Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 720
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Jaipur Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7018 of 2022
Decided On : 09-08-2023
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anish Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Samir Malik, AOR Mr. Aman Malik, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishant Awana, Adv. Ms. Rini Badoni, Adv. Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Tirupati Gaurav Shahi, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma A.S., AOR
Headnote:- National Green Tribunal - Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 33 SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the quantification of compensation payable for non-compliance with STP operation.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the National Green Tribunal failed to provide reasons for determining the interim compensation amount and remanded the case for reconsideration.Issues:
Quantification of interim compensation for non-compliance with STP operation.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized the need for reasoned decisions in determining compensation amounts and directed the tribunal to decide the issue afresh after hearing the parties.Final Decision:
The appeal was partly allowed, and the tribunal was directed to decide on the payment of interim compensation expeditiously.JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal. There is a finding recorded by the National Green Tribunal that STP operated by the appellant was non-compliant for a period of 135 days. In the appeal, there is no challenge to the said finding. The challenge is to the quantification of compensation payable by the appellant of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) by way of interim measure. The Committee of Experts proposed compensation of Rs. 33,75,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand) which the appellant has deposited, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.
3. After having perused paragraph No. 8 of the impugned judgment, we find that there is absolutely no reason recorded by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) towards the interim compensation. The Tribunal has not given reasons why the compensation suggested by the Committee of Experts should not be accepted. The Committee had suggested that the interim compensation should be quantified at Rs. 33,75,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that there are further reports filed by the Committee and the National Green Tribunal is monitoring the compliance.
4. As no reasons have been recorded for arriving at a figure of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores), we propose to remand the case to the National Green Tribunal for reconsideration of the quantum of interim compensation amount payable by the appellant.
5. Accordingly, we set aside only that part of the paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment by which a direction was given to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) by way of interim compensation.
6. We direct the Tribunal to decide the issue of quantum of interim compensation afresh after hearing the parties.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that a sum of Rs. 33,75,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand) has been deposited by the appellant with the District Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Till the adjudication is made by the National Green Tribunal on the amount of interim compensation payable by the appellant, the sum of Rs. 33,75,000/- (Rupees thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand) shall be treated as interim compensation.
8. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
9. We request the Tribunal to decide the issue of payment of interim compensation as expeditiously as possible.
![Vikram Processors rep. by its Proprietor V. Hariram [deceased] VS Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board rep. by its Chairman, Chennai - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 828](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_1.png)
