Judgment :- This writ petition filed by Neyveli Lignite Corporation, a top performing Central Public Sector Undertaking accredited with the status of "Navaratna" and is likely to be elevated to the status of "Maharatna", challenging the order passed by the Loss of Ecology Authority re-fixing the compensation for removal of fly ash slurry from Rs.27 to Rs.30, is a classic example as to how State themselves contribute for the delay in disposal of cases by adding cases to the Himalayan arrears in Courts by filing worthless proceedings involving negligible amount, on flimsy grounds. The facts :- 2. The petitioner Company was incorporated in the year 1956 and it was established after a detailed techno-economic survey which revealed availability of abundant lignite in and around Neyveli which would be useful for generating electricity to meet the ever-growing demand for power in the Southern States of the country. Neyveli Lignite Corporation [hereinafter referred to as the Corporation], through its two Thermal Power Stations, with an installed capacity of 2070 m.w. supplies power to the four southern states and in particular to the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. 3. The lignite mined is carried through conveyor belts from the mine areas to the Thermal Power Stations, where the lignite is fed into the boilers and burnt as fuel to operate the generators and in turn to generate power under thermal process. The burnt lignite, being residue is collected in the form of ash. Water is thereafter introduced to make it into a slurry form. The slurry is let out through pipes and pumped into ash ponds. The ash pond is so designed that solid particles settle at the bottom and clear water flows out. The sides of the ash pond are protected by a bund. The inner walls of the bund have been additionally strengthened to avoid the escape of ash slurry from the pond. 4. There was heavy rain fall in the Cuddalore-Neyveli area during the first week of November, 1998 and more particularly during the night of November, 3 and 4, 1998. Because of the unprecedented and continuous down pour accompanied by strong winds, the earthen bund of the "D" ash pond of Thermal Power Station-I breached. The ash slurry escaped from the pond and spread to the adjacent lands of Gangaikondan and Ammeri Panchayats. 5. Because of the unprecedented and continuous down pour accompanied by strong winds, the earthen bund of the "D" ash pond of Thermal Power Station-I breached. The ash slurry escaped from the pond and spread to the adjacent lands of Gangaikondan and Ammeri Panchayats. 5. Since the spread of slurry was substantial and it affected about 150 acres of land, intimation was given to the District Collector and the revenue administration. The officials of the Corporation took immediate remedial measures. The breach was blocked soon after and action was taken to divert the flow of slurry away from the agricultural lands. Out of the total area of about 5423 acres, about 150 acres were affected by the spread of slurry. Initially, the villagers demanded that the affected land should be acquired by the Corporation and they should also be given employment in the Corporation. However, the Corporation maintained that there was no question of providing employment. 6. There were series of meetings between the Corporation and the affected people in the presence of the revenue officers and certain political parties. In the tripartite meeting held on 22.05.1999, the Corporation officials agreed to pay a sum of Rs.26/- per cubic meter for removal of deposited ash. Subsequently, the Corporation agreed to raise the amount and accordingly, there was an agreement to pay Rs.27 per cubic meter. Similarly, the Corporation agreed to pay compensation towards the loss of agriculture as per the estimation made by the district administration. Subsequently, there was a meeting on 15 June 1999 and in the said meeting, in the presence of the District Collector, Cuddalore, it was decided that the compensation for crop damages will be paid at the same rates as applicable to the damage caused by floods/natural calamities as the incident was purely a natural calamity. Pursuant to the meeting held on 15 June 1999, a total number of 169 villagers have submitted petitions claiming cost for removal of ash deposits and towards compensation for crop damages. Of these 167 cases have been finalized and an amount of Rs.30,28,407 had been disbursed as on 24 November 2000. The amount paid by way of cost of removal has been reckoned in terms of cubic meter, since thickness of the spread of slurry was not uniform. The Corporation designated a place where the villagers are to deposit the removed ash deposit. The amount paid by way of cost of removal has been reckoned in terms of cubic meter, since thickness of the spread of slurry was not uniform. The Corporation designated a place where the villagers are to deposit the removed ash deposit. The Corporation had also made arrangements to ensure that the designated area was thereafter suitably covered with earth to prevent the ash getting into atmosphere. 7. The respondents 1 to 5 who were claiming to be cultivators of land in Ammeri-Kokkankuppam and Gangaikondan Villages near Neyveli, made a claim that their land under cultivation were also damaged by the breach of fly ash pond and the consequent flooding. They have claimed a sum of Rs.105/-per cubic meter for removing the fly ash slurry from their land, compensation for loss of crops/earnings for 1998-1999 and 19992000. They were not satisfied with the rate of Rs.27/-per cubic meter for removal of fly ash slurry and the amount as per G.O.No.27/Revenue Department (C2) dated 09.01.1998 for loss of crops. 