Punjab And Haryana High Court : Challenge To Single Member Appellate Authority Under Air And Water Acts Rejected | Presence Of Expert Member Rendered Immaterial Post NGT Constitution
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice H.S. Grewal held that providing for a single member Appellate Authority under the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 does not violate the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court directed dismissal of the petition challenging the validity of notifications dated 20.11.2019 amending the Rules to provide for a single member Appellate Authority. The court recorded that the notifications were within the statutory powers of the State and declined to interfere in the matter.
The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of notifications dated 20.11.2019 issued by the State of Haryana amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983. By the impugned notifications, the composition of the Appellate Authority under both Rules was amended to provide for a single member authority instead of a multi-member authority with technical expertise.
The petitioner contended that the notifications were contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.), decided on 27.01.1999, which mandated that Appellate Authorities under environmental laws must include technical members with expertise in environmental matters alongside judicial members. It was argued that the absence of a technical member violates the principles laid down by the Apex Court and renders the amended Rules ultra vires.
The State of Haryana filed its written statement defending the notifications. It submitted that the need emphasised by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board’s case was addressed by the enactment of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, under which the NGT was constituted with expert members having qualifications in environmental science, engineering, technology, forest conservation, pollution control, hazardous substances management, climate change management, or biodiversity management. The State argued that the constitution of the NGT with technical expertise rendered the requirement of technical members in State Appellate Authorities redundant.
The State pointed out that Section 31B of the Air Act and Section 33B of the Water Act, inserted by amendments in 2010, provide an appeal to the NGT from any order of the Appellate Authority. The State also contended that only three appeals were pending before the Appellate Authority under the Air Act as on 20.11.2023, and having a multi-member authority would result in unnecessary financial burden on the State.
The Haryana State Pollution Control Board adopted the reply filed by the State. The petitioner did not file any rejoinder to the reply.
The court recorded that from a bare perusal of the decision in A.P. Pollution Control Board’s case, it was clear that the law laid down by the Supreme Court mandating the Appellate Authority to be a multi-member body including a technical expert was established at a time when the NGT Act had not yet been promulgated.
It noted that the NGT Act not only conferred original jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 but also appellate jurisdiction under Section 16 to the Tribunal.
The court stated that it agreed with the State’s view that once the statutory Tribunal, namely the National Green Tribunal, was constituted and began functioning with experts in the field of environment as Expert Members, the pressing need for the Appellate Authority under the Air Act and Water Act to include a member from the field of environment was removed.
It recorded that therefore, the absence of an Expert Member as part of the Appellate Authority did not cause any disadvantage to an aggrieved person approaching the Appellate Authority.
The court stated that a bare perusal of the provisions revealed that the enactments of the Air Act and Water Act empower the State to have a single or three-member body as the Appellate Authority.
Thus, if the State, through notifications dated 20 November 2019, provided for a single member Appellate Authority under the Air Act and Water Act, the power exercised by the State was within the four corners of those enactments.
The court recorded that in view of this discussion, it had no doubt that providing for a single member Appellate Authority under the Air Act and Water Act through the notifications dated 20 November 2019 did not violate the law laid down by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board’s case, especially when considered in the context of the environmental laws prevailing at the time of that decision.
The court issued the following directive: “In view of above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate not to interfere in the present petition and dismisses the petition without costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, Ms. Suman Sagar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Sunil v. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:076930-DB
Case Number: CWP-25118-2023 (O&M)
Bench : Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice, Justice H.S. Grewal
