Tejinder Kumar Jolly v. The State of Uttarakhand
Background
Villagers in Haldwani, Nainital, complained for years that two stone crusher units were operating in violation of environmental norms close to their homes, agricultural fields, and a school, causing air and noise pollution. After earlier National Green Tribunal (NGT) proceedings and a government inspection report confirming violations, a fresh application (O.A. No. 449/2019) was registered before the NGT based on that adverse government report. However, due to a factual mix-up about who had filed it, the NGT closed the application without deciding it on merits, reasoning that an earlier related application already covered the issue. The villagers challenged this closure before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the NGT's order closing O.A. No. 449/2019 without examining it on merits was incorrect, because that application was based on a specific, adverse government compliance report that had never actually been adjudicated by any earlier order. The Court noted that environmental laws exist to protect the public at large and that even long-established industrial units must comply with current environmental norms: prior operation does not create an exemption. The Court set aside the NGT's order and restored the application, directing the NGT to decide it on its merits without being influenced by the Supreme Court's observations. The appeal was allowed.
Lesson Learnt
Pollution-affected citizens are entitled to have their specific complaint actually examined and decided: a tribunal cannot dispose of a genuine grievance by treating it as already covered by an unrelated or earlier case without properly verifying the facts. "We've always operated this way" is not a legal defence against environmental compliance.