Supreme Court – Daily Orders
M/S Shah Sponge And Power Ltd vs Jharkhand State Pollution Control … on 20 April, 2026
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ D.No. 31849 OF 2025)
M/S SHAH SPONGE AND POWER LTD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
JHARKHAND STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Despite service of notice, no one has entered appearance on
behalf of the respondents.
3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by
the National Green Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No.
97/2023/EZ whereby the Tribunal was considering the complaint
against the appellant for violation of Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the legal proceedings were initiated
vide letter petition from a private complainant who alleged that
the appellant’s iron and steel manufacturing plant is causing
extensive air and water pollution in East Singhbhum District,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Jharkhand. Treating it as an original application the Tribunal
Date: 2026.04.23
16:46:19 IST
Reason:
constituted a Joint Committee for inspection and recommendation
1
of the remedial action against the appellant.
4. The inspection report of the Joint Committee indicated
certain operational non compliances and forwarded its report to
the Jharkhand Pollution Control Board which in turn issued show
cause notice dated 26.05.2022, proposing imposition of
environmental compensation of Rs. 3,95,71,875/- (Rupees Three
Crores Ninety Five Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred and
Seventy Five). This was followed by second show cause notice
dated 08.09.2022, whereunder the demand was reiterated. It
appears that there was no proper assessment of the amount and the
appellant contends that its views were not taken into account.
5. The Jharkhand Pollution Control Board, however, passed a
final order on 10.03.2023 directing payment of Rs. 3,95,71,875/-
for violation of 938 days from date of grant of consent to
operate on 24.09.2019 till the date of site visit on 18.04.2022,
within seven days along with interest @ 12% p.a. Upon filing of
an application by the appellant for reconsideration, which is
based on the calculation on the basis of the actual period of
violation i.e. from 18.02.2022 to 18.04.2022, the Pollution
Control Board revised the amount to Rs. 48,93,750/- (Rupees Forty
Eight Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty) in its
report dated 11.09.2023. In the meanwhile, the Tribunal took up
the Original Application and disposed it of on 09.10.2023 holding
that the appellant has, in a way, admitted the violations by the
2
fact of having implemented or being in the process of
implementing the Joint Commission’s directions. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as under:
19. We may also note that the fact that
compliances have been made or the Respondent No.4
is in the process of complying and implementing
the directions given by the Joint Committee,
confirms the environmental violations caused by it
and which have now come on record. Once the
environmental violations are confirmed, compliance
or implementation of the directions of the
Committee by the Respondent No.4 would not absolve
him from his liability to pay Environmental
Compensation for past violations. Environmental
Compensation has been determined by the Board @
Rs. 3,95,71,875/- (Rupees Three Crores Ninety Five
Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred and
Seventy Five only) after giving full and
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
Respondent No.4.
20. In (1995) 5 SCC 281; (Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India & Ors.) in
para 26 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
“26. Enactment of a law, but tolerating its
infringement, is worse than not enacting a law at
all. The continued infringement of law, over a
period of time, is made possible by adoption of
such means which are best known to the violators
of law. Continued tolerance of such violations of
law not only renders legal provisions nugatory but
such tolerance by the enforcement authorities
encourages lawlessness and adoption of means which
cannot, or ought not to, be tolerated in any
civilized society. Law should not only be meant
for the law-abiding but is meant to be obeyed by
all for whom it has been enacted. A law is usually
enacted because the legislature feels that it is
necessary. It is with a view to protect and
preserve the environment and save it for the
future generations and to ensure good quality of
life that Parliament enacted the anti-pollution3
laws, namely, the Water Act, Air Act and the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These Acts and
Rules framed and notification issued thereunder
contain provisions which prohibit and/or regulate
certain activities with a view to protect and
preserve the environment. When a law is enacted
containing some provisions which prohibit certain
types of activities, then, it is of utmost
importance that such legal provisions are
effectively enforced. If a law is enacted but is
not being voluntarily obeyed, then, it has to be
enforced. Otherwise, infringement of law, which is
actively or passively condoned for personal gain,
will be encouraged which will in turn lead to a
lawless society. Violation of anti-pollution laws
not only adversely affects the existing quality of
life but the nonenforcement of the legal
provisions often results in ecological imbalance
and degradation of environment, the adverse effect
of which will have to be borne by the future
generations.”
