M C MEHTA Vs. KAMAL NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above matter has been set down for hearing before us pursuant to the orders passed by this Court (Justice S. Saghir Ahmad and Justice Doraiswamy Raju) on May 12, 2000 and the consequent Notice issued to the Executive Director, M/s. Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. at Manali, and the Executive Director, Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. Operations Headquarters at New Delhi, calling upon them to show cause as to why in addition to damages, exemplary damages be not awarded for having committed the various acts set out and enumerated in detail in the main judgment reported in M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others (1997) 1 SCC 388 wherein it was held as hereunder :

(2.) On being served with a Notice dated 14-12-1996, the matter was heard on 19-12-1996, when this Court (Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice S. Saghir Ahmed) passed the following order :

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing on 4-8-98, the State of Himachal Pradesh was directed to examine the Report submitted by NEERI and also submit its own Plan of Action, too. Since, it was felt that the various owners of properties along the river banks would be benefited by the plan that is prepared, they should also be heard before any action is taken on the basis of such plan. The suggested plan and list of owners of properties were directed to be filed and thereupon Notices were also issued to them, in due course. On 16-3-99, Notice was issued to the Ministry of Environment, Government of India, to indicate their response to the Action Plan submitted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 21-12-98, wherein it was also stated that they are not possessed of sufficient financial means to implement their own action plan unless the Government of India provides them necessary finances. On 3-8-99, it was ordered that the larger issue regarding Action Plan will be considered later and the matter will be taken to decide the question relating to pollution fine, if any, to be imposed on the 1st respondent. On 28-9-99, the statement of Mr. Salve, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, that M/s. Span Motels (P) Ltd. was prepared to bear their fair share of the project cost of ecological restoration was recorded, and directed the same to be submitted in writing. On 19-1-2000, it was also ordered that the question of apportionment of cost of restoration of ecology as also the question of pollution fine will be considered by the Court on the next date of hearing. At the hearing on 29-2-2000, Shri G. L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate, appearing for M/s. Span Motels (P) Ltd. challenged the legality of the proposed levy of fine, otherwise than through the manner envisaged under the relevant pollution laws by resorting to prosecution before criminal Court and after a fair trial therefor. Mr. M. C. Mehta, apart from making submissions, was permitted to submit a note in response to the submissions of Shri G. L. Sanghi.