Case: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

2 (1). On or about 21st July, 2003, the Respondents filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being Writ Petition No.1341 of 2003 before the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, seeking directions on the appellant and other concerned authorities impleaded as respondents, to take immediate steps to stop the plying of motor vehicles which did not conform to pollution control norms, on the roads of Indore, and other consequential orders.    (3) Sometime in March 2013, the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal, Delhi transferred O.A. No.73 of 2012 to the Central Zonal Bench of the National Green Tribunal at Bhopal and the same was re-numbered as O.A. No.1/2013. The Original Application No.01/2013 was taken up for hearing on 21st April, 2015.  On the same day, that is, 21st April, 2015. National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal, hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal, passed an order noting that the mandatory requirement of Rule 115 read with Rule 116 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 for motor vehicles to display a valid PUC Certificate was not being implemented. The learned Tribunal did not find the reasons given by the Appellant State for its inability to effectively enforce Rule 115 read with Rule 116 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules satisfactory, including the reason that most of the pollution checking centres were not in working order and more centres authorized to issue PUC Certificates were required to be set up.  (4) The learned Tribunal held that it was the responsibility of the State and its Transport Department to ensure compliance of the Rules and directed that the vehicles not complying with pollution norms and not possessing a valid PUC Certificate would have to suffer the consequence of suspension and/or revocation of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal also held that a vehicle not displaying a valid PUC Certificate could not be provided with fuel by any dealer or petrol pump. The appellant State Government was directed to take necessary steps in this regard by issuing necessary orders, instructions and/or directions within 31 st July, 2015 and to give wide publicity to such orders, instructions, and/or directions. The matter was directed to be listed on 3 rd August 2015 for reporting compliance.  3. As stated above, an application filed by the Appellant being M.A. No. 394/2015, for review of the said order dated 21.4.2015 has also been rejected by the order dated 3.8.2015, also under appeal before this Court. The appellant had, by the aforesaid order dated 3.8.2015, been granted further 60 days for compliance with the order under review, on condition of deposit, within a week from the date of the said order, an amount of Rs.25 crores by way of security for compliance with the said order, failing which the security deposit would be utilised for environmental needs under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.  (2) By an order dated 3 rd January, 2013 the High Court transferred the aforesaid writ petition to the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, Delhi and the same was re-numbered as Original Application No.73 of 2012.

Reasoning: 37. The Tribunal constituted under the NGT Act has jurisdiction under Section 14 of the said Act to decide all civil cases where any substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of any right relating to environment is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the said Act, which includes The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986.38. In view of the definition of substantial question of environment in Section 2(m) of the NGT Act, the learned Tribunal can examine and decide the question of violation of any specific statutory environmental obligation, which affects or is likely to affect a group of individuals, or the community at large.39. For exercise of power under Section 14 of the NGT Act, a substantial question of law should be involved including any legal right to environment and such question should arise out of implementation of the specified enactments.40. Violation of any specific statutory environmental obligation gives rise to a substantial question of law and not just statutory obligations under the enactments specified in Schedule I. However, the question must arise out of implementation of one or more of the enactments specified in Schedule I.41. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may not be specified in Schedule I to the NGT Act. However, the statutory 1989 Rules framed under the said Act casts statutory environmental obligations on manufacturers, owners and others in control of motor vehicles, as also the State and other statutory authorities under the said Act. The enforcement of the statutory environmental obligations under the 1989 Rules, which is a substantial question relating to environment, arises out of implementation of the 1981 Act and the Environment Protection Act and, in particular, Section 20 of the 1981 Act which casts on the State Government the mandatory duty to give instructions to the authorities in charge of Registration of Motor Vehicles with a view to ensure compliance of the standards of emission of our pollutants and Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act, which prohibits any person from carrying on any operation, which would include operation of a motor vehicle, from discharging or emitting any environmental pollutants in excess of prescribed standards or permitting such discharge or emission.42. On a combined reading of Sections 3, 7, 10, 11 and 23 of the Environment Protection Act, with particular reference to Section 3(1), 3(2)(i)(a) and (b), 3(2) (iii, iv) and 3(2)(x) with Section 20 of the 1981 Act and Sections 14, read with 2(c), and 2(m) of the NGT Act and Rules 115 and 116 of the 1989 Rules, the learned Tribunal had the power, authority and/or jurisdiction to direct the appellant State Government to strictly implement the requirement of vehicles to possess and/or display a valid PUC Certificate, and also to direct the appellant State Government and/or the other authorities concerned to take penal action in accordance with law, that is, Rules 115/116 of the 1989 Rules.43. On a purposive reading of Section 20 with Section 17(1)(g) of the 1981 Act, the standards of emission prescribed by Rules 115 and 116 of the 1989 Rules attract Section 20 of the 1981 Act.44. Under the 1989 Rules, it is mandatory for every motor vehicle to carry a valid pollution under control certificate issued by authorized agency after the expiry of period of one year from the date on which the Motor Vehicle was first registered.45. On reading of Rule 115 of the 1989 Rules with Rule 116 the failure to produce a PUC certificate entails the penalty of suspension of the Certificate of Registration.46. Non production of pollution PUC certificate in contravention of Rule 115(7) (2), as observed above, entails the penalty of suspension of registration.47. A perusal of Section 116 (9) makes it amply clear it may entail penalty