Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed seeking quashing of two notifications dated 20-11-2019 amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (‘Water Rules’) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (‘Air Rules’), the Division Bench of Sheel Nagu*, CJ., and H.S. Grewal, J., rejected the writ petition, holding that the impugned notifications did not violate the law that the composition of Appellate Authorities in environmental matters ought to be manned by technical personnel in addition to judicial members.
Background
The petitioner contended that the amendments provide for a single-member Appellate Authority in contravention with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62, wherein it was held that composition of Appellate Authorities in matters relating to environmental laws ought to be manned by technical personnel in addition to judicial members.
Analysis
From a bare perusal of decision in A.P. Pollution (supra), the Court held that the law mandating Appellate Authority to be a multi member body, including a technical expert as a member was laid down in the era when National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (‘NGT Act’), had not been promulgated. The NGT Act not only bestows the NGT with original jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15, but also appellate jurisdiction under Section 16.
The Court agreed with the State’s contention that once a statutory Tribunal, namely NGT, has been constituted and started functioning, which comprises of experts in the field of environment as Expert Members, the pressing need for composition of the Appellate Authority under Air and Water Rules with a member in the field of environment got obviated. Thus, the absence of an Expert Member as part of the Appellate Authority did not occasion any disadvantage to the aggrieved person approaching the Appellate Authority.
Upon perusal of Section 14 of NGT Act, the Court noted that the Tribunal was vested with power to entertain all civil disputes involving a substantial question relating to environment and such question arising out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I, which included the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, under which the present Water and Air Rules had been enacted.
The Court stated that this original jurisdiction of the NGT empowers it to entertain disputes relating to environmental issues as well, without approaching the Appellate Authority. The NGT may relegate an aggrieved person to approach the Appellate Authority, but there is no bar under the NGT Act for the NGT to entertain a dispute relating to the environment, especially arising out of Air and Water rules, directly without first insisting that the aggrieved person approach the Appellate Authority.
Additionally, the impugned notifications ensure that in case of a Single Member Appellate Authority, the sole member has enough experience/expertise in the field of environment to obviate the apprehensions expressed by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution (supra).
Furthermore, upon perusal of Section 31 (2) of the Air Rules and Section 28 (2) of the Water Rules, the Court stated that these provisions empowered the State to appoint a single- or three-member body as the Appellate Authority. Thus, if the State vide the impugned notifications opted for a single-member Appellate Authority, then the power exercised by the State was within the four corners of the said enactments.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned notifications did not violate the law laid down in A.P. Pollution(supra).
[Sunil v. State of Haryana, CWP-25118-2023 (O&M), decided on 30-06-2025]
*Orderby: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Jitender Dhandha and Suman Sagar
For the respondent: Addl. Advocate General of Haryana Deepak Balyan
