Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana Excessive Courtroom has upheld the notification offering for a single member Appellate Authority for issues arising out of the Air Act and Water Act as not being violative of the regulation laid down by the Apex Courtroom within the matter of A.P. Air pollution Management Board Versus Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.), 1999.
The Courtroom was contemplating a Writ Petition searching for quashment of notifications amending the Haryana (Prevention and Management of Water Air pollution) Guidelines, 1978 and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Management of Air pollution) Guidelines, 1983 for offering a single member Appellate Authority.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal held, “In view of above dialogue, this Courtroom has no method of doubt that offering for a single member Appellate Authority below Air Act and Water Act, vide notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P-4 and P-5), doesn’t violate the regulation laid down by Apex Courtroom in A.P. Air pollution Management Board’s Case (supra), particularly when considered from the context of present legal guidelines referring to setting prevailing on the time when Apex Courtroom pronounced choice in A.P. Air pollution Management Board’s case (supra).”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Jitender Dhanda whereas the Respondent was represented by Extra Advocate Basic Deepak Balyan.
Info of the Case
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the mentioned notifications are in direct contravention to the Supreme Courtroom’s ruling in A.P. Air pollution Management Board Versus Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.), 1999 to the extent that it lays down that composition of Appellate Authorities in issues referring to environmental legal guidelines should be manned by technical personnel along with judicial members, thus assuming duplicity within the composition of Appellate Authority.
Alternatively, the State of Haryana filed its Written Assertion defending the mentioned notifications totally on the bottom that the necessity emphasised by Apex Courtroom in A.P. Air pollution Management Board’s case (supra) of getting a technical member with experience within the discipline of setting as a vital a part of Appellate Authority is obviated by structure of Nationwide Inexperienced Tribunal below the Nationwide Inexperienced Tribunal Act, 2010.
The State additional identified varied amendments brought on within the Air Act, particularly Part 31B, the place the treatment of enchantment was offered earlier than the Tribunal to an individual aggrieved by an order or choice of the Appellate Authority below Part 31.
Comparable amendments carried out within the Water Act have been additionally identified by the State, particularly Part 33B, which extends an individual aggrieved in opposition to an order or choice of the Appellate Authority below Part 28, or in opposition to an order handed by the State Authorities below Part 29, to strategy the Tribunal.
The State thus urged that the Tribunal has a group of ten to twenty technical members who can very properly cowl up the lacuna, if any, within the composition of the Appellate Authority and resulting from monetary constraints, no helpful goal might be served with three members.
Reasoning By Courtroom
The Courtroom on the outset noticed {that a} perusal of the choice in A.P. Air pollution Management (supra), makes it apparent that the regulation that was laid down by Apex Courtroom mandating Appellate Authority to be a multi member physique, together with a technical skilled as a member was laid down within the period when NGT Act had not been promulgated.
“…..This Courtroom is in conferment with view of the State that when a statutory Tribunal, particularly Nationwide Inexperienced Tribunal has been constituted and has began functioning, which inter alia includes of specialists within the discipline of setting as Professional Members, the urgent want for the Appellate Authority below Air Act and Water Act to be comprised inter-alia of a member within the filed of setting will get obviated. Thus, the absence of an Professional Member as a part of Appellate Authority doesn’t event any drawback to the particular person aggrieved approaching the Appellate Authority,” the Courtroom noticed.
It went on to state that the NGT can very properly entertain and adjudicate points, particularly arising out of implementation of enactments of the Air Act and Water Act.
The Courtroom identified that the impugned notifications be certain that in case of Single Member Appellate Authority, the only member has sufficient expertise/experience within the discipline of setting to obviate the apprehensions expressed by the Apex Courtroom in (supra).
“A naked perusal of aforesaid provisions clearly reveals that the enactment of Air Act and Water Act empower the State to have a single or three member physique because the Appellate Authority. Thus, if the State vide notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) has offered for a single physique as per the Appellate Authority below Air Act and Water Act, then the facility exercised by the State is throughout the 4 corners of the mentioned enactments,” the Courtroom held.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Trigger Title: Sunil vs. State of Haryana and others (2025:PHHC:076930-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner– Advocate Jitender Dhanda, Advocate Suman Sagar
Respondent– Extra Advocate Basic Deepak Balyan
