ARTICLE
9 January 2025

Environment_ESG | November 2024 - Supreme Court Judgements/orders

J
JSA

Contributor

JSA is a leading national law firm in India with over 600 professionals operating out of 7 offices located in: Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Gurugram, Hyderabad, Mumbai and New Delhi. Our practice is organised along service lines and sector specialisation that provides legal services to top Indian corporates, Fortune 500 companies, multinational banks and financial institutions, governmental and statutory authorities and multilateral and bilateral institutions.
The Supreme Court of India stays decision of the National Green Tribunal imposing environmental compensation on Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Dasna for non-operation of sewage treatment plant...
India Delhi Haryana Punjab Environment

The Supreme Court of India stays decision of the National Green Tribunal imposing environmental compensation on Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Dasna for non-operation of sewage treatment plant

The Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") in Executive Officer vs. Afsar Ali and Anr.1 stayed the operation of directions issued by the National Green Tribunal ("NGT") for initiating penal action and imposing environmental compensation of INR 23,72,000 (Indian Rupees twenty-three lakh seventy-two thousand) on the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat Dasna ("Executive Officer"). The directions were issued by the NGT for discharge of untreated sewage into drain for several years. NGT while passing the impugned order noted that on the previous date of hearing, the Executive Officer had shared incorrect information in respect of operationalisation of sewage treatment plant. NGT imposed interim environmental compensation which was computed for a period for 5 (five) years from the date when NGT took cognisance. The Supreme Court stayed the direction for initiation of penal action subject to deposition of the environmental compensation amount in the Supreme Court.

The governments of Punjab and Haryana directed to take steps for compliance of directions issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region

The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors.2 directed the governments of Punjab and Haryana for implementation of directions issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region ("NCR") and Adjoining Areas ("CAQM"). The directions were passed while considering the compliance report filed by CAQM. The Supreme Court noted that CAQM has not made any efforts to ensure compliance with the directions issued by CAQM. It also noted that during the meeting of CAQM sub-committee for safeguarding and enforcement, no direction for prosecution of violators under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was passed. In view of the same the State governments of Punjab and Haryana were directed to show compliance with the directions issued by CAQM. The Supreme Court considered the responses filed by the governments of Punjab and Haryana on October 16, 2024, and noted that no action was taken against non-compliance of the direction of CAQM in both the States. The Chief Secretaries of both the States were directed to personally appear before the Supreme Court to explain the non-initiation of stringent actions against violators and government officials for failing to comply with the directions of CAQM.

Chairperson of Delhi Development Authority directed to personally file response on aspects regarding tree felling in Delhi ridge area.

The Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors.3 directed the Chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA") to file an affidavit responding to the aspects related to the illegal tree felling in Delhi ridge area. The order was passed in a contempt petition filed against the officials of DDA for felling trees despite the dismissal of their application seeking permission before the Supreme Court. The Chairperson is directed to furnish information regarding the steps taken for identification of officers responsible for suppression of facts before the Supreme Court in the earlier responses filed by DDA. Additionally, the Chairperson must clarify whether any disciplinary proceedings or criminal action have been instituted against the responsible officers.

Footnotes

1 C.A. Diary No. 45810 of 2024. Order dated October 23, 2024.

2 W.P. (C) No. 13029 of 2024. Orders dated October 3, 2024, October 16, 2024, and October 18, 2024.

3 W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995. Order dated October 16, 2024.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More