8. Respondents 1 to 5 preferred a complaint before the 6th respondent and it was returned as per order dated 05.04.1999 on the ground that the authority does not have the power to award compensation in individual cases. 9. The order passed by the Loss of Ecology [Prevention and Payment of Compensation] Authority [hereinafter referred to as the Loss of Ecology Authority] was challenged in W.P.Nos.7713, 7714, 7715, 7717 and 7718/1999 and as per the common order dated 09.12.1999, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the authority to take up the matter. 10. The Loss of Ecology Authority on the basis of the order passed by the Division Bench took up the matter and considered the issue in extenso and awarded compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 on account of the loss of agriculture. The authority also directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.30/-per cubic meter instead of Rs.27/- to remove the fly ash. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Submissions :- 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all other claimants, except the respondents 1 to 5 accepted the rate offered by the petitioner at Rs.27 per cubic meter for removing the fly ash which was nothing but a reasonable compensation. Submissions :- 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all other claimants, except the respondents 1 to 5 accepted the rate offered by the petitioner at Rs.27 per cubic meter for removing the fly ash which was nothing but a reasonable compensation. The Corporation was also ready and willing to pay the revenue loss in accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.27 dated 09.01.1998. According to the learned counsel, the report filed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture clearly shows that the slurry deposit does not affect the agricultural land. The official also found that there was a crop growth and as such, the alleged loss was nothing but a reason introduced by the respondents 1 to 5 to claim compensation. According to the learned counsel, the slurry deposit was a good soil conditioner and the same was found in the report of the Deputy Director. Therefore, there was no basis in the claim preferred by the respondents 1 to 5. The Corporation was ready and willing to pay at the rate of Rs.27 per cubic meter and the claim made at the rate of Rs.30/-was highly exorbitant and as such, the Corporation was not bound to pay the same. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also questioned the maintainability of the proceedings before the 6th respondent. According to the learned counsel, the constitution of the sixth respondent does not permit them to consider individual disputes. The authority was expected to exercise only such powers conferred under Section 5 of the Environment [Protection] Act, 1986 for the purpose of deciding the matters referred to in Section 3(2) of the Act and as such, the sixth respondent exceeded their powers in passing the impugned order. In short, the learned counsel for the Corporation challenged the very maintainability of the proceedings before the Loss of Ecology Authority. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 justified the order passed by the sixth respondent. According to the learned counsel, the leakage was so extensive that the entire neighbouring lands suffered considerable loss. Sugarcane cultivated by the respondents 1 to 5 and the other villages were damaged in the incident. The amount offered by the Corporation at Rs.27 was insufficient even to pay the wages for removal of the slurry deposit. According to the learned counsel, the leakage was so extensive that the entire neighbouring lands suffered considerable loss. Sugarcane cultivated by the respondents 1 to 5 and the other villages were damaged in the incident. The amount offered by the Corporation at Rs.27 was insufficient even to pay the wages for removal of the slurry deposit. According to the learned counsel, the Deputy Director whose report is now taken advantage of by the Corporation to deny the claim is a laymans report as he was not qualified or experienced in matters relating to environment. The learned counsel has also produced literature to substantiate his contention that deposit of fly ash would cause crop destruction and as such, the slurry has to be removed from the soil. The learned counsel further contended that a giant Navaratna Company like the petitioner should change their mindset and pay the amount as assessed by the sixth respondent and should not have dragged the poor agriculturists to the midst of litigation. 