ORDER

1. The matter has been put up in pursuance of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.08.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4663 of 2019, M/s Jones Foundations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. By the said order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside earlier order of this Tribunal dated 24.01.2019 in M.A. No. 10/2019 in O.A. No. 37/2015, S.P. Muthuraman vs. Union of India & Ors. It will be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is as follows:-

“3. A number of Original Applications came to be filed before the learned NGT challenging the Office Memorandums dated 12th December, 2012 and 27th June, 2013 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in furtherance of the Notification issued by the State of Tamil Nadu dated 14th September, 2006 titled the ’Environmental Clearance Regulation, 2006’. Learned NGT, by a detailed order dated 7th July, 2015 set aside the said Office Memorandums and vide the same order, the learned NGT also constituted a Committee for ensuring compliance with the resolution/orders passed by the SEIAA and passed other directions in the said order. The Committee was required to inspect all the projects in question and submit a comprehensive report to the tribunal.

4. Vide sub-paragraph 10 of paragraph 163 of the impugned order, all the Project Proponents were required to pay environmental compensation of 5% of their project value. In the said sub-paragraph, the NGT had also specified the amount to be paid by each of the Project Proponents. It was also provided that the said amount was to be deposited at the first instance, which would be subject to further adjustment. Insofar as the present appellant is concerned in Civil Appeal No.4663/2019, the liability was earmarked at Rs.7 crores and for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 8046/2019 the liability was earmarked at Rs.6.8795 crores.

5. The said order was challenged before this Court. Though notice was issued, subsequently the petitions were withdrawn with liberty to the parties to adjudicate their grievances before the appropriate forums.

6. In pursuance to the orders passed by the learned NGT, the State Environmental Assessment Committee (SEAC) considered the inspection reports, ecological damage, project plan, compliance etc. and found that the appellants were liable to pay Corporate Environment Responsibility @ 2% of the project cost towards the aforesaid factors.

7. It is the contention of the appellant that the amount deposited by him was much higher i.e. @ 5% whereas the assessment by the SEAC was only @ 2%. As such the appellant was entitled to refund of the excess amount deposited with the authorities.

8. Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel further submitted that insofar as the other Project Proponents are concerned, though they too were directed to deposit 5% of the amount by the NGT, they had deposited lesser amount which was thereafter adjusted by the SEAC in the calculation of Corporate Environment Responsibility. He therefore submits that discrimination was meted out by the SEAC to the appellants herein.

9. Learned senior counsel further submits that now that the environmental clearance as required under the Environment Protection Act has already been issued and the possession of the tenements is handed over to the allottees, the appellants are entitled to refund.

10. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the assessment of 5% by the learned NGT was independent of the assessment by the SEAC and therefore the appellants are not entitled to refund. He submits that 25% of the amount collected has already been deposited by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to the Central Pollution Control Board on 24th February, 2017 and as such, any order of refund at this stage would be unjust to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

11. Prima facie, we do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Tiwari, learned cou