Holding

The National Green Tribunal cannot abdicate its adjudicatory jurisdiction by delegating core functions to administrative expert committees; such committees may assist but cannot substitute the tribunal’s decision‑making.

Summary

The appellants, a group of environmental NGOs and affected residents, filed Original Application No. 81 of 2014 before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking an end to the dumping of unsegregated municipal solid waste at an open landfill in Surat, Gujarat, and claiming compensation and restitution. The Western Zone Bench of the NGT issued several interim orders and monitored compliance for four years. The Principal Bench later dismissed the application, directing the parties to ventilate their grievances before expert committees set up under a separate NGT order (OA No. 606). The Supreme Court examined whether the NGT could abdicate its adjudicatory jurisdiction by delegating core functions under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act to administrative expert committees. It held that while such committees may assist in fact‑finding, they cannot replace the tribunal’s adjudicatory role, as the statute vests exclusive jurisdiction in the NGT. Consequently, the Court set aside the Principal Bench’s order, restored the original application to the NGT’s file, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

The NGT's power under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act to adjudicate matters of relief, compensation and restitution cannot be delegated to administrative expert committees.
Whether directing the parties to approach the Apex/Regional/State level committees, instead of continuing the original application before the NGT, was a valid exercise of jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Bio‑Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 25, s. 3, s. 6
Municipal Solid Waste (Handling and Management) Rules, 2000
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s. 14, s. 146, s. 15, s. 22
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016

Subjects

National Green Tribunaldelegation of jurisdictionexpert committeessolid waste managementmunicipal solid wasteenvironmental compensationadministrative lawsustainable development

Judgment

1006 SUPREME COURT
[2022]REPORTS
1 S.C.R. 1006 [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST
AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
B (Civil Appeal No. 1046 of 2019)
JANUARY 21, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
BELA M TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Administrative Law – Entrustment of judicial functions to an
C
administrative expert committee – Appellants filed an Original
Application (OA) before the Western Zone Bench of the NGT against
the dumping of municipal solid waste (MSW) at open landfill site –
The OA was being continuously heard by the Western Zone Bench
of the NGT and it had already issued significant interim directions
D – However, Principal Bench (NGT) disposed of the said OA filed by
the appellants on the ground that in another OA the NGT had
constituted Apex, Regional and State Level Committees to monitor
the implementation of the SWM Rules – The OA filed by the appellants
was thus closed with liberty to represent the case and ventilate all
grievances before the appropriate committee – Whether the Principal
E
Bench of the NGT correctly directed the appellants to now approach
one of the Committees set up by it, rather than continue with the
proceedings in the OA – Held: The committees are setup because
the fact-finding exercise in many matters can be complex, technical
and time-consuming, and may often require the committees to conduct
F field visits – These committees are set up with specific terms of
reference outlining their mandate, and their reports have to conform
to the mandate – Once these committees submit their final reports to
the court/tribunal, it is open to the parties to object to them, which
is then adjudicated upon – The role of these expert committees does
not substitute the adjudicatory role of the court or tribunal – The
G
NGT cannot abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting these core
adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees –
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14, 15 and 22 – Municipal
Solid Waste (Handling and Management)Rules 2000 – Bio Medical
Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1998.
H
1006
KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST v. 1007
STATE OF GUJARAT