14. The learned Standing Counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that the authority had acted only as per the direction of the Division Bench of this Court and as such, the authority had jurisdiction to decide the matter. Discussion :- 15. The following issues arise for consideration in this writ petition :- (i) Whether the Loss of Ecology Authority was having the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and to pass an order for payment of compensation ? (ii) Whether the rate fixed by the authority was fair and reasonable ? The issue regarding Jurisdiction : 16. The Loss of Ecology Authority was created as per the direction of the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and others [ 1996 (5) SCC 647 ]. The occasion for issuing the direction was the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum before the Supreme Court complaining of the pollution by Tannery Industries in the State of Tamil Nadu which were discharging untreated effluent into agricultural fields, roadsides, waterways and open lands. The untreated effluent was finally discharged in River Palar which was the main source of water supply to the residents of that area. The untreated effluent was finally discharged in River Palar which was the main source of water supply to the residents of that area. In the light of the grievance expressed by the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, Honble Supreme Court considered the legal issues in the light of the principle "sustainable development". 17. The Supreme Court observed that constitutional and statutory provisions protected the persons right to fresh air, clean water and pollution free environment and the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environment. The Supreme Court also considered the provisions of the Environment Act which contains very useful provision for controlling pollution. The main purpose of the said Act was to create an authority or authorities under Section 3(3) of the Act with adequate powers to control pollution and to protect the environment. The Supreme Court observed that it was a pity that till date no forum was constituted by the Central Government. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court directed the Government to constitute an authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act,1986. 18. The Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens case, issued a further direction that the Committee constituted under the Environment [Protection] Act, 1986 should be conferred with powers necessary to deal with the situation created by the tanneries and other polluted industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. Composition of the Committee was also indicated by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. The Central Government was directed to constitute the Committee before 30 September 1996. 19. The Ministry of Environment and Forest as per notification dated 30 September 1996, constituted a committee in the name and style of "Loss of Ecology [Prevention and Payments of Compensation] Authority for the State of Tamil Nadu headed by a retired Judge of the High Court. As per Clause 2 of the notification, the jurisdiction of the authority was specifically provided. It reads thus :- "(x) to comply with the orders issued by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court from time to time." 20. The proceedings which culminated in passing the impugned order was initiated by the Loss of Ecology Authority, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court as per order dated 09 December 1999 in W.P.Nos.7713, 7714, 7715, 7717 and 7718/1999. The proceedings which culminated in passing the impugned order was initiated by the Loss of Ecology Authority, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court as per order dated 09 December 1999 in W.P.Nos.7713, 7714, 7715, 7717 and 7718/1999. The Division Bench presided over by Honble Chief Justice Thiru.K.G.Balakrishnan, [as His Lordship then was], issued the following directions :- "4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the petitioners to re-submit the petitions which were earlier rejected, within two weeks and we also direct the authorities to consider the claims of the petitioners in accordance with the Notification dated 30 September, 1996. Any of the persons who have availed the opportunity of getting compensation from the second respondent-Corporation are not entitled to resort to the benefit under the notification dated 30 September, 1996. The authorities shall pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of the petitions." 21. Since the Loss of Ecology Authority was bound to act as per the direction of the High Court of Madras as well as the Supreme Court, it has got jurisdiction on account of such direction. The authority was well within its powers to pass the impugned order. Therefore, the objection raised by the writ petitioner on the ground of maintainability of the proceedings before the sixth respondent is liable to be rejected. 22. The Loss of Ecology Authority entertained the claim petitions and considered the matter in extenso. Before the authorities, several documents were filed by the parties to substantiate their contentions which include the inspection report by the experts in the field. The Loss of Ecology Authority quantified the loss suffered by the respondents 1 to 5 individually. With respect to the amount requested for removal of slurry ash, the authority observed that even the Deputy Director of Agriculture, who was deputed by the Authority to assess the situation in the field, recommended a sum of Rs.30/-per cubic meter for removing the ash. Accordingly, the Corporation was directed to pay a sum of Rs.30 per cubic meter for the purpose of removal of the slurry ash. 23. There are certain admitted facts in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that ash slurry escaped from the bund maintained by the Corporation and spread into the adjacent lands of Gangaikondan and Ammeri Panchayats. Accordingly, the Corporation was directed to pay a sum of Rs.30 per cubic meter for the purpose of removal of the slurry ash. 23. There are certain admitted facts in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that ash slurry escaped from the bund maintained by the Corporation and spread into the adjacent lands of Gangaikondan and Ammeri Panchayats. Voluminous records produced by the respondents 1 to 5 clearly shows that they were also the agriculturists of the area and that their crops were also affected on account of the leakage of ash slurry. It is also a matter of record that the ash slurry that escaped from the bund spread into the lands of the respondents 1 to 5 also, so as to enable them to claim compensation. 