2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4050

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Pramod Tyagi – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Department of Transport – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 335/2023

Illegal tree felling violating permission conditions and non-compensatory plantation attracts Polluter Pays; interim compensation imposed; formula approved for DPCC/SPCBs computation based on tree factors minus royalty (44 words).

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 2(a), 5 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 31A - Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 - Sections 12 - Illegal felling/transplantation of trees in violation of permission conditions and failure to carry out compensatory plantation constitutes environmental damage attracting ‘Polluter Pays’ principle - Trees felled: 327 + 168 transplanted (only 27 survived, 468 effectively lost); compensatory plantation of 5655 trees (only 830 done) - Interim environmental compensation @ Rs.10,000/tree for illegal felling (Rs.46,80,000/-) + Rs.1,000/tree for non-plantation (Rs.48,25,000/-) = Rs.95,05,000/- payable by Transport Department - Final computation by DPCC using approved formula (Cost Factor × Trunk area × Species Factor × Condition Factor × Location Factor - Royalty) within 3 months, adjustable against interim amount - Guidelines for environmental compensation computation for illegal tree felling approved and extended to all Pollution Control Boards/Committees - State agencies liable despite permissions; mechanical permissions by authorities deprecated (Paras 33-50, 68, 89-95).

(B) Environmental Law - Polluter Pays Principle - Distinguished from statutory penalties; applies to environmental damage from tree loss in forest/non-forest areas - Compensation must be restorative, deterrent, punitive; covers biodiversity loss, carbon sequestration, soil erosion, water cycle disruption, air quality deterioration - No statutory formula exists; Tribunal approves quantitative methodology with objective factors (Paras 36-67, 74-88).

(C) Sustainable Development - Tree felling permissions must consider environmental impact; compensatory afforestation mandatory; State as public trustee bound to mitigate climate change (Paras 2-3, 22-23, 38-43).

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged tree felling for cluster bus depots without proper permissions/compensatory plantation under environmental laws. Permissions granted for 495 trees (327 felling + 168 transplantation) subject to 4950 saplings plantation (1:10) within 9 months + 7-year maintenance; only partial compliance found, 468 trees effectively lost, 4825 saplings unplanted despite delays, COVID, contractor issues.

Findings of Court:
Illegal felling/transplantation and non-plantation caused serious environmental damage; interim compensation Rs.95,05,000/-; DPCC to compute final amount; funds for remediation plan by Joint Committee; no tree cutting without compliance; guidelines circulated to authorities.

Issues: (I) Violation of permission conditions/illegal felling? (II) Environmental damage caused? (III) Liability for compensation under Polluter Pays? (IV) Remedial orders? (Para 30)

Ratio Decidendi: Illegal tree felling/non-compliance damages environment (biodiversity, climate, soil, water, air); attracts Polluter Pays for restoration irrespective of forest/non-forest land; Pollution Control Boards must compute compensation using approved formula; permissions not mechanical.

Result: OA disposed with directions for interim/final compensation, remediation, compliance; appeals/cognizance sustained.

Table of Content
1. applicant alleges illegal tree felling for bus depot. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. tribunal orders reports on tree felling permissions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. dimts denies liability for tree cutting. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. reports detail permissions and compensatory plantation failures. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. ongoing non-compliance with afforestation; land issues. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. parties argue violations and defenses. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
7. illegal tree felling violates permission conditions. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
8. tree felling causes environmental damage. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
9. 468 trees illegally removed; damage confirmed. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
10. polluter pays principle applies to environmental damage. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
11. ngt powers for compensation and restitution. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)
12. methodology for computing environmental compensation. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88)
13. adopt ukpcb formula; impose interim compensation. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95)
14. directions for compensation payment and compliance. (Para 96 , 97 , 98)

JUDGMENT

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. Pramod Tyagi, son of Raghuvansh Tyagi, resident of H.No. 664, Landa Panda, Village-Burari, Delhi has filed present Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) under Sections 14 and 15 (1)(a), (c) and (4) read with Section 17(1), (2) and 18 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’) complaining about adverse impact of climate change in Delhi as well as in country due to non-implementation of environmental laws particularly Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FC Act, 1980’), Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Air Act, 1981’), Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EP Act, 1986’) and Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPT Act, 1994’) in as much as trees are valuable resource for contributing to cleanliness of air but large number of trees have been cut without considering the impact of such activity upon environment and thereby causing damage to environment.

2. Facts in brief stated in OA are that there was a proposal initiated by State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Department of Transport (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCTD (Transport)’) to start a Driving Training Institution at Mukundpur and for the said purpose, permission was granted to respondent 6 to set up/establish Driving Training Institute at Mukundpur area, Burari, New Delhi. Consequently, respondent 6 established the said Institute. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘GNCTD’) allotted 12 acres of land to respondent 6, initially, for establishment of Driving Training Institute. 3000 big trees were standing on the said land. Later on, respondent 1 proposed to establish a Cluster Bus Depot at Burari and half of the land i.e., 4 acres was allotted to Delhi Integrated Multi-Model Transit System Limited (A joint venture of GNCTD and IDFC Foundation) (hereinafter referred to as ‘DIMTSL’) for Cluster Bus Depot.

3. Respondent 2 to 4 i.e., Department of Environment & Forest, GNCTD i.e., respondent 2; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as ‘MoEF&CC’) i.e., respondent 3 and Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPCB’) i.e., respondent 4 are entrusted with the task of implementation of policies and programme relating to conservation of natural resource. State and its machinery is a trustee of vital natural resources on which human survival and welfare depend. There is a bond by a fiduciary duty under public trust doctrine to mitigate climate changes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document