National Green Tribunal: In a review application filed under Section 19(4) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and Rules 22 and 24 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 for recalling of order dated 07-05-2024 and set aside the environmental compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) on Irrigation & Flood Control Department (I&FCD), GNCTD, a Division bench of Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member, upheld the environmental compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed by DPCC. The NGT reaffirmed that review proceedings are not an appeal in disguise and should be confined to the specific grounds allowed under law.
In the instant matter, an application was filed seeking action against illegal waste disposal in streets of Anuvrat Vihar, Sabhapur Vistar, Delhi. The NGT formed a Joint Committee to inspect and submit reports. The DPCC issued show-cause notices to the owner of the plot and I&FCD, GNCTD, for environmental violations. Both the parties did not submit a reply, leading the DPCC to impose environmental compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on each.
The NGT directed the DPCC to recover the environmental compensation and utilize it for environmental restoration in the area. The applicants, I&FCD, GNCTD, filed the present review application seeking to recall the NGT’s order dated 07-05-2024, and set aside the environmental compensation imposed by DPCC.
The applicant contended that the responsibility for development work in the area rested with DSIIDC, not I&FCD. It was argued that the management of solid waste was the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and I&FCD had not collected any waste on the plot. It was contended that the use of desilted sand mix earth did not cause environmental damage justifying the imposition of environmental compensation. It was further contended that the NGT failed to consider the applicant’s representation dated 03-04-2024, and wrongly held that no reply was submitted to the DPCC’s show-cause notice.
However, the respondents contended that the DPCC imposed environmental compensation due to failure of I&FCD, GNCTD, to respond to show-cause notices. It was contended that the DPCC has the authority to impose environmental compensation for such violations.
The NGT stated that the Tribunal is not bound by the CPC but is guided by principles of natural justice and may follow procedural aspects of the CPC where necessary. The NGT noted that the review application cannot be used to reargue matters already adjudicated but has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. The NGT asserted that mere disagreement with the order or an alternative view is not sufficient for review
“In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment/order and plausibility of an alternative view cannot be the ground for invoking the same by reappreciation of the facts already adjudicated upon.”
The NGT asserted that review is not a rehearing of the case and cannot be used as a disguised appeal. The NGT reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, that review is only permissible in limited circumstances, i.e., “(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. none of which were met by the applicant.”
The NGT noted that none of the above-mentioned circumstances is met by the applicant. The NGT stated that the grounds for review, such as the discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record, are not satisfied in this case. The NGT opined that there is no sufficient cause for reviewing the impugned order.
The NGT dismissed the review application and held that the original order imposing environmental compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on I&FCD, GNCTD, remains valid.
[Nand Lal v. Dhermendra Tomar, 2024 SCC OnLine NGT 2269, Decided on 15-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta and Ananya Basudha with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Assistant Engineer I&FCD, Counsel for Respondent No. 1, 2 and 5
Mr. Virendra Singh, Proxy Counsel for Ms. Puja Kalra, Mr. Om Dev Sharma, S.S. and Mr. Swaraj Singh, S.I., DEMS Dept, Counsel for the Respondent No. 3/MCD
Mr. Balendu Shekhar and Ms. Tanisha Samantha, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4/DPCC