24. The Deputy Director of Agriculture who inspected the affected area for the purpose of ascertaining the actual loss sustained by the agriculturists with respect to their crop, appears to have made inconsistent observations in his report. Admittedly, the said officer was not an expert in environmental matters. His observation that the fly ash is good for agricultural operation does not have the support of any authority. There was no attempt made on the part of the Deputy Director of Agriculture to ascertain the actual deposit of fly ash, the nature of the soil and the effects on alkanity of the soil on account of the years of irrigation with fly ash water. Though the report also contains statement to the effect that the deposit of fly ash were negligible, there was nothing indicated about the survey number of the property and other details of the property which according to him was least affected. 25. The Corporation was basically relying on the report filed by Mr.Ganesan, Deputy Director. When the said Director himself is not an expert in the field, and his opinions were not corroborated by materials, no reliance could be placed on such uncorroborated reports to arrive at a conclusion that there was no loss to the respondents 1 to 5 on account of the leakage of slurry deposit. Environmental concerns :- 26. It is trite that environmental concerns are now given equal importance as human rights concerns. As observed by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board, vs. Prof.M.V.Nayudu and ors. Environmental concerns :- 26. It is trite that environmental concerns are now given equal importance as human rights concerns. As observed by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board, vs. Prof.M.V.Nayudu and ors. AIR 1999 (SC) 812 = 1999 (1) Scale 140 , environmental issues and issues of human rights are to be traced to Article 21 as environment aspect concerns "life", human rights aspects concern "liberty". While dealing with the complex issues relating to environment, it would be open to the Courts and tribunals to refer the reports of experts and literature on such subjects. 27. The Supreme Court through series of judgments adopted the precautionary principle and "the Polluter Pays" principle in the matters of environmental concern. 28. "The Polluter Pays Principle" was accepted as a sound principle by the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Envio-Legal Action and others vs. Union of India and others, 1996(3) SCC 212 . The Supreme Court observed that once the activity carried on is found to be hazardous or dangerous the Unit should indemnify all those who suffer on account of carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it was carried on carefully or not. The Supreme Court further stated that the rule was premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on by the industry. 29. In M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India, 1987 (1) SCC 395 , the Supreme Court observed that it was the liability of the enterprise to compensate all those who are affected on account of their negligence. The observation reads thus :- “We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost of carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. ... We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 30. 30. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case, the Supreme Court by placing reliance on the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India [ 1996(3) SCC 212 ] explained the "Polluter Pays Principle" thus : "Consequently the polluting industries are “absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas”. The “Polluter Pays Principle” as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of “Sustainable Development” and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. 31. In fact in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case, cited supra, the Supreme Court indicated that rules of customary international law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in domestic law and shall be followed by the courts of law, meaning thereby, international conventions regarding environmental aspects have to be followed by the Courts in India. The following observation would make the position clear:- "14. In view of the above - mentioned constitutional and statutory provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are part of the environmental law of the country. 