Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Jones Foundations Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 16 August, 2022
Bench: B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4663 OF 2019
M/S. JONES FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD. ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8046 OF 2019
O R D E R
1. The challenge in these appeals are to the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), New Delhi dated 24th January, 2019 and 12th April, 2019 vide which the applications made by the appellants for refund of the compensation came to be rejected.
2. We have heard Mr. C.A.Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned AAG for the respondent-State.
3. A number of Original Applications came to be filed before the learned NGT challenging the Office Memorandums dated 12th December, 2012 and 27th June, 2013 issued by the Ministry Signature Not Verified of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra furtherance of the Notification issued by the State of Tamil Date: 2022.08.29 17:23:37 IST Reason:
Nadu dated 14th September, 2006 titled the 'Environmental 1 Clearance Regulation, 2006'. Learned NGT, by a detailed order dated 7th July, 2015 set aside the said Office Memorandums and vide the same order, the learned NGT also constituted a Committee for ensuring compliance with the resolution/orders passed by the SEIAA and passed other directions in the said order. The Committee was required to inspect all the projects in question and submit a comprehensive report to the tribunal.
4. Vide sub-paragraph 10 of paragraph 163 of the impugned order, all the Project Proponents were required to pay environmental compensation of 5% of their project value. In the said sub-paragraph, the NGT had also specified the amount to be paid by each of the Project Proponents. It was also provided that the said amount was to be deposited at the first instance, which would be subject to further adjustment. Insofar as the present appellant is concerned in Civil Appeal No.4663/2019, the liability was earmarked at Rs.7 crores and for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 8046/2019 the liability was earmarked at Rs.6.8795 crores.
5. The said order was challenged before this Court. Though notice was issued, subsequently the petitions were withdrawn with liberty to the parties to adjudicate their grievances before the appropriate forums.
6. In pursuance to the orders passed by the learned NGT, the State Environmental Assessment Committee (SEAC) considered the inspection reports, ecological damage, project plan, compliance etc. and found that the appellants 2 were liable to pay Corporate Environment Responsibility @ 2% of the project cost towards the aforesaid factors.
7. It is the contention of the appellant that the amount deposited by him was much higher i.e. @ 5% whereas the assessment by the SEAC was only @ 2%. As such the appellant was entitled to refund of the excess amount deposited with the authorities.
8. Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel further submitted that insofar as the other Project Proponents are concerned, though they too were directed to deposit 5% of the amount by the NGT, they had deposited lesser amount which was thereafter adjusted by the SEAC in the calculation of Corporate Environment Responsibility. He therefore submits that discrimination was meted out by the SEAC to the appellants herein.
9. Learned senior counsel further submits that now that the environmental clearance as required under the Environment Protection Act has already been issued and the possession of the tenements is handed over to the allottees, the appellants are entitled to refund.
10. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the assessment of 5% by the learned NGT was independent of the assessment by the SEAC and therefore the appellants are not entitled to refund. He submits that 25% of the amount collected has already been deposited by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to the Central Pollution 3 Control Board on 24th February, 2017 and as such, any order of refund at this stage would be unjust to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
11. Prima facie, we do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel. Sub-paragraph 10 of paragraph 163 of the impugned order specifies the amount on adhoc basis @ 5% and further clarifies that the said deposit would be at the first instance and the same shall be subject to further adjustment.
12. In any case, when a specific contention to that effect was made, the learned NGT was expected to consider this aspect. However, by a non-reasoned order, the learned NGT has rejected the claim of the appellants.
13. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow these appeals. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted back to the NGT to consider the applications of the appellants afresh in accordance with law.
14. Needless to state that both the parties would be at liberty to raise the grounds available to them in law.
.............................J. [B.R.GAVAI] ..............................J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] New Delhi;
August 16, 2022.
4
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.14 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). 4663/2019
M/S. JONES FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 77203/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 110035/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 77202/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) WITH C.A. No. 8046/2019 (IA No. 131609/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) Date : 16-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA For Appellant(s) Mr. C.A.Sundaram,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. Zaffar Inayati,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari,AAG Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Mary Mitzy,Adv.
Ms. Devyani Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Tanvi Anand,Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,ASG Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia,Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen,Adv.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Anshuman Tiwari,Adv.
Ms. Varsha Rana,Adv.
Ms. Shweta Rajput,Adv.5
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (ANJU KAPOOR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.) 6