Case Number
CIVIL APPEAL/4599-4601/2014; CIVIL APPEAL/5631-5633/2024
Case Title
Dr. I.S. Tomar vs. Invertis University & Ors. Etc.
Headnote
The Supreme Court examined whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) could impose a penalty under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, on a Mayor and a Municipal Commissioner for failing to comply with its orders. The Court held that Section 26, being a penal provision, must be strictly interpreted. To hold an individual liable for non-compliance, it must be proven that they were personally responsible for the prohibited act and had the executive power to prevent it. In the case of the Mayor, the Court found no evidence that he had the executive authority to direct the Municipal Corporation to stop dumping waste. Therefore, the penalty imposed on him was set aside. Similarly, the penalty against the Commissioner was also set aside because there was no specific finding of a “wilful default” on his part. However, the fine imposed on the Municipal Corporation itself for causing environmental degradation was upheld as justified.
Court
Supreme Court of India
Type
Judgment
SCR Citation
NA
Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 775
Disposal Nature
Appeals Partly Allowed
Case Type
CIVIL APPEAL
Law Type
Environmental Law, Administrative Law
Judgment Authored by
Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka*
Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment
May 23, 2025
Case Start Date
NA
Case Arising From
The appeals arise from a judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated October 24, 2013. The NGT had found that the Mayor and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bareilly, had intentionally violated its orders prohibiting the dumping of municipal solid waste at a specific site. As a penalty, the NGT sentenced both individuals to civil imprisonment until the rising of the Court and imposed a fine of ₹5 lakhs each. It also fined the Municipal Corporation ₹1 lakh per day for the period of non-compliance. The then Mayor (Dr. I.S. Tomar), the Municipal Corporation, and its Commissioner filed separate appeals against this judgment in the Supreme Court.
Background and Facts
Several groups, including Invertis University and local residents, filed applications before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) challenging the operation of a municipal solid waste management plant in Bareilly. They argued that the plant violated environmental regulations. The NGT, after hearing the matter, passed interim and final orders directing the Municipal Corporation of Bareilly to stop dumping waste at the site and to remove all existing waste.
Subsequently, the original applicants filed new applications before the NGT, alleging that the Corporation had continued to dump waste in defiance of the orders. They also alleged that the then Mayor, Dr. I.S. Tomar, had made public statements against the NGT’s judgment, calling it “one-sided.” Based on these applications, the NGT initiated proceedings and passed the impugned order, penalizing the Mayor, the Commissioner, and the Municipal Corporation for non-compliance.
Timeline
- May 28, 2013: The NGT passed an interim order directing that no municipal solid waste be dumped at the plant site.
- July 18, 2013: The NGT delivered its final judgment, ordering the immediate closure of the plant and removal of all waste within four weeks.
- September 13, 2013: The Supreme Court stayed the directions of the NGT’s July 18th order in a separate appeal.
- October 24, 2013: The NGT passed the impugned judgment, imposing penalties on the Mayor, the Commissioner, and the Municipal Corporation for violating its earlier orders.
- May 23, 2025: The Supreme Court delivered its final judgment on the appeals filed against the NGT’s penalty order.
Parties Involved
- Appellants:
- Dr. I.S. Tomar (then Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Bareilly)
- Municipal Corporation, Bareilly
- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bareilly
- Respondents: Invertis University & Ors. Etc. (Original Applicants before the NGT)
Procedural History
- Lower Court/Subordinate court/Tribunals Decisions: The National Green Tribunal (NGT), in its judgment dated October 24, 2013, found the Mayor and the Commissioner guilty of intentionally violating its orders. It sentenced them to civil imprisonment and a fine of ₹5 lakhs each. It also imposed a daily fine of ₹1 lakh on the Municipal Corporation.
- Appeals: The Mayor, the Municipal Corporation, and the Commissioner filed separate appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the NGT’s judgment.
Issues Framed
Whether the appellants can be subjected to a penalty by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, for their failure to comply with its orders.
Areas of Debate
- Can a Mayor, who may not have direct executive powers over a Municipal Corporation’s day-to-day operations, be held personally liable for the Corporation’s failure to comply with an NGT order?
