The National Green Tribunal has delivered a pivotal ruling affirming that environmental regulators cannot unilaterally disconnect power supply to industrial units as a punitive or coercive tool without demonstrating proportionality, necessity, and due process. This judgment redefines the boundaries of enforcement under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, emphasizing that operational continuity is essential for compliance, not obstruction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
M/s Ambey Laboratories Ltd., a chemical manufacturing unit in Alwar, Rajasthan, was issued Directions by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on 31 January 2025 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, mandating immediate closure of operations due to alleged environmental violations. The Directions included requirements to install above-ground storage tanks for effluents and halt unauthorized sale of hazardous waste. The unit’s electricity was disconnected, rendering it unable to implement the very compliance measures ordered.
Procedural History
- 12 August 2024: Rajasthan Pollution Control Board (RPCB) granted Consent to Operate after comprehensive inspection.
- 27 December 2024: RPCB granted Consent to Establish for expansion of capacity.
- 19 December 2024: CPCB conducted inspection and identified multiple violations including effluent bypass, groundwater contamination, and unauthorized sale of spent hydrochloric acid.
- 31 January 2025: CPCB issued Directions, including immediate shutdown and electricity disconnection.
- 10 February 2025: Applicant informed CPCB it had complied with 16 of 17 conditions; requested reinstatement of power to complete remaining compliance.
- 12 May 2025: RPCB submitted Status Report confirming 16/17 conditions complied; noted that compliance with Condition No.8 (above-ground tanks) required electricity for pipe installation.
- 26 February 2025 & onwards: Repeated requests by applicant for power restoration ignored by CPCB.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought: (1) immediate reinstatement of electricity connection; and (2) permission to operate at optimum capacity to verify compliance with CPCB’s Directions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Central Pollution Control Board to disconnect electricity as a coercive enforcement mechanism, even when the unit is actively seeking compliance and the disconnection itself prevents fulfillment of the mandated remedial measures.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant argued that the electricity disconnection was disproportionate and self-defeating. It relied on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to assert that environmental enforcement must be balanced with economic rights and livelihood protection. It emphasized that the unit had obtained valid consents from RPCB, had complied with 16 of 17 conditions, and that the sole outstanding requirement - installation of above-ground tanks - was physically impossible without power. The applicant also cited State of Rajasthan v. Union of India to argue that regulatory action must not render compliance impossible.
For the Respondent/State
CPCB contended that the unit had committed grave violations: bypassing effluent with pH 0.7, contaminating groundwater with 2,4-Dichlorophenol at 4.7 mg/l (far exceeding BIS limits), and illegally selling hazardous waste. It argued that Section 5 grants broad powers to issue directions for environmental protection, including shutdowns. It maintained that the disconnection was necessary to prevent further harm and that the applicant’s delay in compliance justified the measure.
The Court's Analysis
The National Green Tribunal examined the doctrine of proportionality under Article 21 and the principles of natural justice. It held that while the violations were serious, the remedy imposed - permanent electricity disconnection - was not calibrated to the nature of the breach. The Court observed that the applicant had not contested the violations but had sought a reasonable timeframe to rectify them.
"The very act of disconnecting electricity to enforce compliance with a direction requiring electrical infrastructure for remediation is self-contradictory and violates the principle of reasonable opportunity to comply."
The Tribunal distinguished CPCB v. M/s Alkali Chemicals Ltd. where shutdown was upheld due to repeated non-compliance and imminent public health risk. Here, no such imminent threat was established post-inspection, and the applicant had demonstrated good faith through multiple communications and RPCB’s confirmation of compliance. The Court further noted that the groundwater contamination, while serious, was not ongoing at the time of hearing, as the bypassing had ceased and remediation was underway.
The Tribunal emphasized that Section 5 is not a blank cheque for arbitrary enforcement. It must be exercised with procedural fairness and in a manner that enables, rather than impedes, compliance. The disconnection of power, without alternative mechanisms for compliance, amounted to an abuse of power.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The National Green Tribunal held that electricity disconnection as a punitive measure under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is impermissible when it renders compliance impossible. The Court directed the respondent to immediately restore electricity and permit the unit to operate at optimum capacity to fulfill remaining compliance obligations.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compliance Cannot Be Hindered by Enforcement
- Practitioners must now argue that any enforcement action that physically prevents compliance (e.g., cutting power, water, or access) is prima facie arbitrary.
- Regulators must provide feasible timelines and alternative compliance mechanisms before imposing operational shutdowns.
- Status reports from State Pollution Control Boards carry significant evidentiary weight in NGT proceedings.
Proportionality Is a Non-Negotiable Standard
- The Tribunal implicitly adopted the triple test of proportionality: suitability, necessity, and balancing of interests.
- Environmental violations must be addressed with targeted remedies - not blanket operational bans.
- Where a unit is cooperating and has substantially complied, regulators must prioritize corrective orders over punitive ones.
Regulatory Coordination Must Be Transparent
- When State PCBs grant consents and confirm compliance, Central agencies cannot override them without independent verification and reasoned justification.
- Applicants should document all communications with regulators and retain copies of inspection reports and status submissions.
- Failure to respond to compliance updates within a reasonable time may constitute constructive denial of natural justice.
