The court emphasized the principle that it does not have the power to sit as an appellate court over a judgment passed by the NGT and highlighted the significance of the NGT Act, 2010, Section 22.

JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. - With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is being decided at the admission stage.

2. The appellant had challenged the legality of the order dated 04.01.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, in a batch of writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant namely, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1506 of 2020.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant had challenged the legality of the order dated 05.08.2020, passed by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board, ('the Board', for short), whereby the Board had imposed an environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,31,250/- upon the appellant. According to the appellant the said order had been passed without giving any prior notice, and without giving any opportunity of hearing to it. In fact, the said impugned order had been passed ostensibly on the ground that certain directions had been issued by the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal (for short the "NGT"). According to the appellant, the NGT had issued directions to the Central Pollution Control Board, and to the State Pollution Control Board to identify the polluting industries and to impose environmental compensation upon them. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.08.2020, it filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, along with other erring units. By common order dated 04.01.2021, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

4. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the Board, submits that the entire controversy, which was pending before the NGT, under which directions have been issued by the NGT by its order dated 03.12.2019 directing the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Board to inspect the erring units and to impose the environmental compensation, have now come to rest by judgment dated 16.09.2020. According to the said judgment of the NGT, assessed environmental compensation "may be recovered and deposited with the State PCB. The Joint Committee may prepare an Environmental Restoration Plan within three months and execute the same under supervision of the State PCB and the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar". Therefore, according to the learned counsel, once the issue has been settled by the NGT, this Court should not interfere with the final judgment of the NGT in the garb of an intra-Court appeal. Moreover, in case the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.09.2020 passed by the NGT, the appellant has an efficacious alternate remedy of either filing a review petition before the NGT, or, filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel it is too late in the day to agitate about the legality of the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 in the garb of filing an intra-Court appeal. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Board, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed by this Court.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Narendra Bali, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that admittedly the order dated 05.08.2020 was passed in compliance of the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the NGT. Moreover, since the controversy had been pending since 2018, the Board had ample opportunity of issuing notices to the appellant, and of giving sufficient time to the appellant to rectify any omissions being committed by it. However, no such opportunity was given to the appellant. Moreover the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order dated 05.08.2020 is per se illegal.

Further more, the learned Single Judge is unjustified in concluding that the appellant should have approached the learned Tribunal by filing a review petition, or by challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, according to the learned counsel,