CWP-25118-2023 ( O&M ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sunil State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Constitution of India is invoked to essentially seek quashment of notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (‘Water Act’, for brevity) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (‘Air Act’, for brevity), providing a single member Appellate Authority, which learned counsel for t Apex Court in its judgment dated 27.01.1999 (Annexure P 2023 ( O&M ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Pronouncement Versus Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, and Ms. Suman Sagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to essentially seek quashment of notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (‘Water Act’, for brevity) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (‘Air Act’, for , providing a single member Appellate Authority, which learned counsel for the petitioner, is in direct conflict with law laid down by Apex Court in its judgment dated 27.01.1999 (Annexure P -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25118-2023 ( O&M ) Reserved on : 18.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, and Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ( Oral ) e jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to essentially seek quashment of notifications 5) amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (‘Water Act’, for brevity) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (‘Air Act’, for , providing a single member Appellate Authority, which, according to is in direct conflict with law laid down by Apex Court in its judgment dated 27.01.1999 (Annexure P-1) rendered in Civil 2023 ( O&M ) .2025 : 30.06.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents e jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to essentially seek quashment of notifications 5) amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (‘Water Act’, for brevity) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (‘Air Act’, for according to is in direct conflict with law laid down by 1) rendered in Civil NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25118-2023 ( O&M ) Appeal Nos. 368 1998), titled “ (Retd.)”. 2. plea that by providing a single member Appellate Authority, the State has given a go Board’s case of Appellate Authorities in matters relating to environmental laws ought to be manned by technical personnel duplicity in the composition of 3. said notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P ground that the need emphasized by Apex Court in Board’s case of environment constitution of National Green Tribunal (‘T National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (‘NGT A with effect from Section 4 (1) (a) (b) 2023 ( O&M ) Appeal Nos. 368-371 of 1999 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10317 1998), titled “A.P. Pollution Control Board Vers Challenge to aforesaid notifications dated 20.11. plea that by providing a single member Appellate Authority, the State has given a go-bye to law laid down by Apex Court in case (supra) to the extent the Apex Court of Appellate Authorities in matters relating to environmental laws ought to be manned by technical personnel in addition to judicial members, thus assuming duplicity in the composition of Appellate Authority. The State of Haryana has filed its written statement defending the said notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P ground that the need emphasized by Apex Court in Board’s case (supra) of having a technical member with expertise in the field of environment as an essential part of Appellate Authority, is obviated by constitution of National Green Tribunal (‘T National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (‘NGT A with effect from 18.10.2010, where composition of Section 4 (1) (a) a full-time Chairperson, who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court of India or Chief Justice of a High Court; (b) not less than ten but maximum of twenty full Judicial Members, who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court of India or Chief Justice of a High Court; -2- 371 of 1999 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10317-10320 of A.P. Pollution Control Board Versus Prof. M.V. Nayudu hallenge to aforesaid notifications dated 20.11.2019 is on plea that by providing a single member Appellate Authority, the State has bye to law laid down by Apex Court in A.P. Pollution Control Apex Court lays down that composition of Appellate Authorities in matters relating to environmental laws ought to be in addition to judicial members, thus assuming Appellate Authority. led its written statement defending the said notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) primarily on the ground that the need emphasized by Apex Court in A.P. Pollution Control of having a technical member with expertise in the field an essential part of Appellate Authority, is obviated by constitution of National Green Tribunal (‘Tribunal’, for brevity) under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (‘NGT Act’, for brevity) brought into force 18.10.2010, where composition of Tribunal is provided thus : time Chairperson, who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court of India or Chief Justice of a High but maximum of twenty full-time Judicial Members, who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court of India or Chief Justice of a High 10320 of us Prof. M.V. Nayudu on the plea that by providing a single member Appellate Authority, the State has A.P. Pollution Control lays down that composition of Appellate Authorities in matters relating to environmental laws ought to be in addition to judicial members, thus assuming led its written statement defending the 5) primarily on the A.P. Pollution Control of having a technical member with expertise in the field an essential part of Appellate Authority, is obviated by ’, for brevity) under the ct’, for brevity) brought into force is provided thus :- NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25118-2023 ( O&M ) (c) 3.1 the Air Act, especially Section 31B, where the remedy of a before the Tribunal Appellate Authority under Section 31. 