Allowing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1. It is first important to differentiate expert
committees which are set by the courts/tribunals from those set
up by the Government in exercise of executive powers or under
a particular statute. The latter are set up due to their technical
expertise in a given area, and their reports are, subject to B
judicially observed restraints, open to judicial review before
courts when decisions are taken solely based upon them. The
precedents of this court unanimously note that courts should be
circumspect in rejecting the opinion of these committees, unless
they find their decision to be manifestly arbitrary or mala fide.
On the other hand, courts/tribunals themselves set up expert C
committees on occasion. These committees are setup because
the fact-finding exercise in many matters can be complex, technical
and time-consuming, and may often require the committees to
conduct field visits. These committees are set up with specific
terms of reference outlining their mandate, and their reports have D
to conform to the mandate. Once these committees submit their
final reports to the court/tribunal, it is open to the parties to object
to them, which is then adjudicated upon. The role of these expert
committees does not substitute the adjudicatory role of the court
or tribunal. The role of an expert committee appointed by an
adjudicatory forum is only to assist it in the exercise of E
adjudicatory functions by providing them better data and factual
clarity, which is also open to challenge by all concerned parties.
Allowing for objections to be raised and considered makes the
process fair and participatory for all stakeholders. Sections 14
and Section 15 entrust adjudicatory functions to the NGT. The F
NGT is a specialized body comprising of judicial and expert
members. Judicial members bring to bear their experience in
adjudicating cases. On the other hand, expert members bring
into the decision-making process scientific knowledge on issues
concerning the environment. [Paras 14 & 15][1016-E-G;
1017-C] G

2. The NGT cannot abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting
these core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert
committees. Expert committees may be appointed to assist the
NGT in the performance of its task and as an adjunct to its fact-
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A finding role. But adjudication under the statute is entrusted to
the NGT and cannot be delegated to administrative authorities.
Adjudicatory functions assigned to courts and tribunals cannot
be hived off to administrative committees. The NGT has in the
present case abdicated its jurisdiction and entrusted judicial
functions to an administrative expert committee. An expert
B
committee may be able to assist the NGT, for instance, by carrying
out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by the
NGT. This is not a delegable function. Thus, the order impugned
in the appeal cannot be sustained. The consequence of the
impugned order is to efface the meticulous exercise which was
C carried out by the earlier Benches. Valuable time has been lost
in the meantime and crucial issues pertaining to the environment
in the present case have been placed on the back-burner.
[Paras 16 & 17][1017-G-H; 1018-A, D-F]
Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation (2019)
D 18 SCC 494; Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Another
2021 SCC OnLine SC 669 –relied on.
Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372:
[2010] 9 SCR 227; State of Kerala v. RDS Project Ltd.,
E (2020) 9 SCC 108: [2020] 6 SCR 837; Hanuman
Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15 SCC 401:
[2019] 5 SCR 916 –referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 9 SCR 227 referred to Para 14
F
[2020] 6 SCR 837 referred to Para 14
[2019] 5 SCR 916 referred to Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1046 of
2019.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2018 of the National
Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.81 of 2014
(WZ).

H
KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST v. 1009
STATE OF GUJARAT

Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Shawahiq Siddique, Dr. Pratyush Nandan, A
Rajesh Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
Avijit Roy, Tejas Patel, Kaushal Pandya, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Admit.
2. This appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal
Act 20101 arises from a judgment and order of the Principal Bench of
the National Green Tribunal2 dated 28 September 2018, by which it C
dismissed OA No 81 of 2014 (WZ).
3. OA No 81 of 2014 (WZ), instituted under Sections 14 and 15 of
the NGT Act, was pending before the NGT for nearly four years since
July 2014. It had been filed by the appellants, who are environmental
organisations and individuals directly affected by the degradation of the D
environment in the area in question. The OA pertained to the issue of
the dumping of unsegregated and untreated Municipal Solid Waste3 at
an open landfill site admeasuring 188 hectares at Survey No 111 /A,
Block No 177, Khajod Village, Taluka Choryasi in the district of Surat,
which is surrounded by thirty-five villages. The landfill site had been set
E
up by the fourth respondent, Surat Municipal Corporation 4, which had
started dumping 850 Metric Tonnes of waste per day on 24 January
2003. The extent of dumping increased to 1600 Metric Tonnes of waste
per day by 16 January 2014. It was alleged, inter alia, that the dumping
of waste in the open area without prior treatment was in violation of the
Municipal Solid Waste (Handling and Management) Rules 2000 and Bio F
Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1998. Further, while
SMC had been issued multiple warnings during site visits and inspections,
the situation did not improve. It was alleged that the waste disposal led
to an irreversible contamination of local water bodies and ground water,
caused severe air pollution due to the burning of waste, damaged the
G
ecology of the nearby villages and was affecting the health of the citizens

