2026 INSC 910 C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 1 of 45

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2018

VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

MANOJ MISRA (DEAD) & ORS . …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal arises from the common judgment

dated 07.12.2017 passed by the National Green Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi

1

in a batch of three applications,

being Original Application

2

Nos. 65/2016, 76/2016 and 81/2016.

For clarity, it may be noted that in the OAs filed before the NGT,

the appellant was arrayed under the name and style of “Art of

1

Hereinafter referred as “NGT” or “Tribunal”

2

Hereinafter referred as “OA”

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 2 of 45

Living International Centre”. However, in the present appeal, it

is indisputably submitted that the correct name of the legal entity

is “Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India” and “Art of Living International

Centre” is merely a centre run by the said legal entity.

2. Be that as it may, the OAs before the NGT were preferred

by respondent no. 1/Mr. Manoj Misra on 08.02.2016 against a

scheduled event – World Culture Festival (WCF) – from 11

th

-13

th

March, 2016, being organized by the appellant herein. The

applicant/respondent no. 1 invoked the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal by alleging violation of the decision dated 13.01.2015

passed by the NGT in OA No. 06/2012

3

. The said decision was

concerning the environmental concerns associated with river

Yamuna and its floodplains, and rehabilitation thereof.

Respondent no. 1 alleged that the scheduled event was being

organized on the floodplains and wetlands of Yamuna river and

had damaged the said areas, thereby causing serious harm to the

ecological balance and health of the river and its adjoint

floodplains and wetlands.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

3. On 11.02.2016, notice was issued in the matter and on

19.02.2016, the Tribunal appointed an expert committee with

mandate to visit the event site and submit its report by

3

Hereinafter referred as “Yamuna matter”

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 3 of 45

22.02.2016. The committee submitted its interim report on

22.02.2016, whereby it opined that the proposed event would

damage the floodplains in a manner that rectification would

require an expense of Rs. 100-120 crores. On 09.03.2016, the

Tribunal passed an interim order recording that in the preparatory

process, the floodplains have been drastically tampered with. It

also found that the permission granted by DDA to hold the event

was inconsequential. Nevertheless, the Tribunal permitted the

event to take place as scheduled, subject to payment of Rs. 5

crores by the appellant in the form of environmental

compensation. It also directed the appellant to furnish an

undertaking that in case, the floodplains are found to be damaged

after the event, the appellant would bear the cost of restoration.

4. The appellant complied with the order by filing an

affidavit, without prejudice to its rights and contentions. Notably,

vide a subsequent order dated 04.04.2016, the Tribunal clarified

that the order dated 09.03.2016 was only an interim order and all

rights and contentions of the parties were left open.

5. Post event, the Tribunal passed an order dt. 03.06.2016,

thereby directing the committee to furnish a complete report of

environmental damage and degradation, environmental

compensation payable on account of such damage and for

restoration of the flood plain. In view of the approaching rainy

season and apprehension of material alteration of the floodplain,

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 4 of 45

the Tribunal directed the committee to conduct an inspection

before 10.06.2016. Accordingly, an inspection was carried out by

the committee on 06.06.2016 and on the basis of visual

assessment, the committee submitted its report to the Tribunal on

28.07.2016. The committee concluded that the event had severely

damaged the floodplain, however, it did not quantify any cost of

restoration of the site to the pre-event stage. Accordingly, the

committee was directed to submit the tentative costs liable to be

recovered for the damage caused to the environment as a result

of the event.

6. In furtherance of this direction, the committee submitted

its second report on 28.11.2016. In this report, the committee

submitted an action plan for rehabilitation of the floodplain,

comprising of two components – physical component and

biological component. It suggested a time frame of two years for

the implementation of the physical component and a cost of about

Rs. 28.73 crores. For the biological component, it suggested a

time frame of ten years and an approximate cost of Rs. 13.29

crores. The committee further suggested the commissioning of a

Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the implementation of the

plan.

7. Notably, on 21.07.2017, the Tribunal constituted a

committee comprising of the officials of DDA; Irrigation

Department, NCT of Delhi; Irrigation Department, State of Uttar

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 5 of 45

Pradesh and Chief Engineers, with a direction to prepare an

action plan in view of the reports of the expert committee in

relation to the damage caused to the Yamuna floodplain by the

event in question. The committee submitted its report on

28.07.2017. However, the Tribunal rejected this report by

observing that the committee exceeded its jurisdiction as, instead

of suggesting an action plan, it commented on the nature of

damage caused to the floodplain as a result of the event.

