Allowed

Ia No. 254/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 129/2024 of Birender Sangwan v. Ministry of Public Works Depatments

NGT7 Apr 2025IA No. 254/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 129/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an interim application by the Public Works Department (PWD) for waiver of costs, holding the agency liable to file a compliance report and deposit amounts. The matter was remanded for prosecution proceedings against non-compliant respondents.

What did the court decide?

IWAT No. 254/2025 dismissed; show cause notices issued for prosecution; respondents directed to deposit costs and compensation.

Ia No. 254/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 02

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Misc Application in Disposed of Cases No. 129/2024

¶5

In Original Application No. 439/2023 ( I.A No. 254/2025 )

¶6

Birender Sangwan Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ministry of Public Works Department & Ors. Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 07.04.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: None for the Applicant.

¶12

Respondents: Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta and Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advocates for respondent no. 1. Ms. Aishwarya M Assistant Engineer, Health Project Division North, PWD. Mr. Sushant Tripathi, Law Officer for respondent no. 4. Mr. Shivam Tripathi, Advocate for respondents no. 5 & 6. Ms. Puja Kalra and Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocates for respondent no. 7 MCD. Ms. Kritika Gupta and Ms. Aishwarya Bhatia, Advocates for respondent no. 10 (through VC). Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, Assistant Director, (Chemistry) Forensic Science Laboratory, respondent no. 2.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant-Birender Sangwan had filed O.A No. 439 of 2023

¶15

complaining about encroachments on public park in question.

¶16

The above said O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated

¶17

25.01.2024. The relevant part of the Judgment reads as under:-

¶18

¶19

“23. In view of the above the present application is disposed of with directions to respondents no. 1 to 3 to pay amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) as environmental compensation for damage caused to environment due to demolition of DDA Park Wall measuring 30.06 meters and respondents no. 4 to 6 to pay amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakh Only) for damage caused to environment due to demolition of DDA Park Wall measuring 105.5 meters. Respondents no. 5 and 6 are also directed to reconstruct the DDA Park Wall measuring 105.5 meters as undertaken at their own costs. The DDA is directed to file further Status Report in this regard on such reconstruction of the DDA Park Wall by respondents no. 5 and 6 within one month thereafter by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF, before the Ld. Registrar General, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi who may, if necessary, put up the matter before this Bench for further directions.

¶20

24. We appreciate the initiative taken by the applicant in filing of the present application which has served the cause of protection and improvement of environment.

¶21

25. We have noticed that the applicant has also incurred substantial expenses in filing and prosecuting present application and is entitled to award of appropriate amount of costs for the time and money spent by him. Accordingly, the costs are assessed as Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only). Said amount of the costs be paid by DPCC to the applicant out of the amount of environmental compensation lying deposited with it within three months from receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

26. A copy of this order be forwarded to the applicant and the concerned respondents, Vice Chairman, DDA, Member Secretary, DPCC and District Magistrate (North West), Delhi by e-mail for information/compliance.”

¶23

Due to non-submission of the reports as directed by above said order, the matter was listed before this Tribunal by the Registry by registering M.A. No. 129 of 2024 for further orders.

¶24

Report dated 19.02.2025 was filed by PWD, GNCTD that PWD was engaged by and was acting as agent of FSL, Rohini and it bona fide believed that the liability to pay the penalty imposed rested with FSL, Rohini.

¶25

This Tribunal considered the report on 20.02.2025 and noticed that copy of letter dated 20.05.2024 written by Estate Officer, FSL to the Chief Engineer, PWD was enclosed with the report mentioning that FSL has no role in flouting the environmental norms which is better justified and

¶26

¶27

answered by PWD which hopefully had taken necessary approval from concerned authorities.

¶28

This Tribunal observed in order dated 20.02.2025 that PWD was the agency which was getting the work executed and ought to have deposited the penalty by recovering the same from FSL, Rohini or M/s Tewatia Construction Private Limited but Respondent No.1 has failed to do so.

¶29

This Tribunal also noticed that Respondents No. 4 to 6 were directed to pay environmental compensation of Rs 3 lakhs and respondents no. 5 and 6 were directed to reconstruct the DDA park wall and DDA was directed to file report in this regard but DDA has failed to submit any report in this regard.