15. Even otherwise once these principles are accepted as part of the Customary International Law there would be no difficulty in accepting them as part of the domestic law. It is almost an accepted proposition of law that the rules of Customary International Law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law and shall be followed by the courts of law." 32. The concept of burden of proof has also undergone a sea change in recent times with respect to environmental matters. In ordinary circumstances, the burden of proof is always on the party to prove a particular fact, the failure of which would dis-entitle him from getting the relief. The concept of burden of proof has also undergone a sea change in recent times with respect to environmental matters. In ordinary circumstances, the burden of proof is always on the party to prove a particular fact, the failure of which would dis-entitle him from getting the relief. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that "whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist". 33. The Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case while explaining the "Precautionary principle" and "the Polluter Pays principle", as essential features of sustainable development indicated that the onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialists to show that his action is environmentally benign. 34. In A.P. Pollution Control Board, vs. Prof.M.V.Nayudu and ors. AIR 1999 SC 812 , the Supreme Court once again considered the precautionary principle and indicated that the burden of proof is on the person or entity to prove that their activities were not harmful to the environment. The observation reads thus :- "37. It is to be noticed that while the inadequacies of science have led to the “precautionary principle”, the said “precautionary principle” in its turn, has led to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden as to the absence of injurious effect of the actions proposed, — is placed on those who want to change the status quo [Wynne, Uncertainty and Environmental Learning, 2 Global Envtl. Change 111 (1992)]. This is often termed as a reversal of the burden of proof, because otherwise in environmental cases, those opposing the change would be compelled to shoulder the evidentiary burden, a procedure which is not fair. Therefore, it is necessary that the party attempting to preserve the status quo by maintaining a less polluted state should not carry the burden of proof and the party who wants to alter it, must bear this burden. 38. The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm, including, for example, extinction of species, widespread toxic pollution in major threats to essential ecological processes, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment. 35. 38. The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm, including, for example, extinction of species, widespread toxic pollution in major threats to essential ecological processes, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment. 35. The learned counsel for the first respondent has placed reliance on the literature regarding fly ash to explain his position that residue of coal burning is harmful. The literature "A Toxics Link Briefing Paper, September, 1997", authored by Ms.Madumitha Dutta, contains the facts and figures regarding production of fly ash by the Thermal Power Plants and the disastrous effects of the residue of coal burning. The literature says that fly ash has been literally left abandoned and it is dumped everywhere on land, in water, in front of peoples homes and it is so fine that it can penetrate deep inside ones lungs. The report contains the following details with respect to fly ash. (1) Fly ash is a by-product of the Coal combustion process in thermal plants. (2) 60 M.T. of total fly ash is produced in India from the 75 Coal Fired Thermal Power Stations. (3) Disposal of fly ash is extremely water and land intensive, leading to diversion of fertile lands and unsustainable water usage. Studies indicate ground water contamination due to leaching of heavy metals present in the fly ash. (4) Experts have predicted possible human health effects, like permanent respiratory disorder on inhalation of metals present in fly ash, especially persons living in the vicinity of disposal sites. (5) Leaking of fly ash slurry from ruptured pipes could lead to even large land areas, at times agricultural land, being converted to ash ponds. (6) In coastal regions or flood belts, fly ash from thermal power plants is dumped in the floor plains changing their natural topography. (7) Some field studies conducted in the US and also in India revealed the possibility of surface and ground water contamination around ash ponds. (8) Inhalation of metals present in fly ash released into the air is more harmful than ingestion by way of food or water. (9) The finer particles of fly ash are a greater source of concern. The concentration of the metal increases as the size of the fly ash particle becomes smaller. (8) Inhalation of metals present in fly ash released into the air is more harmful than ingestion by way of food or water. (9) The finer particles of fly ash are a greater source of concern. The concentration of the metal increases as the size of the fly ash particle becomes smaller. On inhalation, 1 to 10 micron size particles are trapped in the nasal mucus, 75% of which is normally swallowed. When these particles reach the stomach most of the metals are extracted by the gastric juices and could easily enter the body fluids. (10) Sub micron or particles smaller than 1 micron enter deep into the lungs and are deposited in the alveolar walls where the metals could be transferred to blood plasma across the cell membrane. Silica in the fly ash particle can cause silicosis. (11) The health effects range from permanent respiratory disorders, aggravation of ailments like asthma, bronchitis and even lung cancer due to prolonged inhalation of fly ash. 36. Respondents 1 to 5 produced substantial evidence before the sixth respondent in support of their claim. They have also placed reliance on the report of inspection submitted by Thiru.Swaminathan, retired Assistant Director, NEERI, Nagpur. The expert in his opinion observed thus :- "As stated earlier, the ash deposit should not be considered as a method of soil conditioner. The deposit is too large to be considered for soil conditioner. It is preferred to remove the ash deposit at the earliest to prevent the contamination of land and water environment. This should be given top priority". 