1
“NGT Act”
2
“NGT”
3
“MSW”
4
“SMC” H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A and livestock in the vicinity. The appellants sought directions, inter alia,
for: (i) restraining the dumping of MSW at the landfill site; (ii) restoration
of the environment in the surrounding areas; (iii) restitution of the landfill
site to its original condition; (iv) compensation to all those affected in the
nearby villages upon determination of damages by a committee set up to
assess the landfill site; and (v) implementation of the Solid Waste
B
Management Rules 20165.
4. The Western Zone Bench of the NGT issued notice on 8 August
2014. A series of orders emanated from the Western Zone Bench of the
NGT in connection with the issues raised. It would suffice to note a few
C of those orders:
(i) On 20 March 2015, the NGT noted that “prima facie there
is ring of truth in the averments made by the Applicants, to
indicate that MSW plant, is being mismanaged” and that
the burning of the untreated MSW was causing severe air
D pollution affecting the health of the residents of the nearby
villages. Interim directions were issued to prevent this from
taking place during the pendency of the OA;
(ii) On 22 December 2015, the NGT again reproached SMC
for not preparing a proper action plan and audit for the
E management of MSW in the district of Surat. However, on
the appellant’s issue of their participation in the management
of the landfill site, the NGT noted that it would be decided
during the final hearing;
(iii) On 7 March 2016, the NGT directed the Commissioner of
F SMC to be present and to provide a statement on the
following issues: (a) extent of waste collected, treated and
disposed of in accordance with the mandate of the Municipal
Solid Waste (Handling and Management) Rules 2000; (b)
the officers who have failed to enforce the Rules and have
failed to comply with the directions of the NGT; (c) the
G
time schedule within which proper waste management will
be done in the area in terms of the Rules; and (d) filing an
undertaking that waste management shall be done in letter
and spirit;

5
H “SWM Rules”
KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST v. 1011
STATE OF GUJARAT [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(iv) On 16 May 2017, the NGT noted that in pursuance of its A
previous directions, SMC had filed an affidavit indicating,
inter alia, the action plan which it proposed to execute for
handling the problem of MSW within its jurisdiction. The
NGT was informed that the issue pertaining to the closure
of the Khajod dumping site was pending before the Standing
B
Committee of SMC. Hence, the NGT directed the Standing
Committee to take a decision and issue a work order for
commencing the work of the closure of the open dumping
site within a month. Moreover, SMC was directed to place
on the record the details of the lands where the projects
are to be commissioned; C
(v) On 19 September 2017, a statement was made on behalf of
SMC that it is under an obligation to comply with the SWM
Rules and that the site at Khajod is designated for a landfill,
an MSW processing plant and a waste-to-energy plant of
100 TPD on a public-private partnership basis; D