3.2 pointed out by the State, especially Section 33B, which extends a person aggrieved Section 28, or against an order passed by the State Government under Section 29, to approach the 3.3 carried out 2023 ( O&M ) (c) minimum ten and maximum of twenty full Members, having the following qualificatio (a) has a degree in Master of Science (in physical sciences or life sciences) with a Doctorate degree or Master of Engineering or Master of Technology and has an experience of fifteen years in the relevant field including five years practical experience in the field of environment and forests (including pollution control, hazardous substance management, environment impact assessment, climate change management; biological diversity management and forest conservation) in a reputed national level institution or (b) has administrative experience of fifteen years including experience of five years in dealing with environmental matters in the Central or a State Government or in a reputed National or State level institution. The State has further pointed the Air Act, especially Section 31B, where the remedy of a before the Tribunal to a person aggrieved by an order or decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 31. Similar amendments carried out pointed out by the State, especially Section 33B, which extends a person aggrieved against an order or decision of the Appellate Authority Section 28, or against an order passed by the State Government under Section 9, to approach the Tribunal. The aforesaid amendments in the Air Act and Water Act were out on 18.10.2010. -3- minimum ten and maximum of twenty full-time Expert Members, having the following qualifications : has a degree in Master of Science (in physical sciences or life sciences) with a Doctorate degree or Master of Engineering or Master of Technology and has an experience of fifteen years in the relevant field including five years practical ce in the field of environment and forests (including pollution control, hazardous substance management, environment impact assessment, climate change management; biological diversity management and forest conservation) in a reputed ion or has administrative experience of fifteen years including experience of five years in dealing with environmental matters in the Central or a State Government or in a reputed National or State out various amendments caused in the Air Act, especially Section 31B, where the remedy of appeal is provided to a person aggrieved by an order or decision of the carried out in the Water Act have also been pointed out by the State, especially Section 33B, which extends a person an order or decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 28, or against an order passed by the State Government under Section The aforesaid amendments in the Air Act and Water Act were out various amendments caused in ppeal is provided to a person aggrieved by an order or decision of the in the Water Act have also been pointed out by the State, especially Section 33B, which extends a person under Section 28, or against an order passed by the State Government under Section The aforesaid amendments in the Air Act and Water Act were NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25118-2023 ( O&M ) 3.4 and amendments made in Air Act and Water Act, Tribunal has a team of ten to twenty cover up the lacuna, if any, in State has also pointed out that as on 20.11.2023, the number of pending appeals before the Appellate Authority under Air Act (03). It is in this background, the State contends that to avoid excessive financial burden on the State exchequer, no useful purpose shall be served, after constitution of under Air Act and Water Act Authority. 3.5. adopted the reply 3.6. the reply filed on behalf of t 4. Board’s case Court mandating Appellate Authority to be a multi member body, including a technical expert as a member was laid down in the era when NGT Act had not been promulgated. 4.1 under Sections 14 and 15, but also appellate jurisdiction under Section 16. This Court Tribunal, namely started functioning, which 2023 ( O&M ) Thus, by placing reliance on the specially promulgated NGT Act and amendments made in Air Act and Water Act, has a team of ten to twenty technical members, who can very well cover up the lacuna, if any, in the composition of Appellate Authority. The State has also pointed out that as on 20.11.2023, the number of pending before the Appellate Authority under Air Act (03). It is in this background, the State contends that to avoid excessive financial burden on the State exchequer, no useful purpose shall be served, after constitution of Tribunal, to have a three member Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act, instead of only Respondent No.3 – Haryana State Pollution Control Board has adopted the reply filed by the State. Pertinently, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder/replication to filed on behalf of the State. From a bare perusal of decision in Board’s case (supra), it is obvious that the law that was laid down by Apex Court mandating Appellate Authority to be a multi member body, including a technical expert as a member was laid down in the era when NGT Act had not been promulgated. NGT Act not only bestows the Tribunal with original jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15, but also appellate jurisdiction under Section 16. This Court is in conferment with view of the State that once a statutory Tribunal, namely National Green Tribunal started functioning, which inter alia comprises of experts in the field of -4- Thus, by placing reliance on the specially promulgated NGT Act and amendments made in Air Act and Water Act, the State urges that the technical members, who can very well composition of Appellate Authority. The State has also pointed out that as on 20.11.2023, the number of pending before the Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act was three (03). It is in this background, the State contends that to avoid excessive financial burden on the State exchequer, no useful purpose shall be served, ave a three member Appellate Authority , instead of only a Single member Appellate Haryana State Pollution Control Board has er has not filed any rejoinder/replication to From a bare perusal of decision in A.P. Pollution Control (supra), it is obvious that the law that was laid down by Apex Court mandating Appellate Authority to be a multi member body, including a technical expert as a member was laid down in the era when NGT Act had not stows the Tribunal with original jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15, but