ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).6701-6705/2022 UDUPI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NAGARJUNA POWER COPORATION LIMITED) Appellant VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Respondents I.A. No.138209/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

I.A. No.138208/2022-STAY APPLICATION Date : 06-01-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.

Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv.

Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv.

Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv.

Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv.

Mr. Yogeshwaran, Adv.

Ms. Poonghkhullali, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

HARPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.08

1 R 8 e : a 1 s 0 o :4 n 5 : IST 31^st May, 2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai on O.A. Nos. 26/2013, 27/2013 and 28/2013 along with Appeal Nos. 51/2012 and 86/2017.

2. As a result of the findings returned by the Tribunal, the appellant has been found responsible for causing environmental damage. In terms of the ultimate directions contained in the operative portion of the order, the appellant is liable in a sum of around Rupees fifty-two crore on account of environmental compensation.

3. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, invites our attention to paragraph 39 of the impugned judgment and order and submits that the Tribunal has erred in recording that the guidelines of the Central Pollution Control Board provide for the ‘R-factor’ going up to Rupees five hundred from Rupees two hundred fifty. 4. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, learned counsel for the original applicant before the Tribunal on caveat. Presently, he could not dispute this submission of Mr. Rohatgi; however, Mr. Sreyas prays for time to adequately respond to the contention of Mr. Rohatgi by filing a counter affidavit.

5. An arguable case has been set up by the appellant. The appeals are admitted. Issue notice, returnable in eight weeks.

6. Mr. Sreyas accepts notice. Service of formal notice on the caveator/respondent stands dispensed with.

7. Insofar as interim relief is concerned, for a period of a month from date, there shall be unconditional stay of the direction for payment of environmental compensation. However, within a period of four weeks, subject to the appellant depositing a sum of Rupees twenty-six crore before the Registry, strictly without prejudice to its rights and contentions in these appeals, the order of stay shall continue until further orders to the contrary are passed. In default of deposit, the interim stay shall stand vacated.

6. Once the deposit of Rupees twenty-six crore is made, the Registry shall invest the same in a short-term interest bearing fixed deposit account of a nationalized bank on auto renewal basis.

7. The other contentions raised by Mr. Rohatgi, inter alia, by referring to the charts and the reports of the Committees concerned are not referred to in this order; however, it is needless to observe that the same would be heard and considered as and when the appeals are taken up for further hearing.

(HARPREET KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)