The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, ruling that failure to provide a hearing before determining environmental compensation invalidated the original order.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

Admit.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune (“NGT” for the sake of convenience), in Appeal No.19/2022 (WZ), the appellant is before this Court.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for first respondent and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and we have perused the material on record.

4. The controversy in this appeal is in a very narrow compass. The grievance of the appellant is that pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court in PIL Writ Petition No.2530/2021 dated 19.04.2022, the first respondent herein sought to compute damages vis-a-vis the illegal construction put up by the appellant herein and estimated the damages resulting from the illegal construction put up by the appellant herein in monetary terms. The first respondent herein by order dated 09.05.2022 directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,04,19,560/- (Ruees Two Crores, four lakhs nineteen thousand and five hundred and sixty only) towards environmental compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prior to the determination of the environmental compensation directed to be paid by the appellant herein, there was no opportunity given to the appellant herein inasmuch neither a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant nor was an opportunity of hearing granted. The impugned order dated 09.05.2022 is a unilateral, one-sided order which is hit by the principles of natural justice.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the NGT, Western Zone. Although the NGT acknowledged the fact that the appellant was not heard in the matter, nevertheless it did not remand the matter to the first respondent-management authority for a re-determination of the environmental compensation afresh. Instead, the NGT simply sustained the said order on the premise that it (NGT) was giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an Appellate Authority hearing a lis in the form of an appeal is totally different from the original authority which would determine the environmental compensation which is in the nature of an exercise of administrative powers. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 09.05.2022 which was passed by the first respondent-management authority was in total violation of the principles of natural justice. The NGT, therefore, ought to have remanded the matter to the Management Authority for re- determination of the environmental compensation that was liable to be paid by the appellant herein after giving an opportunity of being heard and filing objections to the said determination.

7. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order of the NGT as well as the order dated 09.05.2022 may be set aside and there may be a fresh compliance of the direction issued by the High Court dated 19.04.2022.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for third respondent supported the impugned order(s) and contended that there is no merit in the appeal; that the appellant herein could have approached the High Court in Writ Petition No.2530/2021 if it had any grievance with regard to order dated 09.05.2022; that it was the appellant which chose to file an appeal before the NGT and the NGT, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein, has passed the impugned order; that there is no merit in this appeal and hence, the same may be dismissed.

9. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the material on record and particularly in light of order dated 09.05.2022 passed by first respondent-Authority as well as the impugned order passed by the NGT.

10. We find that the High Court by order dated 19.04.2022 observed as under:

“3. In so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, we direct the GCZMA as well as oth