(vi) Pursuant to the order of the NGT dated 19 September 2017,
the appellants formulated certain action points for
implementation of the SWM Rules. On 26 September 2017,
an undertaking was filed on behalf of SMC by the Municipal
Commissioner setting out the steps which would be taken E
for dealing with MSW, transportation, storage, and
processing as well as on other related matters. The
undertaking stipulated that there shall be no landfilling or
dumping of unprocessed and unsegregated MSW after two
years subject to “100% working of the Solid Waste F
Processing Plant” and certain other conditions;
(vii) On 6 November 2017, an order was passed by the NGT
setting out that it would be hearing SMC, inter alia, on the
qualified nature of the undertaking which was furnished by
it, having regard to the SWM Rules and on the proposed G
use of the Khajod landfill site despite its potential as a landfill
site being concluded. The NGT also indicated that it would
be hearing submissions on the commissioning of the waste-
to-energy plant and the waste-to-compost plant within a
given time frame;
H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A (viii) An order was passed by the NGT on 5 December 2017,
dealing particularly with the issue of quantification of
compensation to the farmers due to the damage caused by
the burning of solid waste and ground water pollution;
(ix) On 2 July 2018, the NGT issued directions stating that the
B submissions which were urged before it by SMC were
unacceptable. The NGT declined to accept the contention
that the waste-to-energy plant could only be completed by
December 2019, and directed that it ought to be completed
by March 2018; and
C (x) On 17 July 2018, the NGT noted that SMC’s current action
plan prima facie did not fulfill the requirements of Clause
J of Schedule-I of the SWM Rules in relation to closure
and rehabilitation of old dumping sites and legacy waste.
Hence, it directed SMC to file an affidavit recording its
D compliance.
5. A considerable amount of judicial time and attention was entailed
during the course of the hearings associated with the above orders. Earlier
Benches of the NGT at the Western Zone Bench had been monitoring
the status of compliance with the SWM Rules. The NGT was seized
E with diverse aspects pertaining to the disposal of MSW by SMC, including
the modalities which have to be followed while commissioning projects
in the future for the conversion of waste to energy.
6. Rather surprisingly, when the proceedings came up on 28
September 2018 before the Principal Bench of the NGT, the OA was
F disposed of on the ground that in another OA – OA No 606 of 2018 –
the NGT had constituted Apex, Regional and State Level Committees
to monitor the implementation of the SWM Rules. The OA filed by the
appellants was thus closed with liberty to represent the case and
ventilate all grievances before the appropriate committee. For
convenience of reference, the order passed by the NGT is extracted
G
below:
“As this OA relates to implementation of Solid Waste Management
Rules, 2016, we are of the considered opinion that it is covered by
the order passed by the larger Bench of the Tribunal dated 20th
August, 2018 in OA No 606 of 2018.
H
KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST v. 1013
STATE OF GUJARAT [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

The Applicant would be at liberty to represent its case and ventilate A
all grievance before the Committee which shall look into it and
finally decide the same.
Consequently, OA No 81 of 2014 stands disposed of. There shall
be no order as to cost.
B
M.A. No. 1392 of 2018 and 1393 of 2018
These Applications do not survive for consideration as the main
Application has been decided and are accordingly dismissed.”
7. At this juncture, it is also important to elaborate on NGT’s
judgment and order dated 31 August 2018 in OA No 606 of 2018. Those C
proceedings arose from writ petitions filed before this Court in relation
to the proper implementation of SWM Rules across the country, which
were later transferred to the NGT. The NGT noted in its decision that
though it had earlier issued directions for the implementation of the SWM
Rules, they had not been complied with. Later, in a meeting organised by D
the Central Pollution Control Board with all the States and Union
Territories, it was recommended that the NGT should form Apex,
Regional and State Level Committees for the implementation of the SWM
Rules and the directions issued by the NGT, and that these Committees
should submit quarterly reports to the NGT. Thus, the NGT directed the
following: E
(i) The Apex Monitoring Committee was set up for one year,
till further orders. Its role was to interact with the relevant
Ministries and the Regional Monitoring Committees, and it
could formulate guidelines/directions which may be useful
to the Regional Monitoring Committees and the States/ F
Union Territories. It was to meet preferably every month,
and also preferably meet the Regional Monitoring
Committees once a month. It shall then submit its report to
the NGT every quarter. Further, it was also directed that
the Committee set up a website for dissemination of G
information, so as to enable public participation;
(ii) The Regional Monitoring Committees were set up for one
year, till further orders, for each zone – North, East, West,
South and Central. They were to ensure effective
implementation of the SWM Rules, and that mixing of bio- H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A medical waste with MSW does not take place and bio-
medical waste is processed in accordance with the Bio-
Medical Waste Management Rules 2016. The Committees
were to preferably meet every week, and meet the Apex
Monitoring Committee, have inter se interactions and meet
the States when necessary. They were to submit their
B
reports to the Apex Monitoring Committee twice a quarter,
and also submit a report to the NGT after the first quarter.
Much like the Apex Monitoring Committee, the Regional
Monitoring Committees were also directed to set up
websites; and
C
(iii) The State Level Committees were set up for one year, till
further orders, for each State and Union Territory. They
were to preferably meet with local bodies once every two
weeks, and the local bodies were to furnish them reports
twice a month. They were to decide on technical and policy
D issues in accordance with the SWM Rules and consistent
with the directions of Apex and Regional Monitoring
Committees. Further, they were to send their reports to the
Regional Monitoring Committee on a monthly basis. It was
also directed that public involvement may be encouraged
and status of MSW be placed in the public domain.
E
The NGT directed that the Committees would be at liberty to
issue directions for execution of the orders of the NGT to any authority.
8. Ms Shilpa Chohan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, has submitted that relegating the appellants to a committee
F was wholly inappropriate having regard to the progress which had been
achieved by the Western Zone Bench of the NGT in unravelling various
aspects of the case. Moreover, it is urged that the jurisdiction to provide
restitution and award compensation is entrusted to the NGT and hence,
it was not appropriate or proper to dispose of the OA by relegating the
decision to a committee.
G
9. On the other hand, Mr Tejas Patel, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of SMC, submits that the appellants have produced absolutely
no material on the basis of which a claim for compensation can be made.
Moreover, it was urged that they have a remedy of ventilating their
grievances before the appropriate committee.
H
KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST v. 1015
STATE OF GUJARAT [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

