JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Umesh Vats learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Aditya Shanker, holding brief of Shri Mehul Khare, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 5, and 6. 2. The petitioner-Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda Makanpur, district Ghaziabad has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.7.2024, whereby the Chief Environment Officer, Region-I, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, T.C.-12th, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow has asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 91,25,000/- (rupees ninety one lac twenty five thousand) as environmental compensation. A consequential recovery citation issued by the Tehsil Authorities on 27.10.2024 has also been challenged. A further direction has been sought commanding the respondents not to proceed with recovery against the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Municipality defined under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 and it was handed over a land for establishment of wastage processing and solid waste plant on 21.12.2021 in village Nidhauri, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil Ghaziabad. It is alleged that funds were received by the petitioner under Swachchh Bharat Mission and wastage processing and solid waste plant of 90 TPD capacity has been developed and processing machines have also been established. Certain aspects are not to be elaborated here as the issue involved before us is as to whether the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (herein-after referred to as 'U.P. P.C.B.') was having any authority or competence to raise demand of environmental compensation, inasmuch as the foundation of the writ petition and challenge made to the impugned demand is on the ground of ''lack of competence/jurisdiction''. 4. Assailing the impugned order and recovery citation, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, vide notification dated 8.4.2016, notified the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (herein-after referred to as the ''Rules of 2016'') and no law empowers the U.P. P.C.B. to assess or demand environmental compensation. Submission is that only the National Green Tribunal (N.G.T.) established under the provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is competent to assess environmental compensation. 5. Submission is that only the National Green Tribunal (N.G.T.) established under the provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is competent to assess environmental compensation. 5. Shri Umesh Vats, elaborating his submissions, urged that the impugned order dated 30th July 2024 refers to some orders passed by the N.G.T., New Delhi in Original Application No. 70 of 2024 (Deepak Joshi v. State of U.P) and is said to have been issued in compliance of the said orders, whereas no such direction was issued by the N.G.T. nor is there any order passed by the N.G.T. determining or quantifying the environmental compensation and, hence, the order impugned is not sustainable. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Appellants Trust and others v. State of Gujarat and others, 2022 Supreme (SC) 772, as well as certain interim orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Writ C No. 4816 of 2024 (Suez India Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra Mathpal v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, through its Chairman and 6 others), Writ C No. 7543 of 2024 (M/s. Pind Balluchi (Unit of Excellence Hospitality) through Partner Smarity Sindhu and Monu Mishra v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change and others), and Writ C No. 8463 of 2024 (Jaypee Infratech Limited through Authorized Representative Apurva Pragya v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Environment Forest and Climate Change LKO and others). 7. Submission is that since Co-ordinate Benches have granted interim orders staying the action of U.P. P.C.B. levying environmental compensation, this Court may also pass an interim order on identical lines. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned action is in furtherance and in compliance of various orders passed by the N.G.T., Delhi in the case of Deepak Joshi (supra) and, therefore, once the petitioner has a remedy to challenge the orders passed by the N.G.T., Delhi before Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenge made to mere consequential demand is not sustainable. 9. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that N.G.T., Delhi took suo moto cognizance of a letter dated 10.8.2023 sent by Deepak Joshi, Adhyaksh, Khoda Residence Association alleging that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda Makanpur (i.e. the petitioner) was dumping garbage in the residential area in violation of the provisions of Rules of 2016. The N.G.T. passed an order dated 7.3.2024 constituting a joint committee comprising of District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and U.P. P.C.B. with the District Magistrate as Nodal Agency for cooperation and compliance. The N.G.T. also issued a direction to the committee to visit the site and collect relevant information and submit a report. Copy of the order was forwarded to the District Magistrate and U.P. P.C.B. for compliance. Thereafter, when the Committee constituted by N.G.T. submitted a detailed report before it, another order was passed on 19.4.2024 calling for the response from State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda Makanpur (i.e. the petitioner) and U.P. P.C.B. impleading them as respondents. The matter was fixed for 5.7.2024. On the said date, N.G.T. found that Pollution Control Board had issued a show-cause notice proposing environmental compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per day. The N.G.T., not being satisfied with the basis for imposition at such rate, called for a reply from the respondents before the N.G.T. asking U.P. P.C.B. to inform as to on what basis quantum of environmental compensation had been proposed at such rate. It also directed personal appearance of the Executive Officer of the petitioner Parishad on the next date. It is in furtherance of the said order dated 5.7.2024 that the impugned order has been passed by the U.P. P.C.B. on 30.7.2024 raising a demand of Rs. 5,000/- per day instead of Rs. 10,000/- per day as environmental compensation, total amount of demand being Rs. 91,25,000/-. 