37. The Loss of Ecology Authority considered the individual claims made by the respondents 1 to 5 in respect of crop loss and awarded appropriate compensation. The petitioner appears to have no grievance about the compensation so awarded. They are aggrieved only by the enhancement made by the authority from Rs.27 to Rs.30 for the purpose of removing fly ash slurry from the property of the respondents 1 to 5. 38. The Loss of Ecology Authority has relied on the report filed by Thriu.Ganesan, retired Deputy Director of Agriculture. In the said report, dated 29 March 2000, Thiru.Ganesan reported that the amount of Rs.27/-for removal of fly ash was fairly sufficient. 38. The Loss of Ecology Authority has relied on the report filed by Thriu.Ganesan, retired Deputy Director of Agriculture. In the said report, dated 29 March 2000, Thiru.Ganesan reported that the amount of Rs.27/-for removal of fly ash was fairly sufficient. He was of the view that in view of the lapse of two years from the date of deposit of fly ash, the affected parties have to be paid @ Rs.30 per cubic meter. Before the Loss of Ecology Authority, respondents 1 to 5 made a specific contention that the Corporation itself used to give Rs.53 to Rs.75 in their tender for excavation and removal of fly ash. 39. Removal of slurry would involve the following operations :- (a) excavation and piling of the slurry; (b) loading onto tyre carts; (c) transportation from field to road by tyre carts; (d) unloading from cart and loading into trucks (e) transport by truck to designated site; (f) unloading of slurry from truck and piling into the designated site" 40. In his report, the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Retired) has indicated that a labourer has to be paid a sum of Rs.75/-per day and he could remove only three cubic meters per day and hence, cost of labour for removal of one cubic metre would come to Rs.25/-. In addition to the wages, the concerned respondents would incur expenditure for loading, transportation, unloading and to take the slurry to the designated site. Therefore, such expenditure should also be added. It was only in such circumstances, the Loss of Ecology Authority arrived at a finding that payment of Rs.30 per cubmic meter would meet the ends of justice. 41. Though the petitioner was agreeable for payment of compensation on account of the loss of crops assessed by the Loss of Ecology Authority, they were not prepared to enhance the amount awarded for the removal of slurry deposit. The financial commitment to the Corporation by taking into account the amount enhanced by the Loss of Ecology Authority by Rs.3/- would only be meagre. 42. While considering the reasonableness of the compensation awarded, the nature of industry and its financial capacity also assumes importance. Neyveli Lignite Corporation is one of the income generating Companies owned by the Government of India. The Corporation is termed as a "Navaratna". 42. While considering the reasonableness of the compensation awarded, the nature of industry and its financial capacity also assumes importance. Neyveli Lignite Corporation is one of the income generating Companies owned by the Government of India. The Corporation is termed as a "Navaratna". In fact, the income of the Corporation is much more than the annual allocation of funds to the neighbouring Union Territory of Pondicherry. The Corporation was granted financial and managerial powers than what they already have, by the Government of India, consequent to the grant of "Navaratna" (Nine Gems) status. The Corporation got operational freedom by virtue of its high status. In such circumstances, the Corporation should not have challenged orders like this which would not involve any financial burden. 43. In M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India, 1987 (1) SCC 395 , the Supreme Court observed that the larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation. The observation reads thus :- "We would also like to point out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases referred to in the preceding paragraph must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise.” 44. The respondents 1 to 5 are poor agriculturists of the area. Their claims were only on account of the loss sustained by them. Even the Corporation was not having a case that there was no slurry deposit in the lands of the villages adjacent to the Thermal Power Station. Respondents 1 to 5 were making only a reasonable claim and on a careful consideration of the entire factual matrix, it cannot be said that the claim made by the respondents 1 to 5 were unreasonable. When the other agriculturists found that their agricultural lands were filled up by slurry deposits, they have accepted the compensation offered by the Corporation, as they have no other option. Just because others have accepted the compensation on account of their poor bargaining position, it cannot be said that respondents 1 to 5 are also bound to accept the compensation offered by the Corporation. 