10. The OA was filed by the appellants under Sections 14 and 15 A
of the NGT Act. Section 146 of the NGT Act vests the NGT with
jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to
the environment is involved, and such question arises out of the
implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the statute.
Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 is in the following terms:
B
“15. Relief, compensation and restitution.—(1) The Tribunal
may, by an order, provide,—
(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other
environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in
the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any C
hazardous substance);
(b) for restitution of property damaged;
(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas,
as the Tribunal may think fit.” D
7
11. In Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. v. Forward Foundation , a
three-Judge Bench of this Court outlined that Section 15(1)(c) of the
NGT Act entrusts broad powers to the NGT. Speaking for the Court,
Justice S Abdul Nazeer held:
“43. Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and E
jurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act. The principles of
sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter pays,
propounded by this Court by way of multiple judicial
pronouncements, have now been embedded as a bedrock of
F
6
“14. Tribunal to settle disputes.—(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over
all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement
of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of
the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-
section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon. G
(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by
the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the
cause of action for such dispute first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed
within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”
7
(2019) 18 SCC 494 H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A environmental jurisprudence under the NGT Act. Therefore,
wherever the environment and ecology are being compromised
and jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking
restorative measures in the interest of the environment.”
12. The OA filed by the appellants raised issues falling within the
B jurisdiction of the NGT under Section 14, since it relates to the
implementation of the SWM Rules. The SWM Rules have been notified
pursuant to the powers conferred by Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the
Environment (Protection) Act 1986, which is Entry 5 in Schedule I of
the NGT Act. None of the prayers sought by the appellants are of a
nature that cannot be granted by the NGT in accordance with its powers
C under Section 15(1) of the NGT Act. The OA was being continuously
heard by the Western Zone Bench of the NGT since August 2014, and
it had already issued significant interim directions.
13. Hence, the issue before us is only whether the Principal Bench
of the NGT correctly directed the appellants to now approach one of the
D Committees set up by it, rather than continue with the proceedings in the
OA. To understand this, we must first consider the role of such committees
which are set up by courts and tribunals alike.
14. It is first important to differentiate expert committees which
are set by the courts/tribunals from those set up by the Government in
E exercise of executive powers or under a particular statute. The latter
are set up due to their technical expertise in a given area, and their
reports are, subject to judicially observed restraints, open to judicial review
before courts when decisions are taken solely based upon them. The
precedents of this court unanimously note that courts should be
F circumspect in rejecting the opinion of these committees, unless they
find their decision to be manifestly arbitrary or mala fide8. On the other
hand, courts/tribunals themselves set up expert committees on occasion.
These committees are set up because the fact-finding exercise in many
matters can be complex, technical and time-consuming, and may often
require the committees to conduct field visits. These committees are set
G up with specific terms of reference outlining their mandate, and their
reports have to conform to the mandate. Once these committees submit

