The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the environmental compensation order issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) against a brick kiln operator, holding that the Board acted without proper legal authority in imposing such penalties. The Court emphasized that no environmental compensation can be levied in the absence of specific statutory rules or procedures prescribing the method of calculation and recovery.
The case arose when the RSPCB imposed compensation on a brick kiln unit for operating without valid consent under the Air and Water Pollution Control Acts. The Board relied on its internal mechanism titled “Mechanism of Calculation, Imposition and Recovery of Environmental Compensation” to determine the penalty amount. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the guidelines were never formally notified under any law and therefore had no legal backing.
The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It found that although the Acts empower the State Pollution Control Board to take measures to prevent and control pollution, they do not authorize it to independently impose and recover environmental compensation without a proper statutory framework. The Court also noted that the Board’s internal guidelines lacked transparency, public consultation, and official notification, making them unenforceable.
Relying on previous Supreme Court judgments, including the D.P.C.C. v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. decision, the Court held that compensation for environmental damage can only be imposed through validly framed rules or regulations that clearly define the method of assessment, procedure for hearing affected parties, and recovery process. Any administrative action without such a framework would violate the principles of natural justice and the rule of law.
Consequently, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the compensation orders and directed the RSPCB to refund any amounts collected within six weeks. However, it clarified that the pollution control authorities are not barred from imposing such penalties in the future, provided that the State government notifies the appropriate rules under the relevant Acts.
This judgment is significant as it reiterates the principle that administrative bodies must act strictly within the limits of their statutory powers. While environmental protection remains a crucial objective, enforcement mechanisms must be transparent, legally sound, and procedurally fair. The ruling serves as a reminder that regulatory zeal cannot override due process, and that even actions taken in the name of environmental protection must be grounded in law and justified through clear legal authority.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.