TRIBUNAL’S VIEW

8. In view of these proceedings and reports filed by the expert

committee and subsequent committee comprising of government

officials, the Tribunal concluded that the event organized by the

appellant herein had caused significant damage to the floodplain

and wetlands. The relevant para reads thus:

“54. The reports submitted by the High Powered

Committee examined in light of the orders of the

Tribunal and the case pleaded by the official

respondents leaves no scope for doubt that there

has been damage to the flood plains. The

undertaking furnished by Respondent No. 3 which

was accepted by the Tribunal has to bear its

consequences in law. It needs to be noticed that

none of the orders passed by the Tribunal were

taken up by any of the parties to the proceedings

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They not only

accepted the same but even acted thereupon. All

the respondents including MoEF&CC, DDA and

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 6 of 45

MoWR clearly admitted that the event was being

held on the flood plains. Respondent No. 3 can

hardly be permitted to raise the contention that

event site does not fall in flood plains. The so

called permission granted by DDA itself refers to

the area as falling under active flood plains. In

fact, it was on that ground that the DDA at one

point of time declined the permission to hold the

event at the site in question.”

9. As regards the appellant’s contention that none of the

notified wetlands was damaged by the event, the Tribunal

observed that a wetland does not cease to be one merely because

it has not been notified in the extant rules. The relevant part reads

thus:

“56. The Committee has specifically referred to the

wetlands in their report and the steps that should

be taken for conservation and protection of such

wetlands. The contention that the wetlands have

not been notified, would no way take the case of

Respondent No. 3 any further. It is primarily for

the reason that in large parts of the country the

wetlands as of now have neither been identified

nor notified in accordance with law. But that does

not by itself establish the fact that the wetlands are

not in existence. A wetland could be in existence de

horse the fact that it has not been statutorily so

notified. It is a part of natural process and is not a

man made resource.”

10. The Tribunal also turned down the appellant’s contention

that the reliance placed by the expert committee on the google

imagery of September, 2015 was erroneous. The Tribunal was of

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 7 of 45

the view that the committee not only relied upon the images but

also conducted visual inspection on 06.06.2016. Furthermore, the

Tribunal was impressed by the fact that some of the members of

the expert committee had been visiting the floodplains and river

stretch in relation to the earlier Yamuna matter which culminated

in the 2015 judgment. The relevant observation in this regard is

reproduced as:

“56. … In fact the Expert Committee in its Report

of 28

th

July, 2016 stated that the report is not

merely based on the satellite images on 5th

September, 2015 but the Committee on Page No. 4

(Internal) records that it visited both side of the

river on 6th July 2016 having visual assessment

and that the observations of the presence or

otherwise of the wetlands, wet land vegetation and

the assessment of damage to the flood plains. This

is further substantiated in the report of 28th

November 2016 that the damage was extensive.

57. The Committee has also referred to the status

of flood plains even prior to the event as some of

the Members of the Committee have been visiting

over the 22 KM of river stretch and its flood plains

in connection with the preparation of the Reports

to the NGT in Yamuna Judgement matter and had

actually visited these areas during 2nd to 4th

October, 2015 and noticed wet lands natural

vegetation comprising trees, shrubs, reeds, etc.,

and other vegetation including water hyacinth.

The Committee also noticed several species of

aquatic vegetation including presence of shallow

to deep water below them. The contention of

Respondent No. 3 that the damage assessment of

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 8 of 45

the flood plains and wetlands is only based on

satellite imagery of Google of September 5, 2015

is misplaced as Google imagery has only

supplemental value to the field inspection that

was carried out by the Committee. Google images

have only been used to support what the

committee found during the field visits.”

