In Brief
On 6 June 2013, illegal hill-cutting for mineral extraction near a national highway tunnel caused debris accumulation that obstructed water drainage. Heavy monsoon rains resulted in flooding that swept away a car, killing two people. The National Green Tribunal held the miner, NHAI (highway authority), and state liable for compensation and environmental damage, and issued directions banning construction within 100 feet of hills. The Supreme Court upheld the NGT's jurisdiction to award compensation and the NHAI's liability, as it owned the highway and failed to prevent foreseeable danger despite knowledge and statutory duty. However, the Court struck down the NGT's blanket 100-foot construction ban as procedurally improper—being issued without scientific evidence, expert reports, or consultation. It also quashed the state's implementing notification as arbitrary and beyond the scope of Section 154 of the planning act.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation": "(2010) 4 SCC 579", "case_name": "Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corpn.", "paragraph": "42", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1970) 2 SCC 355", "case_name": "L. Hirday Narain v. CIT", "paragraph": "70", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1991) 1 SCC 598", "case_name": "Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar", "paragraph": "46", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1987) 2 SCC 720", "case_name": "Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.", "paragraph": "81", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1990) 4 SCC 516", "case_name": "H.S.S.K. Niyami v. Union of India", "paragraph": "81", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(2003) 4 SCC 557: 2003 SCC (L&S) 507", "case_name": "Canara Bank v. Debasis Das", "paragraph": "81", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[1990 Supp SCC 397]", "case_name": "ONGC v. Assn. of Natural Gas Consuming Industries of Gujarat", "paragraph": "81", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "AIR 1966 SC 1750", "case_name": "Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti", "paragraph": "63", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1921) 3 KB 132", "case_name": "Sheppard v. Borough of Glossip", "paragraph": "57", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[(1921) 3 KB 132 : 1921 All ER Rep 61, CA]", "case_name": "Sheppard v. Borough of Glossip", "paragraph": "57", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[2015] AC 1732", "case_name": "Michael's case", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[2001] 2 AC 550", "case_name": "Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[2001] 2 AC 619", "case_name": "Phelps v Hillington London Borough Council", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[1987] AC 241", "case_name": "Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[2009] AC 874", "case_name": "Mitchell v Glasgow City Council", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[1941] AC 74", "case_name": "East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "2004 (1) WLR 1057", "case_name": "Gorringe v. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[1989] AC 53", "case_name": "Hill's case", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1765) 2 Wils KB 275", "case_name": "Entick v Carrington", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1866) LR 1 HL 93", "case_name": "Mersey Docks and Harbor Board v Gibbs", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1878) 3 App Cas 430", "case_name": "Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[1970] AC 1004", "case_name": "Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "Griffiths v. Liverpool Corporation", "case_name": "Griffiths v. Liverpool Corporation", "paragraph": "58", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "Burnside v. Emerson", "case_name": "Burnside v. Emerson", "paragraph": "58", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "Haydon v. Kent County Council", "case_name": "Haydon v. Kent County Council", "paragraph": "59", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "Stovin v Wise", "case_name": "Stovin v Wise", "paragraph": "60", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police", "case_name": "Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police", "paragraph": "61", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "Yetkin v. Mahmood", "case_name": "Yetkin v. Mahmood", "paragraph": "62", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[1947 WN 191]", "case_name": "Brown v. Harrison", "paragraph": "63", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[(1965) 1 WLR 1004 : (1965) 2 All ER 588]", "case_name": "Quinn v. Scott", "paragraph": "63", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "[1927 WN 247]", "case_name": "Mackie v. Dumbarton shire County Council", "paragraph": "63", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "AIR 1966 SC 1750", "case_name": "Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti", "paragraph": "63", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "(1991) 1 SCC 598", "case_name": "Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar", "paragraph": "46", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi", "case_name": "Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi", "paragraph": "38", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors", "case_name": "Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors", "paragraph": "38", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone & Ors", "case_name": "State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone & Ors", "paragraph": "39", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Lafarge Umiam Mining (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.", "case_name": "Lafarge Umiam Mining (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.", "paragraph": "40", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India", "case_name": "Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India", "paragraph": "40", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "State of Meghalaya and Ors. vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee & Ors.", "case_name": "State of Meghalaya and Ors. vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee & Ors.", "paragraph": "41", "treatment": "approved", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "This court had affirmed a part of the decision of the NGT issuing directions in respect of large-scale mining in the state of Meghalaya, on the ground that it had an adverse impact on the environment."}, {"raw_citation": "Mantri Technoze Pvt. Ltd. v Forward Foundation", "case_name": "Mantri Technoze Pvt. Ltd. v Forward Foundation", "paragraph": "29, 42, 72", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India", "case_name": "Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India", "paragraph": "29", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. & Ors.", "case_name": "Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. & Ors.", "paragraph": "25", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum", "case_name": "Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum", "paragraph": "57", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Sushila Devi", "case_name": "Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Sushila Devi", "paragraph": "63", "treatment": "followed", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Vadodara Municipal Corporation v Purshottam V. Muranji", "case_name": "Vadodara Municipal Corporation v Purshottam V. Muranji", "paragraph": "63", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "case_name": "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "paragraph": "46", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana", "case_name": "Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana", "paragraph": "49", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Securities Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.", "case_name": "Securities Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.", "paragraph": "73", "treatment": "referred"}, {"raw_citation": "PTC India v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission", "case_name": "PTC India v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission", "paragraph": "74", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member", "case_name": "T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member", "paragraph": "80", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Promoters and Builders Assn", "case_name": "Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Promoters and Builders Assn", "paragraph": "81", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao v. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority", "case_name": "Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao v. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority", "paragraph": "82", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "MIG Cricket Club v. Abhinav Sahakar Education Society", "case_name": "MIG Cricket Club v. Abhinav Sahakar Education Society", "paragraph": "83", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Shri. Sitaram Sugar Mills Company v. Union of India", "case_name": "Shri. Sitaram Sugar Mills Company v. Union of India", "paragraph": "88", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Cellular Operators Association v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India", "case_name": "Cellular Operators Association v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India", "paragraph": "89", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.