STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus ANAND ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 80, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
v.
ANAND ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER
(Petition For Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 10084-85/2022)
 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
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
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
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
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.
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.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 80
80
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
The Order of the Court was passed by
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. ANAND
ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
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
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:
“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
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.
(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;
(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
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
Crores.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
83
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. ANAND
ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
the sanctuary, it will always be open for the department/authority to take
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
85
steps as provided under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
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/
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.
Ankit Gyan
SLPs disposed of.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. ANAND
ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER [M. R. SHAH, J.]