Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1996 DIGILAW 2551 (SC)

M. C. Mehta v. Union Of India

1996-12-19

KULDIP SINGH, S.SAGHIR AHMAD

body1996
ORDER : 1. This Court while disposing of the main matter on December 13, 1996 directed as under :- "3. The Motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area. The pollution caused by various construction made by the Motel in the river bed and the banks of the river Beas has to be removed and reversed. We direct NEERI through its Director to inspect the area, if necessary, and give an assessment of the cost which is likely to be incurred for reversing the damage caused by the Motel to the 35 environment and ecology of the area. NEERI may take into consideration the report by the Board in this respect. 4. The Motel through its management shall show cause why pollution fine in 40 addition be not imposed on the Motel. 5. ........................... 6. ........................... 7.......... 8. The Motel shall show cause on December 18, 1996 why Pollution fine and damages be not imposed as directed by us, NEERI shall send its reports by December 17, 1996. To be listed on December 18, 1996." 2. 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 the NEERI. He has asked for short adjournment. We are of the view that prayer for adjournment is justified. 3. We, however, make it clear that this Court in the judgment dated December 13, 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 argument 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. 4. List on 4.2.1997.