{"id":65019,"date":"2000-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000"},"modified":"2016-05-25T14:25:28","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T08:55:28","slug":"m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: S Ahmad<\/div>\n
Bench: S.S.Ahmad, Doraiswami Raju<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM.C.  MEHTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKAMAL NATH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.S.Ahmad, Doraiswami Raju\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.\n<\/p>\n
      This  case, which was finally decided by this Court by
\nits Judgment dated December 13, 1996, has been placed before
\nus  for determination of the quantum of pollution fine.\t  It
\nmay  be\t stated that the main case was disposed of with\t the
\nfollowing  directions:-\t 1.  The public trust  doctrine,  as
\ndiscussed by us in this judgment is a part of the law of the
\nland.\t2.  The prior approval granted by the Government  of
\nIndia,\tMinistry  of  Environment and Forest by\t the  letter
\ndated  November 24, 1993 and the lease-deed dated April\t 11,
\n1994  in favour of the Motel are quashed.  The lease granted
\nto  the Motel by the said lease-deed in respect of 27 bighas
\nand  12\t biswas\t of area, is cancelled and set\taside.\t The
\nHimachal  Pradesh  Government shall take over the  area\t and
\nrestore\t it  to\t its original-natural conditions.   3.\t The
\nMotel  shall  pay  compensation\t by  way  of  cost  for\t the
\nrestitution of the environment and ecology of the area.\t The
\npollution  caused by various constructions made by the Motel
\nin  the river bed and the banks of the river Beas has to  be
\nremoved\t and reversed.\tWe direct NEERI through its Director
\nto inspect the area, if necessary, and give an assessment of
\nthe  cost  which is likely to be incurred for reversing\t the
\ndamage caused by the Motel to the environment and ecology of
\nthe  area.  NEERI may take into consideration the report  by
\nthe  Board  in\tthis  respect.\t4.  The\t Motel\tthrough\t its
\nmanagement  shall show cause why pollution fine in  addition
\nbe  not imposed on the Motel.  5.  The Motel shall construct
\na boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 meters from
\nthe  cluster  of rooms (main building of the Motel)  towards
\nthe  river basin.  The boundary wall shall be on the area of
\nthe  Motel which is covered by the lease dated September 29,
\n1981.\tThe Motel shall not encroach\/cover\/utilise any\tpart
\nof  the\t river basin.  The boundary wall shall separate\t the
\nMotel building from the river basin.  The river bank and the
\nriver  basin shall be left open for the public use.  6.\t The
\nMotel  shall  not  discharge untreated\teffluents  into\t the
\nriver.\t We  direct the Himachal Pradesh  Pollution  Control
\nBoard  to  inspect the pollution  control  devices\/treatment
\nplants\tset  up\t by  the   Motel.   If\tthe   effluent\/waste
\ndischarged  by the Motel is not conforming to the prescribed
\nstandards,  action  in accordance with law be taken  against
\nthe Motel.  7.\tThe Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board
\nshall  not  permit the discharge of untreated effluent\tinto
\nriver\tBeas.\t The   Board\t shall\t inspect   all\t the
\nhotels\/institutions\/factories  in  Kullu-Manali area and  in
\ncase  any  of them are discharging untreated  effluent\/waste
\ninto  the  river, the Board shall take action in  accordance
\nwith  law.   8.\t The Motel shall show cause on December\t 18,
\n1996  why  pollution-fine  and\tdamages be  not\t imposed  as
\ndirected by us.\t NEERI shall send its report by December 17,
\n1996.\tTo be listed on December 18, 1996.” Pursuant to\t the
\nabove  Order,  notice  was  issued requiring  the  Motel  to
\nshow-cause on two points;  (i) why the Motel be not asked to
\npay  compensation  to reverse the degraded  environment\t and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  why pollution fine, in addition, be not imposed.\t Mr.
\nG.L.  Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for M\/s Span
\nMotel  Private Ltd., has contended that though it is open to
\nthe   Court,  in  proceedings  under   Article\t32  of\t the
\nConstitution,  to  grant compensation to the  victims  whose
\nFundamental  Rights might have been violated or who are\t the
\nvictims\t of  an\t arbitrary executive action  or\t victims  of
\natrocious  behaviour  of public authorities in violation  of
\npublic\tduties cast upon them, it cannot impose any fine  on
\nthose  who are guilty of that action.  He contended that the
\nfine  is a component of Criminal Jurisprudence and cannot be
\nutilised  in civil proceedings specially under Article 32 or
\n226  of\t the Constitution either by this Court or  the\tHigh
\nCourt  as  imposition  of  fine would  be  contrary  to\t the
\nprovisions   contained\tin  Article  20\t  and  21   of\t the
\nConstitution.  It is contended that fine can be imposed upon
\na  person  only\t if it is provided by a\t statute  and  gives
\njurisdiction  to  the Court to inflict or impose  that\tfine
\nafter  giving a fair trial to that person but in the absence
\nof any statutory provision, a person cannot be penalised and
\nno  fine can be imposed upon him.  Mr.\tM.C.  Mehta, who has
\nbeen pursuing this case with the usual vigour and vehemence,
\nhas  contended\tthat  if a person  disturbs  the  ecological
\nbalance\t and tinkers with the natural conditions of  rivers,
\nforests,  air  and water, which are the gifts of nature,  he
\nwould  be  guilty  of  violating not  only  the\t Fundamental
\nRights, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, but
\nalso   be  violating  the   fundamental\t duties\t to  protect
\nenvironment  under  Article  51A(g) which provides  that  it
\nshall  be  the duty of every citizen to protect and  improve
\nthe natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
\nwildlife  and to show compassion for living creatures.\t The
\nplanet\tEarth  which is inhabited by human beings and  other
\nliving\tcreatures, including animals and birds, has been  so
\ncreated\t as  to cater to the basic needs of all\t the  living
\ncreatures.   Living  creatures do not necessarily  mean\t the
\nhuman  beings, the animals, the birds, the fish, the  worms,
\nthe  sepents,  the hydras, but also the plants of  different
\nvarieties,  the\t creepers, the grass and the  vast  forests.
\nThey  survive on fresh air, fresh water and the sacred soil.
\nThey  constitute  the  essential elements  for\tsurvival  of
\n“life”\ton  this  planet.  The living  creatures,  including
\nhuman  beings,\tlived  peacefully all along.  But  when\t the
\nhuman  beings started acting inhumanly, the era of  distress
\nbegan  which  in it wake brought new problems for  survival.
\nThe industrial revolution brought an awakening among the men
\ninhabiting  this  Earth\t that  the   Nature,  with  all\t its
\nresources  was\tnot  unlimited and forever  renewable.\t The
\nuncontrolled  industrial  development generating  tonnes  of
\nindustrial  waste  disturbed  the   ecological\tbalance\t  by
\npolluting the air and water which in turn, had a devastating
\neffect\ton the wildlife and, therefore, the early efforts to
\nprotect\t the  environment  related  to\tthe  protection\t  of
\nwildlife.   But then the two world wars, the first world war
\n(1914-1918)  and the second world war (1939 to 1945)  during
\nwhich  atomic  bombs were exploded resulting in the loss  of
\nthousands  of  lives  and burning down of vast\texpanses  of
\nforests,  made\tthe  man realise that if  the  environmental
\ndisturbances  were not controlled, his own survival on\tthis
\nplanet\twould  become  impossible.    The  United   Nations,
\ntherefore,  held  a  Conference\t on  human  environment\t  at
\nStockholm  in 1972.  In the wake of the resolutions  adopted
\nat  that Conference, different countries at different stages
\nenacted\t laws  to  protect the deteriorating  conditions  of
\nenvironment.   Here in India, the Legislature enacted  three
\nActs,  namely, The Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution)
\nAct, 1974;  the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
\n1981  and  The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.  It\talso
\nenacted\t the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution)\tCess
\nAct, 1977.  Under these Acts, Rules have been framed to give
\neffect\tto  the provisions thereof.  They are :\t  The  Water
\n(Prevention  and  Control  of Pollution) Rules,\t 1975;\t The
\nWater  (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978;
\nThe  Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules,  1982;
\nThe   Air  (Prevention\t&   Control  of\t Pollution)   (Union
\nTerritories)  Rules,  1983;   The  Environment\t(Protection)
\nRules, 1986;  The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling)
\nRules,\t1989;\tThe  Manufacture,   Storage  and  Import  of
\nHazardous  Chemicals  Rules,  1989, The\t Chemical  Accidents
\n(Emergency  Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996
\nand  hosts of other Rules and Notifications.  In addition to
\nthese  Acts and Rules, there are, on the Statute Book, other
\nActs  dealing,\tin a way, with the Environmental  laws,\t for
\nexample,   the\t Indian\t Forest\t  Act,\t1927;\tThe   Forest
\n(Conservation)\tAct,  1980;  The Wildlife (Protection)\tAct,
\n1972  and the Rules framed under these Acts.  Various States
\nin  India have also made their Environmental laws and  rules
\nfor  the  protection of environment.  Apart from  the  above
\nStatutes  and the Rules made thereunder, Article 48A of\t the
\nConstitution  provides\tthat  the State shall  endeavour  to
\nprotect\t and  improve the environment and to  safeguard\t the
\nforests and wildlife of the country.  One of the fundamental
\nduties\tof every citizen as set out in Article 51A(g) is  to
\nprotect\t and  improve  the  natural  environment,  including
\nforests,  lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have  compassion
\nfor  living  creatures.\t  These\t two  Articles\thave  to  be
\nconsidered  in\tthe light of Article 21 of the\tConstitution
\nwhich  provides that no person shall be deprived of his life
\nand   liberty  except  in   accordance\twith  the  procedure
\nestablished   by   law.\t  Any\tdisturbance  of\t the   basic
\nenvironment  elements, namely air, water and soil, which are
\nnecessary  for\t“life”, would be hazardous to “life”  within
\nthe  meaning  of  Article 21 of the  Constitution.   In\t the
\nmatter\tof  enforcement\t of rights under Article 21  of\t the
\nConstitution,  this Court, besides enforcing the  provisions
\nof  the\t Acts  referred to above, has also given  effect  to
\nFundamental   Rights  under  Article  14   and\t21  of\t the
\nConstitution  and has held that if those rights are violated
\nby disturbing the environment, it can award damages not only
\nfor  the restoration of the ecological balance, but also for
\nthe  victims who have suffered due to that disturbance.\t  In
\norder\tto  protect  the  “life”,   in\torder\tto   protect
\n“environment”  and in order to protect “air, water and soil”
\nfrom  pollution,  this Court, through its various  judgments
\nhas  given  effect to the rights available, to the  citizens
\nand  persons  alike, under Article 21 of  the  Constitution.
\nThe   judgment\tfor  removal  of  hazardous  and   obnoxious
\nindustries  from  the residential areas, the directions\t for
\nclosure\t of certain hazardous industries, the directions for
\nclosure\t of slaughter-house and its relocation, the  various
\ndirections  issued  for the protection of the Ridge area  in
\nDelhi,\tthe  directions\t for setting up\t effluent  treatment
\nplants to the Industries located in Delhi, the directions to
\nTanneries  etc.,  are  all judgments which seek\t to  protect
\nenvironment.   In  the matter of enforcement of\t Fundamental
\nRights under Article 21, under Public Law domain, the Court,
\nin   exercise  of  its\tpowers\t under\tArticle\t 32  of\t the
\nConstitution,  has  awarded damages against those  who\thave
\nbeen  responsible  for\tdisturbing  the\t ecological  balance
\neither by running the industries or any other activity which
\nhas the effect of causing pollution in the environment.\t The
\nCourt  while  awarding damages also enforces  the  “POLLUTER
\nPAYS  PRINCIPLE”  which\t is widely accepted as\ta  means  of
\npaying\tfor  the cost of pollution and control.\t To  put  in
\nother  words,  the  wrongdoer,\tthe polluter,  is  under  an
\nobligation   to\t make  good  the   damage  caused   to\t the
\nenvironment.   The recognition of the vice of pollution\t and
\nits impact on future resources was realised during the early
\npart  of  1970.\t The United Nations Economic Commission\t for
\nEurope,\t during\t a panel discussion in 1971, concluded\tthat
\nthe total environmental expenditure required for improvement
\nof the environment was overestimated but could be reduced by
\nincreased environmental awareness and control.\tIn 1972, the
\nOrganisation   for  Economic   Cooperation  and\t Development
\nadopted\t the  “POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE” as  a  recommendable
\nmethod\tfor  pollution cost allocation.\t This principle\t was
\nalso  discussed during the 1972 Paris Summit.  In 1974,\t the
\nEuropean  Community  recommended  the\tapplication  of\t the
\nprinciple  by its member States so that the costs associated
\nwith  environmental  protection\t against  pollution  may  be
\nallocated  according  to uniform principles  throughout\t the
\nCommunity.    In  1989,\t the   Organisation   for   Economic
\nCooperation  and Development reaffirmed its use and extended
\nits  application  to include costs of accidental  pollution.
\nIn  1987,  the\tprinciple  was\tacknowledged  as  a  binding
\nprinciple  of  law  as\tit   was  incorporated\tin  European
\nCommunity  Law through the enactment of the Single  European
\nAct,  1987.   Article 130r.2 of the 1992  Maastricht  Treaty
\nprovides  that Community Environment Policy “shall be  based
\non  the\t principle that the polluter should pay.”  “POLLUTER
\nPAYS  PRINCIPLE”  has  also been applied by  this  Court  in
\nvarious\t decisions.   In  Indian Council  for  Enviro  Legal
\nAction\tvs.  Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 1446 = 1996 (2) SCR
\n503  =\t(1996) 3 SCC 212 = JT 1996 (2) SC 196, it  was\theld
\nthat  once  the\t activity  carried   on\t was  hazardous\t  or
\ninherently  dangerous, the person carrying on that  activity
\nwas  liable to make good the loss caused to any other person
\nby  that  activity.   This principle was  also\tfollowed  in
\nVellore\t Citizens Welfare Forum vs.  Union of India &  Ors.,
\nAIR<\/a>  1996  SC  2715 = (1996) 5 SCC 647= JT 1996 (7)  SC\t 375
\nwhich  has  also been discussed in the present case  in\t the
\nmain  judgment.\t  It was for this reason that the Motel\t was
\ndirected  to  pay  compensation\t by  way  of  cost  for\t the
\nrestitution  of the environment ecology of the area.  But it
\nis the further direction why pollution fine, in addition, be
\nnot  imposed  which  is the subject matter  of\tthe  present
\ndiscussion.   Chapter  VII  of\tthe  Water  (Prevention\t and
\nControl\t of  Pollution)\t Act, 1974 contains  the  provisions
\ndealing with penalties and procedure.  This Chapter consists
\nof Sections 41 to 50.  Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 41
\nprovide for the punishment and imposition of fine.  They are
\nquoted\tbelow:-\t “41.(2)  Whoever fails to comply  with\t any
\norder  issued under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section
\n32  or any direction issued by a Court under sub-section (2)
\nof  Section  33 or any direction issued under  Section\t33A,
\nshall  in  respect  of each failure and\t on  conviction,  be
\npunishable  with imprisonment for a term which shall not  be
\nless  than  one year and six months but which may extend  to
\nsix  years and fine, and in case the failure continues, with
\nan  additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees
\nfor  every day during which such failure continues after the
\nconviction  for the first such failure.\t (3) If the  failure
\nreferred  to in sub-section (2) continues beyond a period of
\none  year after the date of conviction, the offender  shall,
\non  conviction,\t be punishable with imprisonment for a\tterm
\nwhich  shall not be less than two years but which may extend
\nto  seven  years  and  with  fine.”  Similarly,\t Section  42
\nprovides  that a person shall be liable to be punished\twith
\nimprisonment  for a term which may extend to three months or
\nwith  fine  which may extend to ten thousand rupees or\twith
\nboth.\tSub-section  (2)  of Section  42  also\tcontemplates
\nimprisonment  for a term which may extend to three months or
\nwith  fine  which may extend to ten thousand rupees or\twith
\nboth.\tSection 43 contemplates penalty for contravention of
\nthe  provisions\t of  Section 24.   Section  44\tcontemplates
\npenalty for contravention of Section 25 or Section 26.\tThey
\nalso  contemplate  imposition of fine.\tSection 45  provides
\nthat if a person who has been convicted of any offence under
\nSection 24 or Section 25 or Section 26 is again found guilty
\nof   an\t offence  involving  a\tcontravention  of  the\tsame
\nprovision,  he shall, on the second and on every  subsequent
\nconviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
\nshall  not  be less than two years but which may  extend  to
\nseven  years  and  with\t fine.\tSection\t 45A  provides\tthat
\nwhoever\t contravenes  any of the provisions of this  Act  or
\nfails to comply with any order or direction given under this
\nAct,  for  which no penalty has been elsewhere\tprovided  in
\nthis  Act,  shall be punishable with imprisonment which\t may
\nextend\tto three months or with fine which may extend to ten
\nthousand  rupees or with both and in the case of  continuing
\ncontravention  or  failure,  he\t may  be  punished  with  an
\nadditional  fine.   Section  47\t  contemplates\toffences  by
\nCompanies   while  Section  48\t contemplates  offences\t  by
\nGovernment  Departments.   Section  15\tof  the\t Environment
\n(Protection)   Act,   1986   provides\t for   penalty\t for
\ncontravention  of  the provisions of the Act and the  rules,
\norders\tand directions made thereunder.\t Sub-section (1)  of
\nSection\t 15  speaks  of imprisonment for a  term  which\t may
\nextend\tto  five years or with fine which may extend to\t one
\nlakh  rupees,  or  with\t both, and in case  the\t failure  or
\ncontravention  continues,  with\t additional fine  which\t may
\nextend\tto  five thousand rupees for every day during  which
\nsuch failure or contravention continues after the conviction
\nfor  the first such failure or contravention.  Section 16 of
\nthe Act contemplates offences by the Companies while Section
\n17 contemplates offences by Government Departments.  Chapter
\nVI  of\tthe Air (Prevention and Control of  Pollution)\tAct,
\n1981  contains\tthe provisions for penalties and  procedure.
\nThis  Chapter  consists\t of Sections 37 to 46.\t Section  37
\nprovides penalties for failure to comply with the provisions
\nof  Section  21 or Section 22 or with the directions  issued
\nunder  Section\t31A.  It provides that the person  shall  be
\npunishable  with imprisonment for a term which shall not  be
\nless  than  one year and six months but which may extend  to
\nsix  years and with fine, and in case the failure continues,
\nwith  an  additional fine which may extend to five  thousand
\nrupees\tfor  every  day.  Sub-section (2)  of  this  Section
\nprovides  that if the failure continues beyond the period of
\none year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be
\npunishable  with imprisonment for a term which shall not  be
\nless  than two years but which may extend to seven years and
\nwith  fine.  Section 38 also provides penalties for  certain
\nacts  and it provides that for such acts as are referred  to
\nin  that  Section,  a  person\tshall  be  punishable\twith
\nimprisonment  for a term which may extend to three months or
\nwith  fine  which may extend to ten thousand rupees or\twith
\nboth.\tSection 39 contemplates penalty for contravention of
\ncertain\t  provisions  of  the  Act   and  it  provides\t for
\nimprisonment  for a term which may extend to three months or
\nwith  fine  which may extend to ten thousand rupees or\twith
\nboth,  and in the case of continuing contravention, with  an
\nadditional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for
\nevery  day  during which such contravention continues  after
\nconviction  for\t the first such contravention.\t Section  40
\nspeaks\tof offences by Companies while Section 41 speaks  of
\noffences  by  Government Departments.  All the\tthree  Acts,
\nreferred  to  above,  also  contemplate the  taking  of\t the
\ncognizance  of\tthe offences by the Court.  Thus,  a  person
\nguilty\tof  contravention of provisions of any of the  three
\nActs  which constitutes an offence has to be prosecuted\t for
\nsuch  offence  and in case the offence is found proved\tthen
\nalone he can be punished with imprisonment and fine or both.
\nThe  sine qua non for punishment of imprisonment and fine is
\na  fair\t trial\tin  a competent court.\t The  punishment  of
\nimprisonment or fine can be imposed only after the person is
\nfound  guilty.\t In  the instant case, a  finding  has\tbeen
\nrecorded that M\/s Span Motel had interfered with the natural
\nflow of river and thus disturbed the environment and ecology
\nof  the area.  It has been held liable to pay damages.\t The
\nquantum of damages is under the process of being determined.
\nThe  Court directed a notice to be issued to show cause\t why
\npollution  fine be not imposed.\t In view of the above, it is
\ndifficult  for\tus  to hold that the pollution fine  can  be
\nimposed\t upon  M\/s Span Motel without there being any  trial
\nand  without there being any finding that M\/s Span Motel was
\nguilty\tof  the\t offence under the Act and  are,  therefore,
\nliable\tto be punished with imprisonment or with FINE.\tThis
\nnotice has been issued without reference to any provision of
\nthe  Act.  The contention that the notice should be  treated
\nto  have been issued in exercise of power under Article\t 142
\nof  the\t Constitution  cannot be accepted  as  this  Article
\ncannot be pressed into aid in a situation where action under
\nthat  Article would amount to contravention of the  specific
\nprovisions  of the Act itself.\tA fine is to be imposed upon
\nthe  person who is found guilty of having contravened any of
\nthe  provisions\t of  the Act.  He has to be  tried  for\t the
\nspecific  offence and then on being found guilty, he may  be
\npunished  either  by sentencing him to undergo\timprisonment
\nfor  the period contemplated by the Act or with fine or with
\nboth.\tBut  recourse  cannot  be taken to  Article  142  to
\ninflict\t upon him this punishment.  The scope of Article 142
\nwas  considered in several decisions and recently in Supreme
\nCourt  Bar Association vs.  Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1998 SC 1895
\n=  (1998) 4 SCC 409, by which the decision of this Court  in
\nV.C.  Mishra, Re, (1995) 2 SCC 584, was partly overruled, it
\nwas  held that the plenary power of this Court under Article
\n142  of\t the Constitution are inherent in the Court and\t are
\n“COMPLEMENTARY”\t to  those  powers  which  are\tspecifically
\nconferred  on  the  Court by various statutes.\t This  power
\nexists\tas a separate and independent basis of\tjurisdiction
\napart  from  the statutes.  The Court further observed\tthat
\nthough\tthe powers conferred on the Court by Article 142 are
\ncurative in nature, they cannot be construed as powers which
\nauthorise  the\tCourt to ignore the substantive rights of  a
\nlitigant.  The Court further observed that this power cannot
\nbe used to “supplant” substantive law applicable to the case
\nor  cause  under consideration of the Court.   Article\t142,
\neven  with  the\t width of its amplitude, cannot be  used  to
\nbuild  a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring
\nexpress\t statutory  provisions\tdealing with a\tsubject\t and
\nthereby\t achieve  something  indirectly\t  which\t cannot\t  be
\nachieved  directly.  Similarly, in M.S.\t Ahlawat vs.   Union
\nof  India & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 168 = (2000) 1 SCC 278, it was
\nheld that under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme
\nCourt cannot altogether ignore the substantive provisions of
\na  statute and pass orders concerning an issue which can  be
\nsettled\t only  through\ta mechanism  prescribed\t in  another
\nstatute.   Thus, in addition to the damages which have to be
\npaid by M\/s Span Motel, as directed in the main Judgment, it
\ncannot\tbe  punished with fine unless the  entire  procedure
\nprescribed  under the Act is followed and M\/s Span Motel are
\ntried for any of the offences contemplated by the Act and is
\nfound  guilty.\t The  notice issued to M\/s  Span  Motel\t why
\npollution  fine\t be  not imposed upon  them  is,  therefore,
\nwithdrawn.   But the matter does not end here.\tPollution is
\na  civil wrong.\t By its very nature, it is a Tort  committed
\nagainst\t the community as a whole.  A person, therefore, who
\nis   guilty  of\t causing  pollution   has  to  pay   damages
\n(compensation)\tfor  restoration  of   the  environment\t and
\necology.   He  has  also to pay damages to  those  who\thave
\nsuffered  loss\ton account of the act of the offender.\t The
\npowers of this Court under Article 32 are not restricted and
\nit can award damages in a PIL or a Writ Petition as has been
\nheld  in  a  series of decisions.  In  addition\t to  damages
\naforesaid,  the person guilty of causing pollution can\talso
\nbe  held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may\t act
\nas  a  deterrent  for others not to cause pollution  in\t any
\nmanner.\t Unfortunately, notice for exmeplary damages was not
\nissued\tto  M\/s\t Span Motel although it ought to  have\tbeen
\nissued.\t  The considerations for which “fine” can be imposed
\nupon  a person guilty of committing an offence are different
\nfrom  those  on the basis of which exemplary damages can  be
\nawarded.   While  withdrawing  the  notice  for\t payment  of
\npollution  fine,  we direct a fresh notice be issued to\t M\/s
\nSpan  Motel  to\t show  cause why  in  addition\tto  damages,
\nexemplary  damages  be not awarded for having committed\t the
\nacts set out and detailed in the main judgment.\t This notice
\nshall  be returnable within six weeks.\tThis question  shall
\nbe  heard at the time of quantification of damages under the
\nmain judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000 Author: S Ahmad Bench: S.S.Ahmad, Doraiswami Raju PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT: KAMAL NATH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/05\/2000 BENCH: S.S.Ahmad, Doraiswami Raju JUDGMENT: S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J. This case, which was finally decided by this Court by its Judgment […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65019","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-25T08:55:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T08:55:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3890,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000\",\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T08:55:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-25T08:55:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T08:55:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000"},"wordCount":3890,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000","name":"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T08:55:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-ors-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 12 May, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65019","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65019"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65019\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65019"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65019"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65019"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}