under Rule 190(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act48. It is amply clear that driving a vehicle without a pollution PUC certificate entails (i) suspension of registration certificate; (ii) imprisonment which may extend to three months; (iii) fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- or both (iv) disqualification for holding licence for a period of three months (v) imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- or with fine.49. A perusal of Rule 116(8) and (9) makes it amply clear that the suspension of the certificate of registration is temporary. The suspension is until such time as a certificate is produced before the Registering Authority certifying that the vehicle complies with sub Rules (2) and (7) of the Rule 115 of the Central rules. A Certificate of Registration is also to be deemed to have been suspended, until a fresh Pollution Under Control certificate is obtained.50. It is well settled that when a Statute or a Statutory Rules prescribed a penalty for any act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated in the Statute or a Statutory Rules can be imposed. It is well settled that when Statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done only in that manner.51. There can be no doubt that strong measures must be taken to protect the environment and improve the air quality whenever there is contravention of statutory rules causing environmental pollution. Stringent action has to be taken, but in accordance with law.52. Stoppage of supply of fuel to vehicles not complying with the requirement to have and/or display a valid PUC Certificate is not contemplated either in the 1989 Rules or in the NGT Act. Motor Vehicles not complying with the requirement of possessing and/or displaying a valid PUC Certificate cannot be debarred from being supplied fuel.53. In passing blanket direction, directing the appellant State Government to ensure that no dealer and/or outlet and/or petrol pump should supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate, de hors the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the learned Tribunal overlooked the fact that no vehicle can either be repaired to comply with pollution norms, nor tested for compliance with the political norms upon repair, without fuel.54. This Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to pass orders directing the Appellant State Government to issue orders, instructions or directions on dealers, outlets and petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate. The first two questions are answered accordingly.55. The orders passed by the learned Tribunal are binding on and enforceable against the Appellant State. As observed above, the learned Tribunal had the power, authority and jurisdiction to direct the Appellant State to strictly implement compliance with Rules 115 and 116. An order of the Tribunal under the NGT Act is enforceable in the manner provided in Section 25 of the NGT Act.56. There is no provision in the NGT Act for deposit of security to secure compliance of an order of the Tribunal. The penalty for failure to comply with an order of the Tribunal entails the penalty prescribed in Sections 26 and 28 of the NGT Act.57. Section 39 of the 1981 Act and Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act pertain to penalty and/or punishment for contra- vention of the provisions of the 1981 Act, and/or the Environment Protection Act and the rules, orders and directions issued thereunder and Section 41 of the 1981 Act and Section 17 of the Environment Protection Act governs offences by Government Departments. None of the provisions provide for monetary deposit to secure compliance of an order.58. The learned Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to direct the appellant State to deposit Rs.25 crores to secure compliance with its order. In any case such an order should not have been passed in review when the initial order did not contain any direction for security deposit. The third question is accordingly answered.13. Section 24 of the Environment Protection Act provides that the provisions of the said Act under Rule or orders made therein shall have effect not withstanding therein contained in any enactment other than the Environment Protection Act. Where any act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under the Environment Protection Act and also under any other Act, the offender found guilty of such offence is liable to be punished under the other Act.14. The Central Government is empowered to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving environment and for preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution as observed by this Court in M. C. Mehta v. union of India reported in 1988 SC 1030. The existence of the power to take all necessary measures to control pollution and/or to protect and improve the environment is coupled with the duty to exercise such power, if circumstances so warrant. It is in discharge of such duty and/or obligation, that the Central Government incorporated certain provisions in the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as discussed hereinafter.15. In the case of M.C. Mehta (supra), this Court entertained a Public Interest Litigation, seeking the directions on the Government to, inter alia, spread information on environmental pollution and the need to protect environment, free of cost through the radio, television and exhibition of films in cinema halls. One of the main goals of the Environment Protection Act 1986 is to ensure sustainable development. This is a concomitant of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as observed in Dayal V. Union Of India reported in AIR 2004 SC 867.24. Rule 116 and in particular sub-Rule (1) read with sub-Rules 2 to 5 thereof empower an officer to direct the driver or any other person in charge of a motor vehicle to submit the vehicle for a test to measure the standards of emission in an authorised testing station and produce a certificate. The driver and/or the person in charge of the vehicle is obliged to comply with such direction and the test is to be done with a meter of the specification approved by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur or approved by any agency specially authorised in the Rules to do so.33. Section 23 enables the Tribunal to make such order as to costs as it may consider necessary and Section 24 empowers the Tribunal to make an award for monetary compensation or relief on the ground of damage to environment. An award or order or decision of the Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act is executable as a decree of the Civil Court, by the Tribunal itself, for which purpose the Tribunal has all the powers of a Civil Court. The Tribunal may also transmit any order or award made by it to a Civil Court for execution.35. An appeal from a decision of the Tribunal lies to the Court under Section 22 on one or more grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or in other words on a substantial question of law. This Court does not, therefore, deem it necessary to examine the correctness of any factual findings in the judgments and orders under appeal.