8
Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 (in relation to appointment
in an academic institution); State of Kerala v. RDS Project Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 108 (in
H relation to safety of a flyover project)
KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST v. 1017
STATE OF GUJARAT [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

their final reports to the court/tribunal, it is open to the parties to object A
to them, which is then adjudicated upon. The role of these expert
committees does not substitute the adjudicatory role of the court or
tribunal. The role of an expert committee appointed by an adjudicatory
forum is only to assist it in the exercise of adjudicatory functions by
providing them better data and factual clarity, which is also open to
B
challenge by all concerned parties. Allowing for objections to be raised
and considered makes the process fair and participatory for all
stakeholders.
15. Sections 14 and Section 15 entrust adjudicatory functions to
the NGT. The NGT is a specialized body comprising of judicial and
expert members. Judicial members bring to bear their experience in C
adjudicating cases. On the other hand, expert members bring into the
decision-making process scientific knowledge on issues concerning the
environment. In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India9, a
two-Judge Bench of this Court noted that the NGT is an expert
adjudicatory body on the environment. The Court held: D
“133. The NGT Act provides for the constitution of a tribunal
consisting both of judicial and expert members. The mix of judicial
and technical members envisaged by the statute is for the reason
that the Tribunal is called upon to consider questions which involve
the application and assessment of science and its interface with E
the environment…
134. NGT is an expert adjudicatory body on the environment.”
The NGT does not have a dearth of ‘expertise’ when it comes to
the issues of environment.
F
16. Section 15 empowers the NGT to award compensation to the
victims of pollution and for environmental damage, to provide for
restitution of property which has been damaged and for the restitution of
the environment. The NGT cannot abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting
these core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees.
Expert committees may be appointed to assist the NGT in the G
performance of its task and as an adjunct to its fact-finding role. But
adjudication under the statute is entrusted to the NGT and cannot be
delegated to administrative authorities. Adjudicatory functions assigned

9
(2019) 15 SCC 401 H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A to courts and tribunals cannot be hived off to administrative committees.
In Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests
and Climate Change and Another10, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court noted that the NGT cannot refuse to hear a challenge to an
Environmental Clearance under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act and
delegate the process of adjudicating on compliance to an expert
B
committee. The Court held:
“8…the NGT has not dealt with the substantive grounds of
challenge in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Constitution
of an expert committee does not absolve the NGT of its duty to
adjudicate. The adjudicatory function of the NGT cannot be
C assigned to committees, even expert committees. The decision
has to be that of the NGT. The NGT has been constituted as an
expert adjudicatory authority under an Act of Parliament. The
discharge of its functions cannot be obviated by tasking committees
to carry out a function which vests in the tribunal.”
D 17. The NGT has in the present case abdicated its jurisdiction and
entrusted judicial functions to an administrative expert committee. An
expert committee may be able to assist the NGT, for instance, by carrying
out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by the NGT.
This is not a delegable function. Thus, the order impugned in the appeal
E cannot be sustained. The consequence of the impugned order is to efface
the meticulous exercise which was carried out by the earlier Benches.
Valuable time has been lost in the meantime and crucial issues pertaining
to the environment in the present case have been placed on the back-
burner.

F 18. Hence, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to set
aside the impugned order and to restore OA No 81 of 2014 (WZ) to the
file of the NGT. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order dated 28 September 2018. OA No 81 of 2014 (WZ) is
restored to the file of the NGT. The NGT shall commence with the
hearing of the proceedings from the stage which was arrived at before
G the impugned order dated 28 September 2018 was passed. Unfortunately,
more than three years have passed in the meantime, a delay which could
have been avoided had the NGT proceeded to adjudicate upon the issues
which were raised before it.

10
H 2021 SCC OnLine SC 669
KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTAN TRUST v. 1019
STATE OF GUJARAT [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

19. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the A
issues which are raised before the NGT. The NGT will take an
appropriate view and issue appropriate directions in continuation of the
directions which hold the field, after hearing the parties.
20. The Court was apprised that the impugned order was passed
by the Principal Bench since the Western Zone Bench of the NGT was B
not functioning at the relevant time. Hence, OA No 81 of 2014 (WZ)
may now be heard by the Bench which is assigned with the requisite
jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of the OA.
21. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
22. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. C

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H