ORDER :

1. The appellant is a Sugar Factory, which operates in Gurdaspur, Punjab. The question raised in the present appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 28.02.2019 is whether the said Judgment of the National Green Tribunal (in short, “the NGT”) is outside its jurisdiction contained in Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (in short, “the NGT Act”) as also whether the present case, being covered by various Consent Orders and Reports in favour of the appellant, whether the ultimate direction in Paragraph 6 of the impugned order could at all have been given on the facts of this case.

2. Sh. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has taken us to the relevant provisions of the NGT Act as also our Judgment in “Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.” reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 221 in copious detail. In addition, he pointed out that every single prayer that was asked for by a petitioner, who claims fishing rights in the river Beas, has already been addressed by directions/consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short, “the Water Act”) and by various Monitoring Reports in so far as this Sugar Unit is concerned. He, therefore, urged us to hold that the NGT acted outside its jurisdiction in issuing the directions contained in Paragraph 6 as also that each and every prayer of the appellant had already been taken care of by the Orders/Reports.

3. Sh. Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, contended that any affidavit made as to his client’s lack of bonafides is not correct, in that he had already submitted an application dated 16.04.2018 to the Fisheries Department together with photographs and videos etc. showing the state of the river Beas and the fact that it was so polluted that he could not exploit his fishing licence granted in that behalf.

4. Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board, has also taken us through our Judgment in Tamil Nadu Case (supra) and has also cited “State of Meghalaya Vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee & Ors.”, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 177 to argue that the NGT’s order is certainly within its jurisdiction. Also, she argued that in any case, this appeal might be infructuous as the NGT has in “Shobha Singh Vs. State of Punjab” by an order dated 22.01.2021 already held that the Monitoring Report should now be a thing of the past and be taken as a measure of last resort, and the State Governments should, of their own motion, now deal with the problems of river and the pollution.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, we may first set out the prayer of the appellant in Original Application No. 1040 of 2018. These prayers read as follows :-

“I. Direct the Chadda Sugar Mill as well as respondent Authorities to pay environmental compensation by applying the polluter pays principle and precautionary principle proportionate the damage caused on account of their actions, which the applicant values at any amount that the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case.

II. Direct the respondent no. 5 to pay compensation under “Polluter Pays” principle for deliberately throwing of Acidic Water into river Beas by violating environmental Laws whereby so many fishes died and fishing work of the applicant is stopped.

III. Direct the respondent no. 1 to 4 to take steps and pass necessary orders to ensure that there are no violation of section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 5 of The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 and also direct the respondents to pass all necessary orders issuance of directions and to ensure compliances with the provisions of environment protection Acts, Rules and notifications issued concerning the water pollution.

IV. Direct respondent no. 2 to conduct an enquiry and take