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 12.5.2000 and the consequent notice issued to Executive Director, M/S Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. at Manali, Executive Director, Span Motel Pvt. Ltd., Operations Headquarters at New Delhi, calling upon them to show cause as to why in addition to damage, 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 V. Kamal Nath wherein it was held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 414 -15, para 39) "39. We, therefore, order and direct as under:

(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: , "Pursuant to the above -quoted direction NEERI has filed its report. A copy of the report was given to "the learned counsel for the Motel yesterday. Show -cause notice to the Motel has been given on 2 counts: (i) why the Motel be not asked to pay compensation to reverse the degraded environment, and (ii) why pollution fine, in addition, be not imposed. Mr. H.N. Salve, learned counsel appearing for the Motel states that he intends to file counter to the report filed by NEERI. He has asked for short adjounment. We are of the view that prayer for adjournment is justified. We, however, make it clear that this Court in the judgment dated 13.12.1996 has found as a fact that the Motel by constructing walls and bunds on the river banks and in the river bed, as detailed in the judgment, has interfered with the flow of the river. The said finding is final and no arugment can be permitted to be addressed in that respect. The only question before this Court is the determination of quantum of compensation and further, whether the fine in addition be imposed, if so, the quantum of fine."

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing on 4.8.1998, 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 he filed and thereupon notice were also issued to them, in due course. On 16.3.1999, 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 21.12.1998, 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 3.8.1999, it was ordered that the larger issue to decide the question relating to pollution fine, if any, to be imposed on the 1st respondent. On 28.9.1999, the statement of Mr. Salve, learned counsel on their behalf of the respondent, that M/S Span Motel (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 292.2000, Shri G. L Sanghi, Senior Advocate appearing for M/S Span Motel (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 the criminal court and after a fair trial therefore, Mr. M. C. Mehta, apart from making submissions, was permitted to submit a note in response to the submissions of Shri G.L. Sanghi.