(emphasis supplied)

11. Another contention dealt with by the Tribunal is that the

expert committee’s report indicated that there was no prospect of

restoration of the floodplain, and rehabilitation thereof was

beyond the scope of Section 15 of National Green Tribunal Act,

2010

4

. The Tribunal turned down the contention and observed

that a purposive interpretation has to be given to the words -

restoration and rehabilitation, in order to achieve the objective

of environmental protection. The relevant part reads thus:

“58. …This contention is misplaced as the Expert

Committee has discussed this aspect in detail and

pointed out that since the flood plain is completely

destroyed, levelled, compacted, water body

flattened and depressions covered and in several

places debris and soil dumped with crisscross

paths through channels and water bodies, there is

no way the original topography of the area

including all the pre-existing water bodies streams

channels and wetlands along with the vegetation

can be restored to its original shape. In fact

complete restoration and restitution of any pre-

4

Hereinafter referred as “NGT Act”

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 9 of 45

existing land mass or natural ecosystem is neither

practicable nor possible. The choices of the word

restitution and restoration have to be understood

and given meaningful construction with a view to

achieving the objective of protecting the

environment and the flora and fauna of the area

that existed prior to the destruction. With such an

interpretation as given to the word restitution and

restoration the word rehabilitation has to be read

as conveying identical meaning.”

12. Further, the Tribunal discussed the nature of liability of the

appellant, being the project proponent, and observed that the

appellant was liable to face no-fault liability. It further observed

that the onus lay upon the appellant to show that all due

precautions were taken by it and no damage was caused to the

environment as a result of its actions. The relevant part is

important and it reads as:

“62. Unlike, the laws of other countries where the

Courts or the Tribunals dealing with

environmental issues are to determine first

whether they could apply the principle of absolute

liability or not and, if so, to what extent. In India,

the Tribunal is mandated under Section 17(3) of

the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to apply the

principles of no fault. Thus, application of this

principle is inescapable. This doctrine imposes an

obligation upon the project proponent or body

intending to carry on an activity to bear the

consequences of its actions. The consequences

would obviously include amongst others such as

cost of restoration/restitution. The onus lies upon

the actor to satisfy that they took all the

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 10 of 45

precautions that were required to be taken actually

prior at the time and subsequent to the event and

in fact there was neither any damage/degradation

to the river or the flood plain nor was there any

pollution after the event.

..

..

64. In our considered view, Respondent No. 3 has

not been able to discharge his onerous burden in

all aspects. Of course, in some areas justification

has been provided particularly in the field of

taking permission but in other areas the reports of

the High Powered Committee on the contrary does

not benefit Respondent No. 3 and in no uncertain

terms places the fault on the said respondent.

Principle of No Fault Liability is a tool for guiding

the Tribunal in determining the liability of

Respondent No. 3.

65. In view of the detailed discussion above, we

have to hold that Respondent No. 3 is liable for

restitution/restoration of the flood plains in

accordance with the reports of the High Powered

Committee. No use of repeating that the DDA itself

is responsible for contributory negligence and its

failure to act in accordance with law and

directions contained in the Yamuna judgement

(supra).”

13. In finality, the Tribunal held that the appellant was

responsible for causing damage to the Yamuna floodplains and

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 11 of 45

passed various directions for restitution/rehabilitation in the

following manner:

“66. …

…

3. We hold Respondent No. 3 responsible for

restoration and

restitution of the flood plain limited to portion that

was allotted to Respondent No. 3 in the original

condition in which it was allotted to it prior to the

event. However, the restoration/restitution and

other works connected thereto are to be carried out

by DDA as follows:

a) The Delhi Development Authority shall assess

the said

quantum of damage caused to the flood plain and

the costs of restoration thereof in line with the

reports of the High Powered Expert Committee.

4. We further direct the Delhi Development

Authority, under the guidance of the Expert

Committee to carry out

restoration/restitution/other necessary works and

would also ensure construction/establishment of

Bio-diversity park at the site which is part of

Phase-II of the plan prepared by DDA for

restitution/restoration and beautification of the

flood plains of river Yamuna.

5. A sum of ₹5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores)

deposited by Respondent No. 3 with DDA shall be

utilised for restitution/restoration and other

necessary works for the flood plains of river

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 12 of 45

Yamuna in accordance with this judgement and

under the supervision of the Expert Committee.

6. In the event, the expenditure for that purpose on

the portion of the land forming part of Phase-II of

the project of DDA is found to be in excess of

₹5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores), the DDA

would be at liberty to recover the said amount and

Respondent No. 3 shall be liable to pay the said

amount on demand.

If finally the expenditure to be incurred on that

amount is less than ₹5 Crores, the remaining

amount would be refunded by DDA to Respondent

No.3.”