also appellate jurisdiction under Section 16. in conferment with view of the State that once a statutory National Green Tribunal, has been constituted and has comprises of experts in the field of Thus, by placing reliance on the specially promulgated NGT Act the State urges that the technical members, who can very well composition of Appellate Authority. The State has also pointed out that as on 20.11.2023, the number of pending was three (03). It is in this background, the State contends that to avoid excessive financial burden on the State exchequer, no useful purpose shall be served, ave a three member Appellate Authority member Appellate Haryana State Pollution Control Board has er has not filed any rejoinder/replication to A.P. Pollution Control (supra), it is obvious that the law that was laid down by Apex Court mandating Appellate Authority to be a multi member body, including a technical expert as a member was laid down in the era when NGT Act had not stows the Tribunal with original jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15, but also appellate jurisdiction under Section 16. in conferment with view of the State that once a statutory , has been constituted and has comprises of experts in the field of NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25118-2023 ( O&M ) environment as Expert Members, the pressing need for the Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act to be comprised field of environment gets obviated. part of Appellate Authority does not aggrieved approaching the Appellate Authority. 4.2 is 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 is enumerated below : [See sections 14(1), 15(1), 17(1)(a), 17(2), 19(4)(j) and 34(1)] 1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; 2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; 3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; 4. The Air (Prevention 5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; 6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; 7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The aforesaid original jurisdiction in the disputes relating to environmental issues Appellate Authority. The directly to approach the Appellate Authority, but there is no bar under the NGT Act for the especially arising out of Air Act the aggrieved person to approach the Appellate Authority. 2023 ( O&M ) environment as Expert Members, the pressing need for the Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act to be comprised field of environment gets obviated. Thus, t Appellate Authority does not occasion any aggrieved approaching the Appellate Authority. A close scrutiny of Section 14 of NGT Act reveals is 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 is enumerated below : SCHEDULE I [See sections 14(1), 15(1), 17(1)(a), 17(2), 19(4)(j) and 34(1)] 1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; 2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; 3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; 4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; 5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; 6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; 7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The aforesaid original jurisdiction in the disputes relating to environmental issues Appellate Authority. The Tribunal may relegate the person approaching it directly to approach the Appellate Authority, but there is no bar under the t for the Tribunal to entertain a dispute especially arising out of Air Act and Water Act the aggrieved person to approach the Appellate Authority. -5- environment as Expert Members, the pressing need for the Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act to be comprised inter alia of a member in the Thus, the absence of an Expert Member occasion any disadvantage to the person aggrieved approaching the Appellate Authority. of Section 14 of NGT Act reveals that Tribunal is 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 is SCHEDULE I [See sections 14(1), 15(1), 17(1)(a), 17(2), 19(4)(j) and 34(1)] 1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; 2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; 3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; 5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; 6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; 7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The aforesaid original jurisdiction in the Tribunal empowers it to entertain disputes relating to environmental issues as well, without approaching the may relegate the person approaching it directly to approach the Appellate Authority, but there is no bar under the to entertain a dispute relating to environment, and Water Act, directly without first insisting the aggrieved person to approach the Appellate Authority. environment as Expert Members, the pressing need for the Appellate Authority of a member in the an Expert Member as the person Tribunal is 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 is empowers it to entertain as well, without approaching the may relegate the person approaching it directly to approach the Appellate Authority, but there is no bar under the relating to environment, , directly without first insisting NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25118-2023 ( O&M ) 5. Tribunals Act, 1985, which under Section 20 prohibits admission of applications unless the remedies available are exhausted by the aggrieved person. 6. can very well ente issues, especially arising out of implementation of enactments of, Air Act and Water Act. 7. ensure that in case of Single Member Appellate Authority the sole member has enough experience/expertise in the field of environment to obviate the apprehensions expressed by the Apex Court in (supra). 