45. Just because others have accepted the compensation on account of their poor bargaining position, it cannot be said that respondents 1 to 5 are also bound to accept the compensation offered by the Corporation. 45. The order was passed as early as on 1 August 2000. The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2000 and obtained an interim order on 15 December 2000 on condition of depositing the admitted amount of Rs.2,71,742/-. The order was later confirmed. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 were denied compensation for the last nine years on account of the stay obtained by the petitioner. 46. The order passed by the Loss of Ecology Authority shows that the issue was considered on the basis of materials. The Authority has got the expertise to decide environmental issues. The Authority has also considered the report filed by the officer appointed to look into the matter. The materials furnished by the petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 5 were also considered and it was only on an analysis of the entire factual matrix, the authority arrived at a conclusion that the respondents 1 to 5 are entitled for a sum of Rs.30/- as compensation for removal of slurry ash. I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings rendered by the Loss of Ecology Authority. 47. The petitioner is operating mines in a township, which has now developed into a highly developed area. It is true that the Corporation was instrumental in developing the township. It was only on account of the establishment of the Thermal Station by the Corporation in Neyveli, the area witnessed tremendous growth and at present, it is a highly developed township. The people of the area also contributed for the growth of this industry. Their lands were acquired for the purpose of establishing the thermal station. It is true that the Corporation employed the local people in the Thermal Station, including those whose lands were acquired. It is also true that it was only on account of the continuous heavy downpour, the Ash bund of the thermal power station breached and the ash slurry escaped from the bund and spread to the adjacent area of Gangaikondan and Ammeri Panchayats. 48. When such an environmental issue has arisen in the area involving the Corporation, they should have immediately attended to the needs of the local people. 48. When such an environmental issue has arisen in the area involving the Corporation, they should have immediately attended to the needs of the local people. The Corporation should not have come up with such technical objections. Admittedly, they have paid to other agriculturists at the rate of Rs.27 per cubic meter. When a demand was made before the Corporation to pay at an increased rate, they were not prepared to pay the difference. It was only in such circumstances, respondents 1 to 5 approached the sixth respondent initially and on the rejection of their petitions, they approached this Court and a Division Bench of this Court directed the sixth respondent to entertain their petitions. Therefore, it was only in the second round of litigation, the Ecology Authority took up the matter and decided the issue as per order dated 1 August 2000. Even after the receipt of an order from the Statutory Authority, the Corporation was not prepared to pay the compensation. The Corporation took a highly technical contention that the Loss of Ecology Authority has no jurisdiction in the matter. However, the Corporation having a separate branch to deal with legal maters failed to verify the constitution of the body and the jurisdiction it exercises. Section 2(9) clearly shows that an order of the High Court or Supreme Court would confer jurisdiction on the tribunal. In any case, the Corporation was more on technicalities than solving the problem of the claimants. Because of the unreasonable attitude of the Corporation, respondents 1 to 5 were compelled to approach the Loss of Ecology Authority on two occasions, and to this Court on an earlier occasion as petitioners and in the present writ petitions as respondents. In spite of the order passed by the sixth respondent as early as in August 2000, the Corporation has not paid the amount. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is liable to pay interest as well as cost to the respondents 1 to 5. 49. In the result, the order dated 01.08.2000 on the file of the sixth respondent is confirmed. The petitioner is directed to pay the amount as assessed by the Loss of Ecology Authority to the respondents 1 to 5 with interest @ 9% from 1 August 2000. 49. In the result, the order dated 01.08.2000 on the file of the sixth respondent is confirmed. The petitioner is directed to pay the amount as assessed by the Loss of Ecology Authority to the respondents 1 to 5 with interest @ 9% from 1 August 2000. The petitioner is further directed to pay cost to each of the respondents 1 to 5 @ Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). Such payment shall be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 50. The writ petition is dismissed with costs as indicated above.