CONTENTIONS

14. The decision of the Tribunal stands impugned before us

and broadly, the following contentions have been raised by the

parties before us:

On Behalf of Appellant/Vyakti Vikas Kendra India

15. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the event site

was allotted to the appellant in a sordid and damaged condition

and therefore, no damage was caused to the site by the event in

question. To buttress, the appellant has relied upon the expert

committee’s report dated 19.04.2014, submitted in O.A. No.

06/2012, which recorded that the site was in poor and damaged

condition and no flood plains were left due to numerous

constructions and dumping of garbage and debris. It is further

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 13 of 45

submitted that the restorative directions issued by the NGT in

Yamuna matter judgment dated 13.01.2015 were never complied

with till the allotment of event site to the appellant. In this regard,

reliance is placed upon the Tribunal’s order dated 14.07.2015. It

is further submitted that even after the allotment of land, the

appellant had issued a letter dated 14.12.2015 to DDA which

recorded that as of that date, construction debris was lying over

25-30 acres of the allotted land. Moreover, DDA permitted the

appellant to remove the said debris, thereby admitting its

existence.

16. The appellant has vehemently challenged the committee

reports submitted before the Tribunal, both on findings as well as

the methodology adopted by the committee. It has contended that

the report dated 28.07.2016 described the state of event site as

different from the committee’s earlier reports dated 19.04.2014

and October, 2015, which indicated that the event site was

already damaged. It is further contended that the committee

neither adopted any scientific techniques nor benchmark to arrive

at its findings. It is submitted that the committee relied upon one

google image and visual inspections, and the Tribunal erred in

relying upon the same, as the appellant’s images were rejected by

the Tribunal without any sound basis and by holding them

inconclusive.

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 14 of 45

17. The appellant further submitted that the second report

dated 28.11.2016 was also unreliable, as the committee had taken

a completely contrary stand in the said report and observed that

the exact state of event site could not be ascertained. It is urged

that this stand itself demonstrated that restoration of the event site

was not possible. It is urged that the committee unilaterally

decided that the event site needed to be rehabilitated and such

course of action was not within the domain of ‘restoration’. It is

further submitted that the Tribunal erred in equating the concepts

of rehabilitation and restoration, despite the fact that even the

expert committee opined that these concepts were distinct. It is

further submitted that the second report is unreliable as the

committee prepared the same for rehabilitation of an area even

larger than what was allotted to the appellant for the event.

18. The appellant has further contended that the Tribunal erred

in not relying upon the third report dated 28.07.2016, despite the

fact that there was no factual dispute to the same and the rejection

was only on the basis of jurisdictional excess. It is submitted that

the reports relied upon by the Tribunal were inconsistent and

contradictory and therefore, unreliable.

19. The appellant has also questioned the manner in which its

undertaking furnished in pursuance of the order dated 09.03.2016

was held against it by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the interim

order was passed without reasons and no objections were

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 15 of 45

permitted to be raised against it by the Tribunal. Furthermore, it

is submitted that the undertaking furnished by the appellant was

not unconditional, as it was without prejudice to the rights and

contentions of the parties.

20. As regards DDA, the appellant has submitted that the

question of grant of permission by DDA is not relevant to

determine whether any damage has been caused by the appellant

at the event site. It is submitted that if there was any breach of

duty on the part of DDA, the Tribunal ought to have penalized

DDA for it and not the appellant.

On Behalf of Respondent No. 2/DDA

21. It is the case of DDA that the permissions granted by it to

the appellant were conditioned and precautionary in order to

prevent any environmental damage. It is submitted that the

Tribunal did not prohibit the appellant from going ahead with the

event and in fact, it found no fault with the permission granted by

DDA and allowed the event subject to the same terms and

conditions as imposed by DDA in its original permission. It is

further submitted that in terms of this Court’s order dated

20.04.2023, DDA has carried out restoration of the allotted areas

at the cost of Rs. 8.03 crores and the accounts/figures of DDA

have remained unchallenged. It is further submitted that the

expenditure incurred on restoration work ought to be incurred by

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 16 of 45

the appellant in view of the polluter pays principle. Notably, DDA

has submitted that the Tribunal’s observation that DDA acted

contrary to its obligations and duties, is contrary to facts and law.

On Behalf of Respondent No. 1/Manoj Misra (Dead)

5

22. On behalf of respondent no. 1 (original applicant before

NGT), it is submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned

judgment, as the Tribunal passed a detailed judgment after three

years and after examining different expert committee reports on

the issue. It is contended that the event in question was organized

in gross violation of the Tribunal’s Yamuna matter judgment

dated 13.01.2015, as it was organized on active flood plain of the

river.

