The National Green Tribunal has affirmed that environmental damage compensation is payable when construction activities cause direct pollution leading to mass mortality of aquatic life, establishing a clear link between illegal siltation and economic loss to a licensed fish farm. This ruling reinforces the enforceability of Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as a remedy for individual victims of ecological harm.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Kushal Gupta, operates the "Himalayan Trout Fish Farm" in Haripur, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, situated 50 meters downstream of the Haripur Nallah. The farm relies on gravity-fed, crystal-clear stream water to maintain optimal dissolved oxygen and pH levels essential for trout survival and breeding. The dispute arose when the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (HPPWD), through its contractor KK Mahajan Construction Company, undertook bridge construction adjacent to the stream, resulting in uncontrolled discharge of silt, cement, muck, and debris into the Nallah.
Procedural History
- May 2018: Applicant sent legal notice to HPPWD and contractor warning of impending ecological damage.
- December 2018: Construction commenced; siltation began, leading to fish mortality.
- March 2019: Multiple official inspections conducted by Gram Panchayat, Village Revenue Officer, and Fisheries Department confirmed mass death of fish and eggs.
- March 2020: Applicant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1566/2020 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh seeking Rs. 47.14 lakh compensation; dismissed on 14.09.2020 with liberty to file before appropriate forum.
- April 2024: Applicant filed Original Application No. 383/2024 before the National Green Tribunal.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought environmental compensation of Rs. 47,14,000/- under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, for the loss of trout fish and eggs caused by pollution from construction debris. He also sought restitution of environmental harm and accountability from the responsible agencies.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 permits an individual to claim environmental compensation for loss of aquatic life caused by violation of Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and whether such a claim is barred by limitation when filed after withdrawal of a prior writ petition.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant relied on Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti v. Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. and Ramdas Janardan Koli v. MoEF&CC to establish that the NGT has jurisdiction to award compensation to individuals for environmental damage. He argued that the discharge of silt and debris into the Haripur Nallah constituted a clear violation of Section 24(1)(a) of the Water Act, which prohibits polluting matter from entering any stream. He submitted documentary evidence from the Fisheries Department, Gram Panchayat, and Police General Diaries to prove causation and quantified loss using government-approved rates.
For the Respondents
The respondents, particularly HPPWD, contended that the application was barred by limitation, arguing that the cause of action arose on 15.05.2018 when the legal notice was sent, not when actual damage occurred. They also claimed that the contractor alone was liable under the contract, and that the damage could have resulted from flash floods in 2023. They challenged the accuracy of the applicant’s damage calculation, asserting that the Fisheries Department’s revised estimate of Rs. 27.39 lakh was more credible.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the five-year limitation period under Section 15(3) of the NGT Act and held that the cause of action arose only when actual pollution occurred - not when a warning was issued. It accepted that the applicant’s prior writ petition, filed on 16.03.2020 and withdrawn on 14.09.2020, entitled him to exclusion of that period under the doctrine of equitable tolling. Further, the Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s order in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation to exclude the COVID-19 period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, bringing the filing within the statutory window.
"The Applicant had moved with caution and apprehending such a discharge... he had given the advance legal notice... The Respondents did not take adequate measures and had acted in a reckless manner."
The Tribunal emphasized that Section 24(1)(a) of the Water Act imposes a strict liability on any person who knowingly permits polluting matter to enter a stream. The uncontroverted reports from the Gram Panchayat, Revenue Department, and Fisheries Department - all state organs - established a direct causal link between the construction debris and fish mortality. The Tribunal noted that the contractor’s failure to implement an Environment Management Plan, despite explicit directions from HPSPCB, amounted to negligence.
Regarding quantum, the Tribunal found the applicant’s calculation more reliable because it was based on official government price lists and included detailed biomass estimates by weight, whereas the respondent’s estimate used arbitrary per-piece rates without justification. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s loss of 9,320 kg of biomass was directly attributable to the respondents’ unlawful conduct.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The National Green Tribunal held that Section 15 of the NGT Act entitles victims of pollution to compensation for loss of aquatic life caused by violation of Schedule-I enactments. The respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 47,14,000/- as environmental damage compensation within two months, with HPPWD entitled to recover the amount from the contractor.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Environmental Compensation Is Not Limited to Human Health
- Practitioners can now confidently assert that loss of commercial aquatic life qualifies as compensable environmental damage under Section 15, even without human injury.
- Documentation of species-specific mortality, supported by departmental reports, is sufficient to establish quantifiable loss.
- Fish farms, aquaculture units, and riparian businesses are now recognized as legitimate claimants under environmental law.
Documentary Evidence from State Agencies Is Conclusive
- Reports from Gram Panchayats, Fisheries Departments, and Revenue Officers are treated as presumptively reliable unless disproved by the state.
- The Tribunal’s refusal to accept the respondent’s contradictory estimate - despite being from the same department - underscores that internal inconsistencies do not negate established facts.
- Practitioners should prioritize obtaining and submitting official inspection reports over private or speculative assessments.
Construction Projects Must Proactively Comply with Environmental Management Plans
- Failure to prepare and implement an Environment Management Plan (EMP), even after regulatory direction, constitutes negligence.
- Contractors cannot shift liability to principals by contract alone; both remain jointly liable under environmental statutes.
- Legal due diligence for infrastructure projects must now include verification of EMP compliance as a condition precedent to commencement.
