The National Green Tribunal retains exclusive jurisdiction to assess environmental compensation, and its orders cannot be stayed by writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri Umesh Vats learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Aditya Shanker, holding brief of Shri Mehul Khare, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 5, and 6.

2. The petitioner-Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda Makanpur, district Ghaziabad has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.7.2024, whereby the Chief Environment Officer, Region-I, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, T.C.-12th, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow has asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 91,25,000/- (rupees ninety one lac twenty five thousand) as environmental compensation. A consequential recovery citation issued by the Tehsil Authorities on 27.10.2024 has also been challenged. A further direction has been sought commanding the respondents not to proceed with recovery against the petitioner.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Municipality defined under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 and it was handed over a land for establishment of wastage processing and solid waste plant on 21.12.2021 in village Nidhauri, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil Ghaziabad. It is alleged that funds were received by the petitioner under Swachchh Bharat Mission and wastage processing and solid waste plant of 90 TPD capacity has been developed and processing machines have also been established. Certain aspects are not to be elaborated here as the issue involved before us is as to whether the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (herein-after referred to as 'U.P. P.C.B.') was having any authority or competence to raise demand of environmental compensation, inasmuch as the foundation of the writ petition and challenge made to the impugned demand is on the ground of ''lack of competence/jurisdiction''.

4. Assailing the impugned order and recovery citation, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, vide notification dated 8.4.2016, notified the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (herein-after referred to as the ''Rules of 2016'') and no law empowers the U.P. P.C.B. to assess or demand environmental compensation. Submission is that only the National Green Tribunal (N.G.T.) established under the provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is competent to assess environmental compensation.

5. Shri Umesh Vats, elaborating his submissions, urged that the impugned order dated 30th July 2024 refers to some orders passed by the N.G.T., New Delhi in Original Application No. 70 of 2024 (Deepak Joshi v. State of U.P) and is said to have been issued in compliance of the said orders, whereas no such direction was issued by the N.G.T. nor is there any order passed by the N.G.T. determining or quantifying the environmental compensation and, hence, the order impugned is not sustainable.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Appellants Trust and others v. State of Gujarat and others, 2022 Supreme (SC) 772, as well as certain interim orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Writ C No. 4816 of 2024 (Suez India Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra Mathpal v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, through its Chairman and 6 others), Writ C No. 7543 of 2024 (M/s. Pind Balluchi (Unit of Excellence Hospitality) through Partner Smarity Sindhu and Monu Mishra v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change and others), and Writ C No. 8463 of 2024 (Jaypee Infratech Limited through Authorized Representative Apurva Pragya v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Environment Forest and Climate Change LKO and others).

7. Submission is that since Co-ordinate Benches have granted interim orders staying the action of U.P. P.C.B