23. It is further submitted that the expert committee’s reports

were filed in addition to the photographs of the event site which

indicated huge destruction on the active flood plain of the river.

It is urged that the interim order dated 09.03.2016 was based on

categorical findings that the flood plain was drastically tampered

and the event destroyed the natural flow of the river, reeds,

grasses and natural vegetation of the river bed. It is submitted that

the interim order was never challenged by the appellant and the

same has attained finality.

5

Substituted by Mr. Vikrant Tongad as per order dated 14.07.2023

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 17 of 45

24. It is further submitted by respondent no. 1 that the Tribunal

had elaborately dealt with all the objections and contentions, and

arguments advanced before this Court are untenable. It is further

submitted that the liability fastened upon the appellant was in

accordance with the principle of no-fault liability, and there is no

infirmity in the same.

DISCUSSION

25. Since the subject matter at hand involves a multi-faceted

discussion on law and facts, it is necessary to delineate the scope

of adjudication in this matter. There is no gainsaying that it is

neither advisable nor desirable for this Court to over or under

adjudicate the issue at hand. Let us now advert to some admitted

facts. The lis pertains to an event organized under the name and

style of World Cultural Festival from 11-13

th

March, 2016. The

event was organized on the active flood plains of Yamuna river

in Delhi over an area comprising of 25 hectares upstream of DND

flyway. It is further admitted that the event was organized by the

appellant after obtaining due permissions from the authorities,

including the Delhi Development Authority/DDA, which was

admittedly responsible for the Yamuna flood plains in the capital.

There is no dispute that the appellant had obtained the requisite

approvals and permissions from the concerned authorities. Be it

noted, the legality of the permission granted by DDA to hold the

event in question is not the issue before us. We feel constrained

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 18 of 45

to express this in clear terms, at the threshold itself, because the

Tribunal has dealt with the vires of the permission granted by

DDA in some detail in the impugned judgment and we fail to

understand the rationale for it. For, the Tribunal itself

acknowledged that it was beyond its jurisdiction to decide the

question of grant of permission by DDA. Further, the Tribunal

did not alter the permission in any manner and retained all the

terms and conditions imposed by DDA while granting permission

for the event in question. Be that as it may, the permission is not

impugned before us, and the only issue that arises for

consideration is whether the appellant had caused damage to the

floodplain of river Yamuna by organizing the event in question

and consequently, whether it is responsible for restoration or

rehabilitation of the same.

Pre-Event

26. Pursuant to the appellant’s application, DDA granted

permission to hold the event on 15.12.2015, subject to fulfilment

of various conditions which were duly accepted by all concerned.

Pursuant thereto, a total area of 25 hectares was handed over to

the appellant in December, 2015 and the same was retained till

16.04.2016. Interestingly, on 14.12.2015, the appellant addressed

a letter to DDA stating that huge construction material/debris was

lying at the allotted site and sought permission to remove the

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 19 of 45

same. Pursuant thereto, DDA granted permission to the appellant

to remove the construction material/debris on 21.12.2015.

27. Thereafter, the original application was filed by Mr. Manoj

Misra before the NGT contending that the event was being

organized in violation of the Tribunal’s judgment in O.A. No.

06/2012; that the event involved massive construction activity on

the floodplain; that the authorities failed to fulfil their duties and

obligations and that the appellant must be held accountable for

causing damage to the Yamuna floodplain in the course of

preparation of the event. The Tribunal issued notice on

11.02.2016 and made it returnable on 17.02.2016. On

17.02.2016, DDA informed the Tribunal about the constitution of

an inspection team to inspect the site. The Tribunal called for a

report on 19.02.2016 and on the said date, the Tribunal

constituted a High Powered Committee (expert committee)

comprising of four members – Professor Babu, Professor A.K.

Gosain, Professor Brij Gopal and Secretary of Ministry of Water

Resources (or his nominee). The report was filed on 22.02.2016.