8. that providing for a single member Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act, not violate the law laid down by Apex Court in Board’s case laws relating to environment prevailing at the time when Apex Court pronounced decision in 9. P-4 and P- Act. The Appellate Authority provided for in Section 31 (2) of Air Act and Section 28 (2) of Section 31 (2) of Air Act : 2023 ( O&M ) This is in contradiction to the provisions of Tribunals Act, 1985, which under Section 20 prohibits admission of applications unless the remedies available are exhausted by the aggrieved There is no such bar in the NGT Act and, therefore, the Tribunal can very well entertain and adjudicate disputes relating to environmental , especially arising out of implementation of enactments of, Air Act and Water Act. More so, the impugned notifications (Annexures P ensure that in case of Single Member Appellate Authority the sole member has enough experience/expertise in the field of environment to obviate the apprehensions expressed by the Apex Court in In view of above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that providing for a single member Appellate Authority under Air Act and , vide notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P violate the law laid down by Apex Court in Board’s case (supra), especially when viewed from the context of existing laws relating to environment prevailing at the time when Apex Court pronounced decision in A.P. Pollution Control Bo Pertinently, impugned notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures 5) cannot be termed as dehors the provisions of Air Act and Water Act. The Appellate Authority provided for in Section 31 (2) of Air Act and Section 28 (2) of Water Act clearly provide thus : Section 31 (2) of Air Act : -6- This is in contradiction to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which under Section 20 prohibits admission of applications unless the remedies available are exhausted by the aggrieved in the NGT Act and, therefore, the Tribunal rtain and adjudicate disputes relating to environmental , especially arising out of implementation of enactments of, inter alia, More so, the impugned notifications (Annexures P-4 and P ensure that in case of Single Member Appellate Authority the sole member has enough experience/expertise in the field of environment to obviate the apprehensions expressed by the Apex Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board In view of above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that providing for a single member Appellate Authority under Air Act and 20.11.2019 (Annexures P-4 and P-5), does violate the law laid down by Apex Court in A.P. Pollution Control (supra), especially when viewed from the context of existing laws relating to environment prevailing at the time when Apex Court A.P. Pollution Control Board’s case (supra). Pertinently, impugned notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures 5) cannot be termed as dehors the provisions of Air Act and Water Act. The Appellate Authority provided for in Section 31 (2) of Air Act and Water Act clearly provide thus :- the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which under Section 20 prohibits admission of applications unless the remedies available are exhausted by the aggrieved in the NGT Act and, therefore, the Tribunal rtain and adjudicate disputes relating to environmental inter alia, 4 and P-5) ensure that in case of Single Member Appellate Authority the sole member has enough experience/expertise in the field of environment to obviate the . Pollution Control Board In view of above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that providing for a single member Appellate Authority under Air Act and 5), does A.P. Pollution Control (supra), especially when viewed from the context of existing laws relating to environment prevailing at the time when Apex Court Pertinently, impugned notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures 5) cannot be termed as dehors the provisions of Air Act and Water Act. The Appellate Authority provided for in Section 31 (2) of Air Act and NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25118-2023 ( O&M ) The Appellate Authority three persons as the State Government may think fit to be appointed by the State Government. Section 28 (2) of Water Act : An a three persons as the State Government may think fit appointed by th A bare perusal of aforesaid provisions clearly reveals that the enactment of Air Act and Water Act empower the as the Appellate Authority. Thus, if the State vide notifications dated 20.11.2019 (Annexures P Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act, then the power exercise the State is within the four corners of the said enactments. 10. to interfere in the present petition and dismisses the petition without costs. June 30, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2023 ( O&M ) The Appellate Authority shall consist of a single person or three persons as the State Government may think fit to be appointed by the State Government. Section 28 (2) of Water Act : An appellate authority shall consist of a single person or three persons as the State Government may think fit appointed by that Government. A bare perusal of aforesaid provisions clearly reveals that the enactment of Air Act and Water Act empower the State to have a single or three as the Appellate Authority. Thus, if the State vide notifications dated 019 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) has Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act, then the power exercise the State is within the four corners of the said enactments. In view of above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate not to interfere in the present petition and dismisses the petition without costs. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -7- shall consist of a single person or three persons as the State Government may think fit to be appointed by the State Government. shall consist of a single person or three persons as the State Government may think fit, to be A bare perusal of aforesaid provisions clearly reveals that the enactment of Air State to have a single or three member body as the Appellate Authority. Thus, if the State vide notifications dated 5) has provided for a single member Appellate Authority under Air Act and Water Act, then the power exercised by the State is within the four corners of the said enactments. In view of above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate not to interfere in the present petition and dismisses the petition without costs. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( H.S. GREWAL ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No A bare perusal of aforesaid provisions clearly reveals that the enactment of Air body as the Appellate Authority. Thus, if the State vide notifications dated provided for a single member d by In view of above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate not NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment