Head Of Department Guilty If Government Dept Fails To Comply With NGT Order : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that if a Government Department fails to comply with an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Head of the Department shall be deemed liable for such failure as per section 28 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside an NGT order deleting 15 government officers from an execution application that alleged non-compliance with NGT direction to prevent unauthorized activities in the Wild Ass Sanctuary in Gujarat's Rann of Kutch.

“If a Government Department fails to comply with the order of the NGT, by a legal fiction under sub-section (1) of Section 28, the Head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of such failure and shall be liable to be proceeded against. Relying upon these provisions, the officers of the State were impleaded as party respondents”, the Court observed.

The NGT on September 23, 2020 passed an order in an Original Application against Union of India alleging encroachments and illegal activities such as salt harvesting and fishing in the Sanctuary.

The NGT directed the concerned authorities to ensure there are no illegal encroachments in the wildlife sanctuary and to refrain from granting any leases in the sanctuary area without the consent of the National Board of Wildlife and the Forest and Environment Department. The tribunal also ordered that no activities be allowed within a 10 km radius of the sanctuary or beyond the parameters prescribed by law for permitted activities.

In 2023, the appellant filed an execution application alleging that the authorities had failed to comply with the NGT's 2020 order. The appellant claimed that 15 government officers had failed to comply with the NGT's 2020 order and sought action against them.

Section 26 of the NGT Act provides for penalty such as imprisonment and/or fine on individuals or companies that fail to comply with NGT orders.

Section 28 of the Act specifically deals with offenses by government departments, stating that if a department fails to comply with NGT orders, the Head of the Department will be deemed guilty and liable for prosecution.

The NGT directed the appellants to delete the names of the 15 government officers from their application, as they were not named as respondents in their personal capacity in the Original Application in which the 2020 order was passed. NGT directed the appellants to instead name the respondents listed in that Original Application. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said that the NGT could not have interfered at the stage of issuing notice. The Court observed that after receiving notice, the officers could have raised all permissible defences, including whether they were responsible for complying with the NGT's 2020 order.

“At the stage of issuing notice, the NGT could not have interfered. The reason is that after service of notice, the respondents could have come before the NGT and raised all permissible defences, including the defence that they were not responsible for complying with the order which is sought to be implemented and executed.”

Thus, the Supreme Court directed NGT to issue notice to the 15 government officers and gave them the opportunity to present their defence. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on whether they were responsible for violating the NGT's 2020 order and left this question open for the NGT to decide.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2024

Case Title – Katiya Haidarali Ahmadbhai & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar IAS & Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 713