On 09.03.2016 i.e. two days prior to the scheduled event, the

Tribunal passed an interim order whereby it declined to restrain

the event, however, it burdened the appellant with an

environmental compensation of Rs. 5 crores on account of the

damage caused by it to the floodplain in the course of preparation

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 20 of 45

for the event. The relevant part of this interim order is crucial and

it reads as:

“7. It is the consistent view of the Experts and is

sufficiently evident from the documents placed on

record that the flood plains have been drastically

tampered with while destroying the natural flow of

the river, reeds, grasses, natural vegetation on the

river bed. It has further disturbed the aquatic life

of the river and destroyed water bodies and wet

lands on the flood plains, which were in existence,

as noticed in our judgment in the case of Manoj

Misra vs. Union of India and Ors., OA No.6 of

2012 decided on 13th January, 2015.

Furthermore, they have constructed ramps, roads,

compaction of earth, pontoon bridges and other

semi-permanent or temporary structures etc. even

without the permission of the concerned

authorities including Ministry of Water Resources.

The permission granted by Government of NCT of

Delhi is of no consequence as it is not the

competent authority for rights over the river and

in any case, it was a permission for only flood

situation as is evident from the bare reading of the

permission. In fact, that is the stand of Government

of NCT of Delhi itself before the Tribunal.

For the damage caused to the environment,

ecology, biodiversity and aquatic life of the river,

the Foundation should be held liable for its

restoration in all respects. In that regard and in

exercise of our powers under Sections 15 and 17

of the NGT Act, 2010 we impose an Environmental

Compensation, initially of Rs. 5 crores. This

amount would be paid by the Foundation prior to

the commencement of the event. This amount

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 21 of 45

would be adjusted towards the final compensation

determined to be paid by the Foundation for

restoration work. We hereby direct the Principal

Committee constituted under the judgment, to

submit a report within four weeks from today, in

relation to the steps required to be taken for

restoration, restitution and rejuvenation of the

flood plains to its original status. It will also state

the approximate cost that would have to be

incurred for such restoration and restitution. We

further direct that the entire area in question shall

be developed as a biodiversity park in terms of our

judgment in the case of Manoj Misra (supra). The

cost thereof shall be paid by the Foundation and

DDA in the proportion as would be directed by the

Tribunal finally. The Foundation shall, by

tomorrow, file an undertaking before the Tribunal

that it would, within two weeks from date of

demand by DDA, pay the balance amount for

restoration, as directed by the Tribunal.”

28. The interim order makes it evident that the Tribunal’s

observation of drastic damage and tampering of floodplain was

based on the view of the expert committee and documents placed

before it. It makes it further evident that the environmental

compensation was ordered for restoration work for restoring the

event site to its original status. By this order, the Tribunal also

made it clear that the entire area in question ought to be

developed into a biodiversity park in accordance with its earlier

judgment, and cost thereof shall be paid by the DDA and the

appellant.

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 22 of 45

29. Thus, it can be seen that at the time of interim order itself,

the Tribunal had concluded that drastic damage had been caused

to the floodplain by the appellant. This view was formed on the

basis of the report submitted before the Tribunal on 22.02.2016

by the expert committee. Interestingly, the said report is based on

a visual inspection of the floodplain at the time of the

committee’s visit and the report merely describes the dilapidated

condition of the floodplain at that time. It does not state that the

floodplain was in a different and better condition before the

commencement of appellant’s preparatory work for the event.

The whole basis of the lis before the Tribunal was the causation

of damage by the appellant and not mere existence of damage on

the floodplain. The first report on the basis of which the Tribunal

went on to return a finding of guilt against the appellant was, in

our opinion, inadequate to justify such a finding. In fact, the

report completely missed the mark, as discussed ahead.

30. In fairness, it may be noted that the report dated

22.02.2016 referred to an earlier report of October, 2015, which

was filed in the Yamuna matter to monitor the implementation of

the Tribunal’s judgment dated 13.01.2015. In that report, the

committee itself observed that the directions of the Tribunal in

Yamuna matter were not implemented and the floodplain was in

damaged condition. Similar view was expressed by the Tribunal

in the order dated 14.07.2015 after noting complete non-

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 23 of 45

implementation of its judgment dated 13.01.2015 for

rehabilitation of the floodplain in question. Therefore, it can be

observed with certainty that prior to handing over of the site in

question to the appellant, the site was in damaged condition. In

such circumstances, whether the preparation work carried out by

the appellant from 15.12.2015 (date of grant of permission) to

19.02.2016 (date of inspection) caused additional damage to the

floodplain, is a question that the Tribunal ought to have answered

before holding the appellant liable. Unfortunately, it did not.