21. In (1996) 5 SCC 647; (Vellore Citizens’
Welfare Forum vs. Union of India & Ors.), the
precautionary principle and polluter-pays
principle were held to be part of the
environmental law of the country. It was held that
the polluter-pays principle means that the
absolute liability for harm to the environment
extends not only to compensate the victims of
pollution but also the cost of restoring the
environmental degradation. Remediation of the
damaged environment is part of the process of
sustainable development.
22. In (2005) 13 SCC 186; (Research Foundation for
Science Vs. Union of India & Anr.), in paras 29
and 33 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
“29. The polluter pays principle basically means
that the producer of goods or other items should
be responsible for the cost of preventing or
dealing with any pollution that the process
causes. This includes environmental cost as well
as direct cost to the people or property, it also
covers cost incurred in avoiding pollution and not4
just those related to remedying any damage. It
will include full environmental cost and not just
those which are immediately tangible. The
principle also does not mean that the polluter can
pollute and pay for it. The nature and extent of
cost and the circumstances in which the principle
will apply may differ from case to case.
……….xxx………xxx………….xxx……..
33. The polluter-pays principle was applied in
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union
of India to fasten liability for defraying the
costs of remedial measures. The task of
determining the amount required for carrying out
the remedial measures, its recovery/realization
and the task of undertaking the remedial measures
was placed in this case upon the Central
Government. In the present case the approximate
expenditure to be incurred for destroying the
hazardous waste has been mentioned in the report.”
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 575;
(Sterlite Industries (India) Limited & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.), has referred to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1987) 1
SCC 395; (M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India), para 31
of which has been quoted in para 46 of the
judgment which reads as under:-
“46. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1987) 1
SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37] , a Constitution
Bench of this Court held: (SCC pp. 420-21, para
31)
“31. … The enterprise must be held to be under an
obligation to provide that the hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity in which it is
engaged must be conducted with the highest
standards of safety and if any harm results on
account of such activity, the enterprise must be
absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and
it should be no answer to the enterprise to say
that it had taken all reasonable care and that the
harm occurred without any negligence on its part.”The Constitution Bench in the aforesaid case
5
further observed that the quantum of compensation
must be co-related to the magnitude and capacity
of the enterprise because such compensation must
have a deterrent effect and the larger and more
prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the
amount of compensation payable by it.”
24. We find that after Environmental Compensation
was computed against the Respondent No.4 Company,
the Respondent No.4 was given an opportunity of
personal hearing in person on 03.06.2022 before
the State Board as per the provisions of Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,
and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981, as would be clear from the order of the
State Board dated 26.05.2022 (page nos.19-20 of
the paper book). Thereafter, the Respondent No.4
was again given a second opportunity of hearing
before the State Board on 14.09.2022 as would be
clear from the second show cause notice dated
08.09.2022 (page nos. 21-22 of the paper book).
Thereafter, again by another order dated
29.09.2022 (page nos.23-24 of the paper book), the
Respondent No.4 was again given a third
opportunity of hearing before the State Board on
30.09.2022.
25. In para 15 of his reply dated 28.02.2023 (103-
119 of the paper book), the Respondent No.4 has
stated that he had filed a letter dated 30.09.2022
before the State Board for re-consideration of the
order dated 26.05.2022 on the ground that the said
Respondent had taken action to correct the
insufficiencies/discrepancies as pointed out by
the Joint Committee.
26. In para 18 of the reply of Respondent No.4,
the said Respondent has again stated that he had
diligently acted to remove the remaining
deficiencies in the Plant and had submitted an
implementation report dated 29.11.2022. This
action confirms that there were past violations
which required compliance by the Respondent No.4.
27. We have already noted hereinabove that
subsequent compliance and implementation of
directions of the Joint Committee would not
absolve the Respondent No.4 from his past
6
violations. Neither in his reply affidavit dated
28.02.2023 nor in his subsequent additional reply
dated 17.07.2023 the Respondent No.4 has been able
to show as to how the computation of Environmental
Compensation for 938 days of violation is
incorrect except to state in para 17 of its
additional reply affidavit that compensation was
imposed on the Respondent No.4 by the State Board
without any basis or proof. The figure of 938 days
of violation has not been disputed. There is only
a prayer in the reply for waiving off
Environmental Compensation of Rs. 3,95,71,875/-
(Rupees Three Crores Ninety Five Lakhs Seventy One
Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five only).
28. In this view of the matter, we find that the
Respondent No.4 was not only in violation of the
environmental norms but he was also given adequate
opportunity of hearing on three dates viz., on
03.06.2022, 14.09.2022 and 30.09.2022 by the
Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board to present
his case and to defend himself with regard to the
computation of Environmental Compensation.
29. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4
then submitted that he may be granted liberty to
file appeal before the Board against the impugned
order imposing Environmental Compensation.
30. We find that the impugned order computing
Environmental Compensation has been passed under
Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974, and under Section 31A of
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981. Appeal against an order passed under the
aforesaid provisions lies directly to the Tribunal
under Section 16(c) and under Section 16(f) of the
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981, before the National Green Tribunal.
31. The matter is already before us, as we have
already observed hereinabove that even before us
in his responses filed by the Respondent No.4, he
has not led any evidence to dispute the
computation of Environmental Compensation, though
he has been given full opportunity. The only plea
of the Respondent No.4 is that he has complied
7
with the directions given by the Joint Committee
and is also in the process of implementing
whatever remains to be complied of the directions
given by the Joint Committee.”
6. Aggrieved the appellant approached this Court. At the stage
of admission, we passed an interim order staying the judgment and
order passed by the Tribunal. From the perusal of the impugned
order it is evident that neither the question of environmental
compensation was in issue before the Tribunal in the ongoing
proceedings, nor the appellant was given an appropriate
opportunity of being heard on this issue before final orders were
passed. It is also apparent that the appellant not only lost an
opportunity to contest the case on merits, in fact it has also
lost a right to appeal against the order passed by the Pollution
Control Board. Rather strangely, the Tribunal assumed that as
further appeal would eventually land in our jurisdiction, it is
not necessary to let the appellant avail the remedy of appeal.
This Court deprecated a similar procedure adopted by the Tribunal
in the case of Veena Gupta vs. Central Pollution Control Board;
reported in (2024) 11 SCC 701. This Court directed as under:
“4. The National Green Tribunal’s recurrent
engagement in unilateral decision making,
provisioning ex post facto review hearing
and routinely dismissing it has regrettably
become a prevailing norm. In its zealous
quest for justice, the Tribunal must tread
carefully to avoid the oversight of
propriety. The practice of ex parte orders
and the imposition of damages amounting to8
crores of rupees, have proven to be a
counterproductive force in the broader
mission of environmental safeguarding.
5. Significantly, these orders have
consistently faced stays from this Court,
resulting in the unraveling of the
commendable efforts put forth by the learned
Members, lawyers, and other stakeholders.1 It
is imperative for the Tribunal to infuse a
renewed sense of procedural integrity,
ensuring that its actions resonate with a
harmonious balance between justice and due
process. Only then can it reclaim its
standing as a beacon of environmental
protection, where well-intentioned endeavors
are not simply washed away.
6. It appears that the appellants did not
have a full opportunity to contest the
matter and place all their defenses before
the Tribunal. They filed this appeal and by
order dated 04.03.20222, this Court stayed
the judgment and order passed by the
Tribunal. This was inevitable. Two years
have passed by and the stay is still
operating. We have no other alternative
except to set aside the orders dated
31.08.20213 and 26.11.20214 and remand the
matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal
issue notices to all the necessary parties,
hear them in detail, and pass appropriate
orders. Needless to say that the Tribunal
shall hear the case, uninfluenced by the
observations and conclusions drawn in the
orders dated 31.08.2021 and 26.11.2021.”
1 Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey,(2023)8 SCC
35. This Court has already noticed the practice of the Tribunal in not pro-
viding an opportunity of hearing to the affected party and consequently set
aside its orders and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration
after following principles of natural justice.
2 Veena Gupta v. Central Pollution Control Board, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2214.
3 “Delhi: Man Charred to Death as Illegal Factory Catches Fire”, In re, 2021
SCC OnLine NGT 3989.
4 “Delhi: Man Charred to Death as Illegal Factory Catches Fire”, In re, 2021
SCC OnLine NGT 2403.
9
7. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in allowing the
appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. The
Original Application No. 97/2023/EZ is restored to its original
number. The appellant will be entitled to file additional
affidavit and documents in support of its case. The Tribunal will
now proceed to hear all the parties and dispose of the case in
accordance with law. Pending disposal of the Original
Application, the interim order passed by this Court shall
continue.
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 20, 2026
10
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 31849/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-
2023 in OA No. 97/2023 passed by the National Green Tribunal,
Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata]
M/S SHAH SPONGE AND POWER LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JHARKHAND STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 163495/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL
IA No. 163497/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 163499/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 163501/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 163491/2025 – STAY APPLICATION
Date : 20-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anand Varma, AOR
Mr. Polavarapu Sai Charan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order.
11
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSTT. REGISTRAR(NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
12