¶30

In view of non-compliance on the part of Respondents No. 1-PWD and 10-DDA, this Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2025 burdened Respondents No. 1-PWD and 10-DDA with costs of Rs. 10,000/- each to be deposited with learned Registrar General of this Tribunal within one month and also directed them to file compliance reports within one month. Notices were also ordered to be issued to Respondents No. 2 to 6 requiring them to file compliance reports within one month.

¶31

Report dated 04.04.2025 has been filed by Respondent No. 4 -DMRC vide email dated 04.04.2025. Mr. Sushant Tripathi, Law Officer, DMRCRespondent No. 4 has appeared before this Tribunal and submitted that environmental compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs has been deposited with DPCC while the damaged part of the wall of the DDA park has also been reconstructed/restored.

¶32

Report dated 29.01.2025 filed by DDA has been placed on record by the Registry at pages no. 265 to 272 but there is no mention as to when and how the same was filed. In report dated 29.01.2025 it has been

¶33

¶34

mentioned by DDA that PWD has not paid the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh; that Respondent No. 4-DMRC has paid amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs by three cheques; that part of broken wall of the green belt has been constructed by DMRC but the work of the fencing of the wall is pending; that the wall has not been completed and is broken in places and that DMRC has dumped some construction material used in the construction of the wall in the park.

¶35

Respondent No. 1-PWD has not filed any further report and has not deposited the costs imposed vide order dated 20.02.2025.

¶36

Instead I.A. No. 254/2025 has been filed by Respondent no. 1-PWD for waiver of costs. Respondent no. 1-PWD has sought waiver of costs on the following grounds:-

¶37

“2. That this Hon'ble Tribunal has passed detailed order on O.A. No. 439/2023 dated 25.01.2024, whereas the DPCC vide their letter no communicated to "The Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi." vide their letter no: DPCC/CMCIII/NGT/O.A.No.439/2023/2173 dated 01.05.2024 (Annexure A), which was forwarded to PWD vide letter no F.3(148)/16-17/part FileII/63 dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure B), stating that it has no role in flouting the environment norms and forwarded for further necessary action and compliance. Whereas Compliance report was submitted to The Director FSL, vide letter no.23(73)/EE/HPD(N)/P.W.D/2024/935 dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure C), that "PWD has followed all environment norms and has not violated any environment norms during construction. Hence this office is not responsible for payment of penality" Which still stands valid and same. As adhering the NGT /DPCC guidelines the project were also delayed time to time which was even discussed with Minutes of Meeting held on 17.02.2023. (Annexure D).

¶38

3. In the event of the whole situation, there were no chance given to PWD, HPD(N) to defend the argument neither any summon was delivered to this office rather only intimation were given post judgement to deposit the fine by The Director, Forensic laboratory. Also this office doesn't hold any financial independent to deposit. Being the principal department, the forensic science laboratory will hold the responsibility of fund allocation to do such payment.

¶39

4. It is most humbly submitted that unaware of the whole situation, our hands were tied, and we were made the defaulter in the court. If at all the chance were given to prove our clarification, we could have proved our obedience towards law.

¶40

¶41

5. That it is humbly submitted that if the cost imposed by this Hon'ble court is not waived, the same would cause irreparable loss to the applicant/respondent. No prejudice would be caused to the applicant if the present application is allowed and cost directed to be paid vide order dated 20.02.2025 is waived by this Hon'ble Tribunal.”

¶42

We have heard learned Counsel for respondent no. 1-PWD and have gone through the relevant record.

¶43

It may be observed here that this Tribunal vide order dated 05.07.2023 ordered issuance of notices to respondents no. 1 to 10 and notice was accordingly served on respondent no. 1 by email. While disposing of the original application registered as O.A. No. 439/2023 by order dated 25.01.2024, this Tribunal had directed that copy of order dated 25.01.2024 be sent to the concerned respondents, Vice-Chairman, DDA, Member Secretary, DPCC and District Magistrate (North West), Delhi by email for information/compliance and copy of order was sent to respondent no. 1-PWD. Respondent no. 1-PWD did not file any application for setting aside order dated 25.01.2024. Respondent no. 1-PWD also did not file any appeal against the above said order on the ground that summons were not served on it and it was not given opportunity to contest the case. Order dated 25.01.2024 directing respondents no. 1 to 3 to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for environmental violations mentioned in the judgment had become final and Respondent No. 1-PWD is bound to comply with the same.