31. The impugned judgment also does not examine other

contemporaneous material which was not only relevant for the

adjudication but could have even led the Tribunal to a different

outcome. Such material included the appellant’s letter dated

14.12.2015 addressed to DDA regarding the presence of debris

and construction material at the site. In response to this letter,

DDA admitted the presence of such material at the site and

permitted the appellant to remove the same. Notably, this

communication took place in ordinary course and prior to the

institution of proceeding before the NGT. Therefore, the Tribunal

could not have overlooked the same and attributed the presence

of construction material/debris to the appellant. In this regard, a

reference to the Tribunal’s order dated 14.07.2015 is again

warranted. In the said order, the Tribunal recorded DDA’s

submission that the entire construction material/debris had been

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 24 of 45

cleared from the site and restoration work was going on.

Evidently, DDA’s submission made before the Tribunal on

14.07.2015 stood falsified by its letter dated 21.12.2015

addressed to the appellant, whereby it permitted the removal of

construction material/debris by the appellant.

32. We are afraid, the Tribunal got swayed by the expert

committee’s report that massive preparatory work is going on at

the site and went on to conclude that by undertaking such work,

the appellant has severely damaged the floodplain. This

conclusion was reached by the Tribunal without examining the

contemporaneous evidence regarding pre-existing damaged

condition of the floodplain and conspicuous failure of the

authorities to implement its earlier judgment in the Yamuna

matter. Moreover, the finding was based on a report which was

of a sweeping nature and was based on a subjective assessment

of the members. The sweeping character of the report is evident

from the initial statement of one of the expert members that

restoration of the floodplain would require an expense of around

Rs. 100-120 crores. This statement was also released in media by

one of the members and was incorporated in the report without

any basis whatsoever. In fact, the Chairman of the committee

(vide a separate letter dated 03.03.2016) distanced himself from

this finding by calling it unscientific. Unfortunately, instead of

questioning the same, the Tribunal relied upon it to infer the

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 25 of 45

extent of damage. The statement was not only without basis but

also stood falsified by the subsequent report of the same

committee, specifically the report dated 28.11.2016, wherein the

required expense was suggested to be significantly lesser. The

objection in this regard was noted by the Tribunal, however, it

was rejected cursorily. In view of the material on record and the

findings recorded in the interim order dated 09.03.2016, we feel

constrained to observe that the order was passed in utter disregard

of material facts and without any objective analysis.

33. In fact, it also appears that the interim order was passed

hastily as it was based on one visual inspection by the committee

and did not incorporate any appreciation of the counter material.

The interim order, moreover, was passed without recording

reasons and reasons were expected to follow the same. However,

they never followed and subsequent proceeding was limited to

ascertainment of damages and rehabilitation expenses and

proposed measures. Insofar as the culpability of the appellant is

concerned, it stood finally decided by the Tribunal in its interim

order and that too, without reasons except its reliance on the

report dated 22.02.2016. Importantly, the appellant sought to

revisit the interim order at various stages of the proceeding,

however, the Tribunal declined to do so on the ground that the

order had attained finality as the appellant never challenged the

same and deposited the amount in its compliance. Surprisingly,

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 26 of 45

the Tribunal declined to revisit its findings in the interim order

despite its own clarification that the interim order was passed

without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. If

the order was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of

the parties, it must have been re-tested by the Tribunal after

giving due opportunity to the parties to assail the findings and

prove otherwise. However, the Tribunal erroneously held on to

the interim order and bound itself as well as the parties with an

order which was purportedly passed in interim and without

prejudice to their rights.

34. The findings in an interim order are interim for a reason,

and the plain and simple reason is that such findings are not based

on full analysis of facts and evidence. If an interim order is

supposed to be treated as binding in a permanent sense and is not

to be questioned in the course of a proceeding, it ceases to be an

interim order and assumes finality. The Tribunal’s observation

that the appellant itself failed to challenge the interim order

before this Court, is unsustainable. Since the order was interim in

nature and was passed without prejudice to the rights of the

appellant, there was no occasion for the appellant to assail it

before the appellate Court and the appellant cannot be faulted for

seeking to revisit the same before the Tribunal.

35. Unfortunately, the interim order was treated as final by the

Tribunal throughout the proceeding, not because it was delivered

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 27 of 45

as a final order, but only because it was not assailed by the

appellant and was duly complied by it by furnishing an

undertaking. As regards compliance, the appellant’s submission

that it had no choice but to comply with the order as it was passed

two days prior to the scheduled event, is not without merit. The

timing of the interim order left the appellant with no choice but

to bow down to it. Although, the appellant still took caution to

obtain a clarification from the Tribunal that the order was only

interim in nature and was passed without prejudice.

