- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Andhra Pradesh NGT orders ONGC to compensate Pollution Control Board
![Andhra Pradesh NGT orders ONGC to compensate Pollution Control Board Andhra Pradesh NGT orders ONGC to compensate Pollution Control Board](https://www.legaleraonline.com/h-upload/2022/08/04/766594-national-green-tribunal.webp)
Andhra Pradesh NGT orders ONGC to compensate Pollution Control Board The penalty is worth Rs.22.77 crores The Chennai Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) to pay compensation to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) within six months. The penalty is for causing large-scale air, sound, soil and water...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to ![Legal Era](/images/logo.png)
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Andhra Pradesh NGT orders ONGC to compensate Pollution Control Board
The penalty is worth Rs.22.77 crores
The Chennai Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) to pay compensation to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) within six months. The penalty is for causing large-scale air, sound, soil and water pollution in the erstwhile East and West Godavari districts.
The bench comprising Justice K. Ramakrishnan (judicial member) and expert member Saibal Dasgupta (expert member) ordered the APPCB to take further action that may be required against ONGC for non-compliance with the environmental laws in the process of operating its units. It was given the liberty to impose further compensation.
The tribunal also directed the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) to operate its units in strict compliance with the recommendations made by a joint committee set up by it. The company was advised to obtain the relevant statutory clearances.
The judgment was the result of a petition filed by Y. Venkatapathi Raja of Kesavadasupalem village in Sakhinetipalli Mandal of Konaseema district against the 'environmental degradation activities' of the PSU oil and gas majors.
The allegation was that the ONGC and GAIL had no mechanism needed to check the pollution likely to be caused by their activities, such as discharging polluted water into the sea, water bodies and open land, causing gas leakages by not providing a leakage detection system, and for conducting blasting in Kesavadasupalem, Kesanapally, Antarvedi, Nagaram, Nagi Cheruvu, Uppudi and around 100 villages of the Godavari districts.
The petitioner argued that the activities violated the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the CRZ notifications.
NGT ordered that ONGC and GAIL should carry out safety measures stipulated by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to prevent incidents of leakage in the future, and adhere to norms related to the utilization of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds.
While Assistant Solicitor General of India R. Sankaranarayanan appeared for ONGC, advocate P.V.S. Giridhar for GAIL the petitioner was represented by Sravan Kumar and K. Muthu Meenal.
- #National Green Tribunal
- #Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
- #Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
- #Gas Authority of India Limited
- #Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
- #Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
- #Environment (Protection) Act $Disaster Management Act
- #Biological Diversity Act