JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. - With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is being decided at the admission stage. 2. The appellant had challenged the legality of the order dated 04.01.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, in a batch of writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant namely, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1506 of 2020. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant had challenged the legality of the order dated 05.08.2020, passed by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board, ('the Board', for short), whereby the Board had imposed an environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,31,250/- upon the appellant. According to the appellant the said order had been passed without giving any prior notice, and without giving any opportunity of hearing to it. In fact, the said impugned order had been passed ostensibly on the ground that certain directions had been issued by the Principal Bench, National Green Tribunal (for short the "NGT"). According to the appellant, the NGT had issued directions to the Central Pollution Control Board, and to the State Pollution Control Board to identify the polluting industries and to impose environmental compensation upon them. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.08.2020, it filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, along with other erring units. By common order dated 04.01.2021, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the Board, submits that the entire controversy, which was pending before the NGT, under which directions have been issued by the NGT by its order dated 03.12.2019 directing the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Board to inspect the erring units and to impose the environmental compensation, have now come to rest by judgment dated 16.09.2020. According to the said judgment of the NGT, assessed environmental compensation "may be recovered and deposited with the State PCB. The Joint Committee may prepare an Environmental Restoration Plan within three months and execute the same under supervision of the State PCB and the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar". According to the said judgment of the NGT, assessed environmental compensation "may be recovered and deposited with the State PCB. The Joint Committee may prepare an Environmental Restoration Plan within three months and execute the same under supervision of the State PCB and the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar". Therefore, according to the learned counsel, once the issue has been settled by the NGT, this Court should not interfere with the final judgment of the NGT in the garb of an intra-Court appeal. Moreover, in case the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.09.2020 passed by the NGT, the appellant has an efficacious alternate remedy of either filing a review petition before the NGT, or, filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel it is too late in the day to agitate about the legality of the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 in the garb of filing an intra-Court appeal. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Board, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed by this Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Narendra Bali, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that admittedly the order dated 05.08.2020 was passed in compliance of the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the NGT. Moreover, since the controversy had been pending since 2018, the Board had ample opportunity of issuing notices to the appellant, and of giving sufficient time to the appellant to rectify any omissions being committed by it. However, no such opportunity was given to the appellant. Moreover the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order dated 05.08.2020 is per se illegal. Further more, the learned Single Judge is unjustified in concluding that the appellant should have approached the learned Tribunal by filing a review petition, or by challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside, and the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 deserves to be quashed by this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and examined the impugned order. 7. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside, and the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 deserves to be quashed by this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and examined the impugned order. 7. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that Sidhgarbyang Kalyan Sewa Samiti had filed an Original Application, namely OA No. 123 of 2018, before the NGT with regard to the pollution being caused by the Jindal ESPIL CETP Ltd, and by other industries operating in the industrial area of Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. Dealing with the pollution being caused by the erring units, by its order dated 03.12.2019 the learned Tribunal had issued the following directions as under:- "In view of above resume, we consider it necessary to issue following further directions:-i. A Joint Committee of CPCB and SPCB may assess the cost of restoration of the environment and amount of compensation required to be paid to be victims. The Committee will be at liberty to take the assistance of any other expert. The nodal agency will be the SPCB for the purpose. ii. The Committee may also assess the performance of the defaulting units and CETP and determine whether any further amount of compensation needs to be recovered from the defaulting units and CETP. iii. SPCB may transfer an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to the District Legal Services Authority, District Udham Singh Nagar. The District Legal Services Authority may assess the claim of any victim and disburse the amount to such victim. The District Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar will render such assistance as may be required for the purpose. The deposit and the leftover amount, if any, will abide by further directions." 8. In compliance of the said directions, on 29.01.2020 an inspection was carried out of the unit run by the appellant and certain violations were noticed. Therefore, by order dated 05.08.2020, the State Pollution Control Board directed the appellant to deposit an environmental compensation, as assessed in the inspection report, amounting to Rs. 37,31,250/- 9. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the said notice, it filed the writ petition, as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, by order dated 05.08.2020, the State Pollution Control Board directed the appellant to deposit an environmental compensation, as assessed in the inspection report, amounting to Rs. 37,31,250/- 9. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the said notice, it filed the writ petition, as mentioned hereinabove. However, by the judgment dated 16.09.2020, the entire issue, with regard to the pollution being allegedly caused by erring unit and with regard to the payment of environmental compensation by the erring unit to the Board, and with regard to adjudicating the claims of the affected persons by the District Legal Services Authority, has come to rest. By its judgment dated 16.09.2020, the NGT has passed the following directions:- "9. In view of above, the assessed compensation may be recovered and deposited with the State PCB. The Joint Committee may prepare an Environmental Restoration Plan within three months and execute the same under supervision of the State PCB and the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. The nodal agency will be the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for coordination and compliance. 10. The District Legal Service Authority may assess the claims of the victims, if any and if no claim is filed upto 31.12.2020, the entire or leftover amount may be returned to the State PCB. If the amount is deficient, the State PCB will make up the same on amount being determined by the District Legal Service Authority. If the assessed compensation is not paid by the concerned polluting units, the State PCB may take coercive measures including closure of the unit. The application is disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the State PCB, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and the District Legal Service Authority by e-mail for compliance." 10. Therefore, much water has flown from 05.08.2020 till 16.09.2020. Once the entire issue has been settled and decided by the NGT, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the said judgment. 11. For, firstly in the garb of an intra-court appeal, this Court cannot interfere with a judgment passed by the NGT. After all, this Court does not have the power to sit as an appellate court over a judgment passed by the NGT. The said jurisdiction clearly vests with the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act. 11. For, firstly in the garb of an intra-court appeal, this Court cannot interfere with a judgment passed by the NGT. After all, this Court does not have the power to sit as an appellate court over a judgment passed by the NGT. The said jurisdiction clearly vests with the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act. Secondly, once the issue has been decided by the NGT, this Court would not be justified in trying to set the historical clock back, and to examine the legality of the impugned order dated 05.08.2020. Lastly, the appellant has sufficient alternate remedy for challenging the judgment dated 16.09.2020, and to raise all the contentions challenging the legality of the impugned order dated 05.08.2020, as well as the legality of the judgment dated 16.09.2020. However, the High Court is not the proper forum for raising the said disputes. 12. A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge clearly reveals that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, inter-alia, on the ground that, since the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 was passed on the basis of directions issued by the NGT on 03.12.2019, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the appellant had efficacious alternate remedy of either filing a review petition, or of challenging the order dated 03.12.2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even the stand taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 13. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. Therefore, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.