Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by the owner of firecracker factory, where a tragic explosion led to multiple fatalities, injuries, and property damage; challenging various orders issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the District Collector, a Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf,* JJ., refused to quash the impugned orders at this stage, but granted the petitioners liberty to approach NGT for reconsideration. The Court directed the NGT to scrutinize compensation claims and ensure appropriate classification of victims.
In the instant matter, the petitioners, brothers, operated four firecracker factories with valid licenses under the Explosives Rules, 2008. A major explosion occurred at the factory on 06-02-2024, causing fatalities, injuries, and property damage. A FIR was registered, citing improper safety measures and violations of explosive regulations.
On the same day, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) took suo motu cognizance and directed interim compensation to victims, i.e., ₹15 lakh per death, ₹5 lakh per grievous injury or house damage, ₹3 lakh per minor injury and ₹2 lakh for displaced persons. Vide order dated 12-02-2024, the Collector calculated ₹15.80 crores as compensation to be deposited by petitioners. Vide order dated 23-02.-024, another liability of ₹2.43 crores was assessed, initiating confiscation and auctioning of petitioners’ properties worth ₹9 crores.
The petitioners contended that though an appeal under Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act is available, the writ petition is maintainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and cited Veena Gupta v. Central Pollution Control Board, and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, . It was contended that the NGT orders were ex-parte, based on media reports without adequate verification. It was contended that the compensation awarded by NGT was arbitrary, unverified, and lacks medical/technical records. It was argued that the orders issued by the Collector were passed without notice or hearing, thereby violating natural justice. The petitioners emphasised on the errors in categorising injuries and assessing property damage. The petitioners further contended that the grievous injury claims are unsupported by medical evidence, compensation for minor injuries, damaged houses and double compensation for family members of displaced households lacked proper scrutiny.
However, the respondents contended that the impugned writ petition is not maintainable due to the alternative remedy of appeal under the NGT Act and cited Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, , which supports the bar on High Court intervention when statutory remedies exist. It was contended that the petitioners negligently handled dangerous explosives, leading to severe damage to life and property. It was contended that the compensation awarded was reasonable and based on the gravity of the incident. It was further contended that the recovery proceedings by the collector are lawful, given the severity of violations and losses.
While citing M.P. High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, and Veena Gupta (Supra), the Court asserted that NGT’s ex-parte orders violating natural justice warrant High Court intervention under Article of the . The Court upheld its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 despite the availability of alternate remedies, citing the exceptional circumstances. The Court also reaffirmed the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in proceedings affecting substantial rights.
The Court noted that the at the time of passing of the impugned order by the NGT, “neither the injured had been identified nor the nature of injuries had been determined. Similarly, with regard to the damage to houses and displacement of persons is concerned, there was no identification or determination.” The Court noted that the NGT acted beyond its jurisdiction by imposing liabilities without proper factual verification.
The Court stated that the petitioners should have been allowed to present objections before the NGT for recalibration of compensation, particularly in cases of injuries and property damage. The Court acknowledged the valid concerns regarding injury and property damage claims and directed re-examination of injury claims and property damage by an independent and neutral authority.
The Court held that the present writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedy. The Court disposed of the petition with the following directions —
Petitioners can raise objections regarding the classification, genuineness of claimants, categorization, and quantum of compensation for injuries, property loss, and displacement. The NGT must consider these objections per the law.
Petitioners are permitted to present their proposal to deposit a higher amount (Rs. 3 crores) before the NGT. The NGT must evaluate this proposal lawfully.
Interim stay on disbursal (order dated 23-04-2024) was modified to allow compensation disbursement for death cases.
The NGT may disburse amounts for injuries and property loss/displacement, considering objections raised by the petitioners.
[Somesh Agrawal v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2024, Decided on 16-12-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Vinay Saraf
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate with Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate General with Shri H.S. Ruprah, Additional Advocate General; Shri Amit Seth, Additional Advocate General and Shri B.D. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondent/ State
Shri Sandeep Kumar Shukla, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3
Shri Vikram Johri, Counsel for the Respondent No. 6
Ms. Avani Bansal, Counsel for the Respondent intervenor
The post appeared first on .