¶44

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1-PWD has submitted that the order passed by this Tribunal is vague/ambiguous as it did not clearly specify by whom the environmental compensation of Rs. 1 lakh was to be paid.

¶45

This Tribunal had observed in its order dated 20.02.2025 that this Tribunal had directed Respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay environmental

¶46

¶47

compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and clarified that PWD being the agency which was getting the work executed ought to have deposited the penalty by recovering the same from FSL Rohini or M/s Tewatia Construction Pvt. Ltd. but Respondent No. 1- PWD has failed to do so despite adjournment having been granted for this purpose.

¶48

In the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case, no valid ground for waiver of costs is made out and I.A. No. 254/2025 filed by respondent no. 1-PWD for waiver of costs is dismissed.

¶49

In case Respondent No.1- PWD has any grievance as to inter-se liability of Respondents no. 1 to 3 to pay environmental compensation, it can have recourse to appropriate remedies for determination of inter-se liabilities of Respondents No. 1 to 3 for payment of environmental compensation of Rs. 1 lakh but no adjudication in this regard is required to be made by this Tribunal.

¶50

In view of non-compliance, the Respondents No. 1 to 3 will be liable to prosecution under section 26 of the NGT Act, 2010 and also to be arrested and detained in civil prison under section 25 of the NGT Act, 2010 till order passed by the Tribunal is complied with.

¶51

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to issue show cause notices to Respondents No. 1 to 3 to show cause as to why they be not ordered to be prosecuted for non-compliance with the order passed by this Tribunal and also as to why they should not be arrested and detained in civil prison till the order passed by this Tribunal is complied.

¶52

The Registry is directed to issue show cause notices to Respondents No. 1 to 3 and replies to the show cause notices may be filed by

¶53

¶54

Respondents No. 1 to 3 within one month from the date of service of such show cause notices.

¶55

Respondent no. 10-DDA has not filed compliance report and has also not deposited the costs imposed vide order dated 20.02.2025.

¶56

Learned counsel for DDA seeks time to file additional status report regarding compliance with order passed by this Tribunal.

¶57

Additional status report regarding compliance with order passed by this Tribunal may be filed by DDA within one month.

¶58

Respondent no. 1-PWD and Respondent No. 10-DDA are directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/- with Ld. Registrar General of this Tribunal within one month.

¶59

Respondent no. 1-PWD is also directed to deposit the environmental compensation amount of Rs. 1 lakh within one month.

¶60

The Respondents No. 4 to 6 are also directed to file further compliance report within one month.

¶61

List on 20.05.2025 for further orders.

¶62

A copy of this order be also sent by email to respondent no.1-PWD and Respondent No. 10-DDA for requisite compliance.

¶63

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶64

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶65

April 07^th ,2025 M.A in Disposed of Cases No. 129/2024 In Original Application No. 439/2023 ( IA NO 254/2025 ) AB

¶66

Ia No. 254/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 129/2024 of Birender Sangwan v. Ministry of Public Works Depatments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ia No. 254/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 129/2024 of Birender Sangwan v. Ministry of Public Works Depatments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Satyaprakash Bastiram Sharma vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Pintu Dutta vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

News Item Titled "Notified Aravalli Forest Portion Sold for Mining" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 15.09.2024 vs

Vikram Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

News Report Published in Dainik Jagran Dated 14.08.2023 "Highlights a Growing Concern Regarding Industrial Pollution in the Godhrauli Village" vs

Hari Om Sharan Dwivedi vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Vipin Kumar Saxena vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Sunil Kumar Aledia General Secretary Centre for Holistic Development vs

G Gangadhar vs

Ghanshyam Singh Pasi vs

Hardeep Sharma vs

Kaushal Kishore Vishwakarma vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 135/2024 in Original Application No. 587/2022 of Krishna Kumar Ram and Ors. vs