10. We may observe here that Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 contains provision for appeal before the Supreme Court. It is reproduced as under : ''22. 5,000/- per day instead of Rs. 10,000/- per day as environmental compensation, total amount of demand being Rs. 91,25,000/-. 10. We may observe here that Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 contains provision for appeal before the Supreme Court. It is reproduced as under : ''22. Appeal to Supreme Court.-Any person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the tribunal, may, file an appeal to the Supreme Court, within ninety days from the date of communication of the award, decision or order of the Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain any appeal after the expiry of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficience cause from preferring the appeal.'' 11. If we examine the bone of contention of Shri Vats that the order impugned is without jurisdiction and it is only N.G.T. that has competence to determine and levy the environmental compensation, Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 needs reproduction. The same is quoted as under : ''15. Relief, compensation and restitution. (1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,- (a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance); (b) for restitution of property damaged; (c)for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit. (2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. (3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. (4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit. (5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may be, compensation or relief received from, any other Court or authority. 12. The aforesaid provision was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Appellants Trust (supra) and though, placing strong reliance upon the said judgment, it was urged by Shri Vats that the Supreme Court turned down action of the N.G.T., whereby it had delegated its functions upon some committee, after carefully examining the facts of Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Appellans Trust (supra), we find that the appellants before the Supreme Court were certain environmental organizations and individuals directly affected by the degradation of the enforcement in the area in question. Therefore, their status was that of ''complainants'' and the following directions were sought by them from the N.G.T.: (i) restraining the dumping of MSW at the landfill site; (ii) restoration of the environment in the surrounding areas; (iii) restitution of the landfill site to its original condition; (iv) compensation to all those affected in the nearby villages upon determination of damages by a committee set up to assess the landfill site; and (v) implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016. 13. After holding certain proceedings, N.G.T. disposed of the matter observing that since in another case, N.G.T. had constituted Apex, Regional and State Level Committees to monitor the implementation of the Rules of 2016, liberty was granted to the appellants/complainants to represent the case and ventilate all grievances before the appropriate committee. Following is the relevant portion of the order passed by the N.G.T. : ''As this OA relates to implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, we are of the considered opinion that it is covered by the order passed by the larger Bench of the Tribunal dated 20th August, 2018 in OA No 606 of 2018. Following is the relevant portion of the order passed by the N.G.T. : ''As this OA relates to implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, we are of the considered opinion that it is covered by the order passed by the larger Bench of the Tribunal dated 20th August, 2018 in OA No 606 of 2018. The Applicant would be at liberty to represent its case and ventilate all grievance before the Committee which shall look into it and finally decide the same. Consequently, OA No 81 of 2014 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost. M.A. No. 1392 of 2018 and 1393 of 2018 These Applications do not survive for consideration as the main Application has been decided and are accordingly dismissed.'' 14. The Supreme Court, while examining the challenge to the order passed by the N.G.T., held that N.G.T. could not abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting the core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees. In paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment, it was observed as under : ''16. Section 15 empowers the NGT to award compensation to the victims of pollution and for environmental damage, to provide for restitution of property which has been damaged and for the restitution of the environment. The NGT cannot abdicate its jurisdiction by entrusting these core adjudicatory functions to administrative expert committees. Expert committees may be appointed to assist the NGT in the performance of its task and as an adjunct to its fact-finding role. But adjudication under the statute is entrusted to the NGT and cannot be delegated to administrative authorities. Adjudicatory functions assigned to Courts and tribunals cannot be hived off to administrative committees. In Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 669, a three-Judge Bench of this Court noted that the NGT cannot refuse to hear a challenge to an Environmental Clearance under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act and delegate the process of adjudicating on compliance to an expert committee. 17. The NGT has in the present case abdicated its jurisdiction and entrusted judicial functions to an administrative expert committee. An expert committee may be able to assist the NGT, for instance, by carrying out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by the NGT. This is not a delegable function. 