Supreme Court – Daily Orders
D.P.C.C vs Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.Etc on 4 August, 2025
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
ITEM NO.1501.1 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 757-760/2013
D.P.C.C. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
LODHI PROPERTY CO. LTD.ETC. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 1977-2011/2013 (XIV-A)
Date : 04-08-2025 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR
Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv.(A.C.)
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. We have delivered our judgment in the case of DPCC v.
Lodhi Properties today.
2. While considering the matter, certain amount of asymmetry
in the governing statutes, the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
1981, and Environment (Protection) Act 1986, has come to light.
This asymmetry seems have been aggravated with the advent of
the amendments introduced in 2024 to the Water and Air Acts.
Signature Not Verified
3.
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.08.14
The Water Act, 1974 was amended through the Water
19:37:05 IST
Reason:
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024. The
1
amendments to the Water Act have come into force only in theStates of Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan and the Union
territories on 15.02.2024, and will come into force in other states
as and when suitable resolutions are passed by the State
Legislatures. Through the passage of the Jan Vishwas
(Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, the Air Act was amended,
and the amendments came into force on 01.04.2024.
4. Significant part of the amendments has been the
substitution of imprisonment with fines for a large number of
offences and the introduction of a civil adjudicatory process. This
is in line with the objective stated in the preamble of the two
amending statutes. The preamble to the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024 declares the purpose
of the amendment as, “AND WHEREAS it is considered necessary
to make certain amendments thereto for decriminalising and
rationalising minor offences to further enhance trust-based
governance for ease of living and doing business;”
5. The Jan Vishwas Act 2023, similarly introduced
amendments to the Air Act and the Environment (Protection) Act
1986, with the same purpose declaring, “An Act to amend certain
2
enactments for decriminalising and rationalising offences to further
enhance trust-based governance for ease of living and doing
business.”
6. After amendments, several offences under Chapter VII and
VI of the Water and Air Acts respectively can be addressed
through a monetary penalty and not by way of imprisonment.
The maximum penalty that may be imposed is fifteen lakh
rupees. Punishment by way of imprisonment is however retained
only for a limited number of contraventions, such as failure to
comply with requirements of obtaining consent and failure to pay
penalty or the additional penalty amount. 1
7. To determine the penalty under the amended provisions,
the Central government has to appoint officers not below the rank
of Joint Secretary to the Government of India, or a Secretary to
the State Government as Adjudicating Officers.2 Once a complaint
is filed, the Adjudicating Officers are expected to hold an inquiry
to determine whether the contravention has taken place and if it
has, to impose and collect the penalties. In case of contravention
or non-compliance of directions issued under Section 33A of the
1 Section 45E of Water Act and Section 39D of Air Act.
2 Section 45B of Water Act and Section 39A of Air Act.
3
Water or Section 31A of the Air Act, the Adjudicatory Officer has
jurisdiction to decide a complaint. An appeal against the order of
an Adjudicating Officer lies before the National Green Tribunal. 3
8. To guide the adjudicatory process, the Central Government
has issued the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
(Manner of Holding Inquiry and Imposition of Penalty) Rules,
2024 on 11.11.2024. Similar Rules have been issued under the
Air Act on 12.11.2024.
9. It is important to note that Section 33A of the Water Act and
Section 31A of the Air Act have not been amended. At the same
time, the legal regime regarding offences and consequent
penalties under the two Acts, that were identical, are now in
variance. The reason is that the amended Water Act has not come
into effect in all the states.
10. Statutory framework lacks clarity – The Water Act, the Air
Act, and the Environment (Protection) Act, were legislated in
1974, 1981 and 1986 respectively, in a very different environment
from the one we inhabit now. There has been a persistent
demand to amend these laws and to reform the environmental
3 Section 45C of Water Act and Section 39B of Air Act.
4
regulatory framework to cope with the rapidly changing
environmental demands. Impact of climate change is bound to
bring about transformative changes and our regulations need to
be one step ahead of times. We need to augment and redesign our
regulatory capacity in ways that help us adapt to these
transformations and minimize damage to the environment and
protect public health.
11. The statutory framework lacks clarity, for instance–
i) Under the Water Act, any person aggrieved by an order of
the State Board under Section 25, 26 and 27 has to
approach the Appellate Authority constituted under the
Water Act by the State Government. However, the
Appellate Authority under the Air Act has jurisdiction
over all orders passed by the State Boards.
ii) The State Governments have revisional powers under
Section 29 of the Water Act, but do not have similar
powers under the Air Act.
iii)An appeal against directions issued by the State Boards
under Section 33A of the Water Act lies before the NGT
under Section 33B. However, there is no statutory appeal
5
against directions issued by the State Boards under
Section 31A of the Air Act.
12. Quite often common orders invoking provisions of both laws
are issued against polluting entities. To have such variation in
the appellate process under the two laws is not desirable. This
Court in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries
(India) Ltd.4, highlighted the distinction between the Water Act
and the Air Act with respect to the appeal process against State
Board’s directions –
“36. … What is important to note is that whereas Section 33-
B(c) of the Water Act read with Section 16(c) of the NGT Act
make it clear that directions issued under Section 33-A of the
Water Act are appealable to the NGT, directions issued under
Section 31-A of the Air Act are not so appealable. In fact, the
statutory scheme is that directions given under Section 31-A
of the Air Act are not appealable. This being the case, all the
aforesaid orders, being composite orders issued under both
the Water Act and the Air Act, it will not be possible to split
the aforesaid orders and say that so far as they affect water
pollution, they are appealable to the NGT, but so far as they
affect air pollution, a suit or a writ petition would lie against
such orders. … In the present case, we have seen that so far
as directions issued under Section 31-A of the Air Act are
concerned, there is no right of appeal conferred by the Air Act
read with the NGT Act. The ingenious argument made by Shri
Sundaram that, in any case, a “direction” under Section 31-A
of the Air Act is nothing but an “order”, and would, therefore,
be appealable as such under Section 31-B of the Air Act read
with Section 16(f) of the NGT Act would drive a coach-and-
four through the statutory scheme that has just been
adverted to. … Also, “directions” that are issued under
4 (2019) 19 SCC 479.
6
Section 31-A of the Air Act are of a different quality from
“orders” referred to in Section 31 of the same Act. Directions
are issued in the exercise of powers and performance of
functions under the Act and are not quasi-judicial in nature,
whereas orders that are appealed against under Section 31
are quasi-judicial orders made, inter alia, under Section 21 of
the Air Act. For this reason also, we cannot accept the
aforesaid argument of Shri Sundaram. However, Shri
Sundaram argued, with particular reference to the
Explanation to Section 31-A of the Air Act that “directions”
partake of the nature of “orders” when closure of any
particular industry or stoppage of supply of electricity qua
any single industry is made, and therefore, such directions
are appealable as orders under Section 31 of the Air Act. This
argument is also of no avail as Section 33-A of the Water Act
contains an identical explanation to that contained in Section
31-A of the Air Act. Despite this, the legislative scheme, as
stated hereinabove, is that so far as directions under the
Water Act are concerned, they are appealable, but so far as
directions under the Air Act are concerned, they are not
appealable. Hence, reference made to P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s
Law Lexicon and Black’s Law Dictionary, which state that in
certain circumstances, orders are also directions and vice
versa, would not apply to the present case, given the express
statutory scheme. In this connection, Shri Sundaram
cited Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi [Kanhiya Lal
Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, (1985) 4 SCC 628], and relied upon
para 17, where this Court held, referring to Article 324(1) of
the Constitution of India, that a “direction” may be equated
with a specific or a general order. The context of Article 324
being wholly different, it is obvious that this authority also
has no application, given the statutory scheme in the present
case.”
13. There is no logic or justifiable reason for variation in the two
laws.
7
14. Given the undisputed reality that climate change is no
longer a mere threat for the future as well as present generations,
it is compelling to have an effective and efficient legal regime in
place. Inconsistencies and lack of certainty about the powers and
duties of the statutory regulators will not only delay the process
but also generate unnecessary litigation.
15. In order to examine the legal position, it is necessary to hear
the Union of India, through the Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change. We, therefore, implead the MoEFCC as a
party respondent. Mr. Pradeep Misra, learned counsel for the
appellant, will file the necessary application for impleadment.
Upon filing of such application, let notice be issued to the Union
of India. The Registry will accordingly amend the cause title
confining the Union of India as the sole respondent.
16. We also appoint Ms. Shibani Ghosh and Mr. Ninad Laud,
Advocates of this Court, as amici curiae to assist the Court.
17. List on 15.09.2025.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
8
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 757-760/2013
D.P.C.C. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
LODHI PROPERTY CO. LTD.ETC. Respondent(s)
[HEARD BY : HON. PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND HON. MANOJ MISRA,
JJ.]
WITH
C.A. No. 1977-2011/2013 (XIV-A)
Date : 04-08-2025 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR
Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Jindal, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv.(A.C.)
Mr. Ivo M.S. D’Costa, Adv.
Mr. Rashika Narain, Adv.
Ms. Ishani Shekhar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Adv.
Mr. Kishan Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR
Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
Mr. Ajit Warrier, Adv.
Mr. Angad Kochhar, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR
Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv.
Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR
Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR
Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, AOR
9
1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra.
2. The appeals stand allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
10