- What is the standard of proof required to establish a “failure to comply” under the penal provision of Section 26 of the NGT Act?
- Can a Municipal Commissioner be penalized without a specific finding of “wilful default”?
Cases Cited
NA
Acts/Rules/Orders Referred
- National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act)
- Type: Act
- Section 26: This section provides for penalties for failure to comply with orders of the NGT. It prescribes imprisonment up to three years and/or a fine. The Supreme Court held that this is a penal provision and must be strictly construed. To invoke it against an individual, it must be proven that they were personally responsible for the non-compliance and had the power to ensure compliance.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Type: Act
- Order XXXIX, Rule 2A: This rule deals with the consequences of disobedience or breach of an injunction. The Supreme Court noted that the NGT had purported to invoke this provision, but it was not applicable to the Mayor as he was not a party to the original proceedings.
- Constitution of India
- Type: Constitution
- Article 51A(g): This article lists the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. The Court noted that as a citizen and Mayor, the appellant had this duty.
Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
Literature Citation
NA
Appearances
- Advocates: Not mentioned.
- Witnesses: NA
- Other Persons: NA
Prayer
The appellants prayed for the setting aside of the NGT’s order that imposed penalties on them.
Evidence & Findings
- Evidence: Report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the NGT.
- Description: A report submitted by an advocate who was appointed to inspect the site.
- Findings: The report observed that solid waste was still being dumped at the site despite the NGT’s prohibitory orders, establishing a clear breach by the Municipal Corporation.
- Page/Paragraph: Paragraph 19.
Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments
- Dr. I.S. Tomar (the Mayor): He argued that he was not a party to the original case where the orders were passed. He contended that all executive powers of the Municipal Corporation are vested in the Commissioner, and therefore, he had no authority to implement the NGT’s orders. He also submitted that he had tendered an unconditional apology for his public remarks, which the NGT had accepted.
- Municipal Corporation and Commissioner: They argued that there was no finding of a “wilful breach” of the NGT’s orders. They also pointed out that the main order of the NGT had been stayed by the Supreme Court, and the directions in the impugned judgment were too harsh.
Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments
The respondents argued that the Mayor’s public statements were highly objectionable and amounted to scandalizing the NGT. They contended that as the Mayor, he was responsible for ensuring the NGT’s orders were followed. They also submitted that the penalty was lenient, considering the environmental damage caused and the maximum punishment available under the NGT Act.
Ratio Decidendi
- Penal provisions, such as Section 26 of the NGT Act, must be strictly construed. To hold an individual liable for failure to comply with an order, it must be established that the person was directly responsible for the non-compliance and possessed the authority to enforce the order.
- A person cannot be penalized for the actions of a corporate body (like a Municipal Corporation) merely because they hold a high office (like a Mayor), unless it is shown that they had the specific executive power to control the actions in question.
- Before imposing a penalty on an official like a Municipal Commissioner for non-compliance, there must be a clear finding of “wilful default” on their part. A general failure by the organization is not sufficient to justify a personal penalty.
- However, a corporate body itself, like the Municipal Corporation, can be held liable and fined for causing environmental damage and for the admitted breach of a court’s or tribunal’s directions.
Final Decision
- The appeal of Dr. I.S. Tomar is allowed. The directions against him for civil imprisonment and payment of a fine are set aside.
- The appeal of the Municipal Corporation and Commissioner is partly allowed. The directions against the Commissioner (Shri Umesh Pratap Singh) for civil imprisonment and payment of a fine are set aside.
- All other parts of the NGT’s judgment, including the fine imposed on the Municipal Corporation, are not disturbed.
Legal Jargons and Maxims
- Civil Imprisonment: Detaining a person in a civil prison, typically for non-compliance with a court order or for non-payment of a debt, as opposed to imprisonment for a criminal offense.
- Inter alia: A Latin phrase meaning “among other things.”
- Penal Provision: A section of a law that prescribes a penalty or punishment for a specific offense or violation.
Exhibits
NA