                                 83
 ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common         A
judgment and order passed by the High Court in setting aside the order
imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores for discharging the effluent
flowing out of the premises of the college in the national sanctuary and
consequently endangering the environment as well as the wild life in the
sanctuary, the State has preferred the present special leave petitions.
                                                                              B
       3. We have heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State. We have gone through the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court. At the outset, it is required
to be noted that the order/notice imposing damages of Rs.
(Rupees Ten Crores) has been found to be in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice. Nothing is on record to indicate that before   C
imposing damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) any show
cause notice was issued upon the original writ petitioners to show cause
as to why the damages may not be imposed or for any violation of any of
the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and/or the Environmental
Protection Act and/or any other law. Neither the respondent was given         D
any opportunity of hearing by the authorities concerned. There was no
material on record to impose damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Crores). Imposing damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Crores), thus can be said to be without any basis and/or material and
the extent of damages caused to the environment and/or wild life
sanctuary. Therefore, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed     E
any error in setting aside the imposing of damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/
- (Rupees Ten Crores) which, as observed hereinabove, was found to
be in breach of the principles of natural justice.
       4. On merits and on jurisdiction and/or authority of the Forest
Department/Environment Department to impose damages, heavy reliance           F
is placed on Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which is
reproduced hereinabove. It is the case on behalf of the Department that
right from the year 2003, all efforts were made by the Department to
see that the original writ petitions stop discharging the effluent in the
sanctuary area. However, the original writ petitioners have continued to      G
discharge the effluent and have caused the environmental damage and
have endangered the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary.
Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the Department that thereafter
when the original writ petitioners have continued to act detrimental to
the environment and wild life in the sanctuary, the authority was justified
                                                                              H
84             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 13 S.C.R.


A    in imposing the damages while exercising the powers under Section 33
     of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
             5. On a fair reading of Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection)
     Act, 1972, reproduced hereinabove, the appropriate authority shall have
     wide powers to take such steps as well as to ensure the security of
B    wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and
     wild animals therein. The Chief Wild Life Warden also may take such
     measures, in the interests of wild life, as he may consider necessary for
     the improvement of any habitat and may also regulate, control or prohibit,
     in keeping with the interests of wild life, the grazing or movement of
     livestock. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild
C    Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Chief Wild Life Warden/appropriate
     authority may even pass an order of closure of the institution, if the
     institution continues to discharge the effluent in the sanctuary which
     may affect and/or damage the environment as well as wild life in the
     sanctuary. Mere issuance of notice is not suffice. There can be further
D    steps, may be of closure of an institution in case of repeated breaches
     and/or the action in discharging the effluent which may damage the
     environment and wild life in the sanctuary, after following the principles
     of natural justice and in accordance with law. To that extent, the authority
     is not helpless.
E           However, at the same time, the authority cannot impose damages
     and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before
     the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages. However,
     straightway in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life
     (Protection) Act, 1972, the authority could not have imposed damages.

F           6. Be that as it may, as observed hereinabove, before imposing
     damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores), admittedly, no show
     cause notice was issued to the original writ petitioners calling upon them
     to show cause as to why damages may not be imposed for discharging
     effluent in the sanctuary, which damages/affects the environment and
     wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of
G    the case, setting aside the order of damages does not call for any
     interference of this Court. However, at the same time, if the authorities
     are very serious and are the opinion that the original writ petitioners
     have continued to discharge the effluent in the national sanctuary area
     which ultimately damages/affects the environment as well as wild life in
H    the sanctuary, it will always be open for the department/authority to take
    STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. ANAND                                    85
  ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]

steps as provided under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,             A
1972 and as observed hereinabove including the closure of the institution
and even stop discharging the effluent in the national sanctuary, however,
of course, after following the principles of natural justice. The authorities
may not stop taking any further action and be satisfied by issuing notice
only. If the discharge of the effluent is a threat to the environment and/
                                                                                  B
or wild life in the national sanctuary, the authorities have to take further
steps to stop such use and/or threat to the environment and wild life in
the national sanctuary, in accordance with law.
       7. With the aforesaid observations, the present special leave
petitions stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.                                                                               C


Ankit Gyan                                                    SLPs disposed of.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)


                                                                                  D




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H