17. The NGT has in the present case abdicated its jurisdiction and entrusted judicial functions to an administrative expert committee. An expert committee may be able to assist the NGT, for instance, by carrying out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by the NGT. This is not a delegable function. Thus, the order impugned in the appeal cannot be sustained. The consequence of the impugned order is to efface the meticulous exercise which was carried out by the earlier Benches. Valuable time has been lost in the meantime and crucial issues pertaining to the environment in the present case have been placed on the back-burner.'' 15. From perusal of the afore-quoted portions of the decision in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Appellants Trust (supra), it is apparent that the Supreme Court never questioned the competence of the expert committees in the matter of assessment of environmental compensation, rather it specifically observed that expert committees may be appointed to assist the N.G.T. in performance of its task and as an adjunct to its fact finding role, but adjudication under the statute is entrusted to the N.G.T. and cannot be delegated to administrativ authorities. 16. We are of the view that though Section 15 of the Act empowers the N.G.T. to pass an order providing relief and compensation to the victims of the pollution and other environmental damage, in order to adjudicate the issue, assistance of expert committees was never restricted, rather, in so many words, it was permitted by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited by the petitioner itself. It is the same judgment which has been relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ petitions where interim orders have been passed but in different set of facts where some of the petitioners were operators and some complainants. 17. In the facts of the case, the Court finds that U.P. P.C.B. has not imposed environmental compensation. Rather, it is a case where joint committee constituted by N.G.T. by order dated 22.7.2024 comprising of District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and U.P. P.C.B. was directed to visit the site, collect relevant information and submit factual report. A detailed report supported by various annexures disclosing the area where the garbage is being dumped, density of population, the other quantitative and qualitative factors and certain computations is also on record. A detailed report supported by various annexures disclosing the area where the garbage is being dumped, density of population, the other quantitative and qualitative factors and certain computations is also on record. When the said report was placed before the N.G.T., the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner asking to deposit environmental compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per day was found to be without basis. Thereafter, the order impugned has been passed relying upon a report of C.P.C.B, In House Committee on Methodology for Assessing Environmental Compensation and Action Plan to Utilise the Fund. 18. We also find that N.G.T. passed further order on 17.9.2024 on non-compliance of the order dated 5.7.2024. Then, on 4.10.2024, following order was passed by it : ''1. It is pointed out to us that for non-handling and management of solid waste effectively and in accordance with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, UP Pollution Control Board by order dated 3.7.2024 has imposed Environmental Compensation of Rs. 91,25,000/- upon Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda but same has not been deposited by it till date. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda also stated that till date large quantity of legacy waste is lying at site, though steps are being taken for its clearance. It is further said that so far as daily generation of solid waste is concerned, which is to the extent of about 105 MT per day, same is being regularly handled and processed and is not being dumped anywhere. 3. Let this fact be verified by UPPCB and submit a report within three weeks. 4. We also direct UPPCB to take effective steps for recovery of Environmental Compensation from Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda by taking coercive measures and submit compliance report. 5 Further, for violation of environmental laws, criminal prosecution may also be initiated by UPPCB against responsible officers of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khoda, and compliance report be submitted. 6. List on 5.11.2024.'' 19. It is, therefore, apparent on record that the petitioner not only being party to the proceedings before the N.G.T., it has been directed by the N.G.T. to take effective steps for recovery of environmental compensation assessed by the order impugned, by all coercive measures and submit compliance report. The N.G.T. has also issued direction for criminal prosecution of the officers of the petitioner and submission of compliance report. 20. The N.G.T. has also issued direction for criminal prosecution of the officers of the petitioner and submission of compliance report. 20. In view of above, we are of the view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment of damages/environmental compensation, either by the committee or by the U.P. P.C.B., the same having been done in furtherance of various directions issued by the N.G.T., it has remedy either to make its say before the N.G.T. with appropriate submissions and prayers or if it feels that the N.G.T. had no competence to entrust any action upon joint committee or U.P. P.C.B. or that any order passed by the N.G.T. is not otherwise in accordance with law, it has a remedy to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the Act of 2010. The writ jurisdiction does not come in the way at all. 21. In view of above discussion, we find that challenge made to the orders passed in furtherance of the orders issued by the N.G.T. and as a consequence thereof, cannot sustain in writ jurisdiction and any relief granted to the petitioner against the impugned demand would have an effect of expressly or impliedly staying or setting aside orders passed by the N.G.T. This being impermissible in view of appellate forum being Supreme Court as per Section 22 of the Act of 2010, we are of the view that the reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition, either interim or final, cannot be granted. 22. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach N.G.T. or Supreme Court for redressal of its grievance.