The National Green Tribunal has clarified that illegal industrial encroachments, though not directly covered under Schedule I of the NGT Act, can invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction if they create a substantial question relating to environmental harm under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. This decision reinforces the Tribunal’s role as a proactive guardian of environmental rights, particularly where structural violations lead to foreseeable ecological and public health risks.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, a fisherman and a public-spirited individual residing near the Dombivali Industrial Area, alleged that over 600 industrial units had illegally encroached upon mandated open marginal spaces by constructing unauthorized boiler plants, chemical storage units, cooling towers, and sheds. These encroachments, they argued, violated the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation’s Development Control Regulations (DCR), 2009, and the Boiler Act, 1923, and had directly contributed to multiple industrial fires and explosions between 2012 and 2022, resulting in worker fatalities and environmental degradation.
Procedural History
- 2012 - 2022: Multiple industrial accidents occurred in Dombivali Phase I and II, including major fires at Pioneer Dying Pvt. Ltd. and Mahesh Textile Pvt. Ltd.
- 2017: Applicant No.1 filed seven RTI applications seeking records of show cause notices issued to encroaching industries; MIDC responded ambiguously.
- 2021: The NGT, in OA No.134 of 2021, suo motu took cognizance of a fire incident and directed a joint committee to study occupational and environmental hazards in Maharashtra’s industrial zones.
- 2022: The present Original Application (No.108 of 2022) was filed seeking demolition of illegal structures and enforcement of safety norms.
- 2024 - 2025: The Tribunal constituted a survey team comprising MIDC, MPCB, DISH, and Fire Services, which inspected 733 industrial units and documented widespread encroachments.
The Parties' Positions
- Applicants: Argued that continuous encroachments constitute a continuing wrong under the EPA, 1986, and invoke the Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles. They cited Himachal Pradesh Bus-Stand Management v. CEC to assert NGT’s jurisdiction over violations of non-Schedule I laws if they cause environmental harm.
- Respondents (MIDC, MPCB, KAMA): Contended that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because violations of DCR and Boiler Act are not listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. MIDC claimed it had issued show cause notices and was processing regularization. KAMA argued non-joinder of affected industries and limitation, asserting that the 2012 - 2016 incidents were time-barred.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought: (1) demolition of illegally constructed industrial structures encroaching on open spaces; (2) enforcement of safety norms for open marginal spaces; and (3) compliance with the NGT’s 2021 directive to conduct a hazard study.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the National Green Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to adjudicate violations of non-Schedule I enactments - such as the Development Control Regulations and Boiler Act - when such violations result in or create a substantial risk of environmental harm under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicants relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Himachal Pradesh Bus-Stand Management and Development Authority v. Central Empowered Committee to argue that Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act defines a "substantial question relating to environment" broadly to include any violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation that affects the community, even if the underlying law is not listed in Schedule I. They emphasized that the encroachments led to unregulated industrial activity, which in turn caused air and water pollution, fire hazards, and loss of life - directly implicating Sections 8 and 9 of the EPA, 1986. They further argued that the continuous nature of encroachments and non-compliance constituted a continuing wrong, rendering the application within limitation.
For the Respondent
MIDC and KAMA contended that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is strictly confined to enactments listed in Schedule I. They argued that DCR violations are planning matters under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, and boiler regulation falls under the Boiler Act, 1923 - neither of which are in Schedule I. They cited Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody to assert that mere incidental environmental consequences from non-Schedule I violations do not confer jurisdiction. KAMA also raised procedural objections: non-joinder of individual industries and limitation, claiming the cause of action arose from incidents in 2012 - 2016, and the application filed in 2022 was time-barred.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal undertook a rigorous analysis of the scope of Section 14 and the definition of "substantial question relating to environment" under Section 2(1)(m). It acknowledged the conflicting precedents cited by both parties but resolved the conflict by distinguishing between incidental harm and direct environmental consequence.
The Court held that while Auroville Foundation correctly emphasized that not every environmental dispute triggers NGT jurisdiction, Himachal Pradesh Bus-Stand clarified that the Tribunal may examine violations of non-Schedule I laws if they result in a breach of an environmental obligation under a Schedule I enactment. The key is whether the violation creates a substantial environmental risk under the EPA, 1986.
"Violation of any specific statutory environmental obligation gives rise to a substantial question of law and not just statutory obligations under the enactments specified in Schedule I. However, the question must arise out of implementation of one or more of the enactments specified in Schedule I."
The Tribunal found that the illegal encroachments in Dombivali were not merely zoning violations. They enabled unregulated industrial activity - such as unpermitted boiler operations and chemical storage - that directly led to air and water pollution, fire hazards, and loss of life. These outcomes constituted breaches of Section 21 of the Air Act, 1981 and Section 25 of the Water Act, 1974, both listed in Schedule I. The Tribunal further noted that the Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary Principle under the EPA, 1986, were clearly engaged.
Regarding limitation, the Court accepted the applicants’ argument that the encroachments were continuing in nature. Each day an illegal structure operated without consent, and each day hazardous materials were stored without compliance, constituted a fresh violation under the EPA and Air/Water Acts. The last known incident occurred in April 2022, placing the application well within the six-month limitation period.
However, the Court declined to order demolition, noting that such authority rests with MIDC under Section 44(1) of the Maharashtra Industries Development Act, 1961, and that MIDC was already processing show cause notices. The Tribunal emphasized that its role was not to act as a planning authority but to ensure environmental compliance.
The Verdict
The applicants partially succeeded. The Tribunal held that illegal industrial encroachments causing or apprehending environmental harm invoke the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, even if the underlying violations relate to non-Schedule I laws. The Court directed the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to examine all 645 surveyed units for violations of the Air and Water Acts and take enforcement action within three months. No demolition orders were issued, as that authority lies with MIDC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Environmental Harm Trumps Technical Jurisdictional Boundaries
- Practitioners may now invoke the NGT in cases involving violations of municipal, planning, or safety laws if those violations demonstrably cause or threaten pollution under the EPA, Air Act, or Water Act.
- The burden shifts to respondents to prove that the alleged violation has no environmental consequence - not merely that it is not listed in Schedule I.
- Legal arguments must explicitly link non-Schedule I violations to specific environmental obligations under Schedule I enactments.
Continuing Wrong Doctrine Applies to Structural Pollution
- Encroachments, illegal operations, and unpermitted emissions that persist over time constitute a continuing wrong, resetting the limitation clock with each day of non-compliance.
- Applications filed within six months of the last known incident or ongoing violation are maintainable, even if initial violations occurred years earlier.
- RTI-obtained evidence of ongoing non-compliance can be pivotal in establishing continuity.
NGT Will Not Substitute Planning Authorities
- The Tribunal will not order demolition or regularization of structures; those are administrative functions reserved for MIDC, municipal bodies, or urban planning authorities.
- However, it will compel environmental regulators (like MPCB) to enforce pollution control laws against entities operating illegally, regardless of structural status.
- Practitioners should file parallel applications with planning authorities while seeking environmental remedies in NGT.
