AUTHOR: JEMI SHIPRA. I, SASTRA UNIVERSITY, THANJAVUR
INTRODUCTION
The environment in which we live must be protected for us to live a healthy life. But we humans are destroying it because of our selfishness and carelessness. We are obliged to keep our environment clean and protect it. The government has provided guidelines and laws for us to follow in order to protect and safeguard our environment. One such important provision is the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which aims to protect and improve the environment. The case that we are going to look into was also dealt under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Saint Polymers PVT Ltd vs. Commission for air quality management is a case where we get to see how the provision is used in order to protect the environment from pollution. The fact of this case is that Saint Polymers PVT. Ltd is a Melamine manufacturing unit in Rajasthan. On 2023, a flying squad from the Commission for Air Quality management conducted an inspection in the unit and discovered that the unit was operating without “Environment clearance (EC)”, “Consent to establish (CTE)”, and “Consent to operate (CTO)” which are required to run an industry. Hence the Commission for Air Quality management immediately issued a closure order against the unit without a prior show-cause notice.
ISSUES
The issues brought up in this case are,
Whether the closure order was valid and whether not giving a proper show-cause notice was valid all under the principles of natural justice.
FACTS
The parties involved in this case are, the Appellant Saint Polymers PVT Ltd. and the Respondent Commission for Air Quality management. The facts of this case are as follows, the appellant, Saint Polymers PVT Ltd. is a melamine manufacturing unit. The commission for Air Quality management did an investigation in the unit and discovered that the unit has been functioning without “Environment clearance (EC)”, “Consent to Establish (CTE)”, and “Consent to Operate (CTO)” which are required to run any industry. Hence the commission issued a closure order to the unit but the Appellant Saint Polymers PVT Ltd. claimed that the closure order was issued without a proper show-cause notice which is important to have the order valid under the principles of natural justice.
The procedural history is as follows:
Inspection and Findings:
Some documents have been dated December 21,2022 which was when the inspection was done, however, the closure order has stated the date of findings to be January 10,2023.
Issue of Closure order:
Since the appellant did not comply with the rules of the Commission of Air quality management, the commission issued a closure order and also initiated a prosecution proceeding against the unit.
Appeal to the National Green Tribunal:
Saint polymers PVT Ltd. filed an appeal in the National Green tribunal Central Bench Zone in Bhopal and stated that the principles of natural justice have been violated by not providing a proper show-cause notice and not providing an opportunity for hearing.
Hearing:
The case was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and by Hon’ble Dr. Arun Kumar Verma.
Order:
The judgement was given on April 3,2023 and it was decided that the action taken by the commission of Air quality management was right according to procedures.
COURT’S DECISION
The National Green Tribunal decided that the action taken by the Commission of air quality management was right and that immediate action was required to be taken against degradation of the environment. However, the National Green Tribunal also considered the lack of prior show-cause notice and gave the Appellants an opportunity to explain their side while the closure order remained after the decision was made.
The legal principles used in this issue helps us understand it better. Firstly, the “Principle of natural justice” that the appellants keep bringing up. It states that anyone should be allowed to hear before taking an action. Then comes the “Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA)” and “Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 (CAQM Act)”. The CAQM Act gives power to the Commission to regulate air quality and also the power to issue closure orders.
LEGAL REASONING
The decisions were made based on statutes such as the “Commission for Air Quality management in National Capital Region and Adjoining areas Act,2021” and the “Environment (Protection) Act,1986” as mentioned earlier. Section 3 of the “EPA” was specifically mentioned a lot. Few cases that the judges referred to repeatedly were, “Ayush Garg vs. UOI & Ors” and “Alembic Chemicals vs. Rohit Prajapati & Ors”
IMPACT OF THE CASE
This case had its fair share of impact in the society and it set a precedent for later cases. This case ensured that the power of the Commission for air quality management to take immediate actions against environmental degradation is well established. This case also emphasised on mandatory “Environment clearances”, “Consent to Establish”, and “Consent to operate”. Through this case, the question of balancing between a need for immediate action for environmental protection and the principle of natural justice. The judgement set a precedent for other similar cases where environment protection laws are violated. Properly following all the laws with regard to environment protection helps in improving the condition of the environment and protecting it from pollution and degradation.
PERSONAL ANALYSIS
The National Green Tribunal worked to provide the best possible result for both sides. The first and foremost priority was to take action against the exploitation of the environment. This is a good thing as a safe environment is necessary for the well being of the citizens. Also, the Tribunal allowed the melamine unit to explain their side later and complied with the principle of natural justice which was initially not done during the issue of closure order. The Tribunal’s decision to make the closure order stand valid even after the trial lets us know that the key factor of this case is ultimately the protection of the environment from pollution. My opinion on this case is that the bench handled both sides very well yet it would have been better if they had provided some guidelines for such immediate actions without a prior show-cause notice.
CONCLUSION
The Saint Polymers PVT Ltd vs. Commission for Air Quality management case is one of the important cases in the legal history of Environmental Protection. It clearly depicts the importance of having proper permissions in order to run a factory so as to not create any problems in the environment. The commission for air quality management was functioning properly by using its power to protect the environment from exploitation by unauthorized factories. The National Green Tribunal perfectly balanced the need for an immediate action against environmental degradation and the principle of natural justice.