36. On an analysis of the impugned judgment, we find that the

interim order had a cascading effect on the remaining proceeding

as well. The entire proceeding before the Tribunal after

09.03.2016 proceeded on a conclusive assumption that extensive

damage has been caused by the appellant to the floodplain, and

no endeavour was made to revisit the findings of the interim order

on the basis of appreciation of counter material. Somehow, on the

strength of the interim order, the Tribunal proceeded with the

belief that the entire damage to the floodplain was attributable to

the appellant only and the proceeding was only focused on the

extent of damage and rehabilitation measures/expenses. Let us

now have a look at subsequent reports.

Post-Event

37. Post-event, the Tribunal passed an order dated 03.06.2016

whereby the expert committee was directed to assess “if there has

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 28 of 45

been any environmental damage and degradation; in relation to

the environmental compensation payable in that behalf and

compensation payable for restoration of the flood plain etc.”.

The direction of the Tribunal seemed to be an opportunity for the

committee to re-assess its interim findings and to objectively

assess whether any environmental damage has been caused by

the event in question. The committee filed its report on

28.07.2016. The report carries a separate section to describe the

“State of the Floodplain before the Event”, which reads as:

“I. STATE OF THE FLOODPLAIN BEFORE

THE EVENT

Some members of the Committee had been visiting

the Floodplains of River Yamuna for the past

couple of years for preparing their Reports to the

NGT on ecological restoration of the Yamuna flood

plain in the 22 km stretch of the river passing

through Delhi, as ordered by the Hon'ble NGT.

One such visit was made during 2-4 October 2015.

Accordingly, the floodplain of the Main Event site

had huge tract of wetlands, natural vegetation

comprising of trees and shrubs, tall reeds, cattails,

sedges and other aquatic vegetation including

water hyacinth (in the foreground). Several large

water bodies and some patches of agriculture

(Photos A1, A2) can be seen. The nature of aquatic

vegetation also indicates the presence of shallow

to deep water below them.

The status of the site is seen clearly from the

satellite image of 5th Sept, 2015 (Image A3) which

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 29 of 45

shows the then-existing scenario circled in

different subheads on the map. The presence of

natural vegetation and large expanse of water can

be readily recognised. A side channel of the river

running almost parallel to it and passing under the

DND flyover is also noteworthy. Some agricultural

activity can be seen in the area between the side

channel and the river.

These wetlands as shown in the photographs

performed many ecological functions which

included flood control, ground water recharge,

supporting large biodiversity (birds, fish, reptiles,

amphibian, numerous invertebrates and

microorganisms). The invertebrates such as

nematodes, snails and insects served as food for

other animals whereas the microorganisms

contributed to decomposition, cycling of nutrients

and supported food chain. Whereas some wetland

vegetation was grazed upon, large reeds, shrubs

and trees contributed most significantly to carbon

sequestration (storing carbon in biomass and soil),

Further valuable function of wetland vegetation

was to process nutrients and other pollutants

thereby assimilating wastes entering the area and

hence, maintaining water quality in the river and

below ground.

The Eastern Floodplain (on the left of the river)

has been largely under seasonal agriculture but

there were some large wetlands. These can be

clearly seen in the satellite image of the same date

(05 September 2015) (Image A4) where the

wetlands have been specifically marked.”

38. The assessment of pre-event condition of the event site

begins with the personal knowledge of the committee members

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 30 of 45

of the floodplain. The report states that “some of the members”

of the committee had been visiting the floodplain during the past

couple of years for the preparation of various reports for NGT.

One such visit took place from 2-4

th

October, 2015. The report

does not specify the members who had actually visited the

floodplain in October, 2015. Nonetheless, the report states that

the floodplain was flourishing at the time of their visit. This

observation is purely drawn out of personal knowledge of some

‘unknown’ members of the expert committee. As proof, the

committee relied upon two photographs A1 and A2 to show

patches of agriculture and presence of large water bodies. It is not

clear whether the photographs pertain to the event site only or the

other parts of the large floodplain which is significantly more

expansive than the event site. The person who captured these two

photographs is also not specified in the report and therefore, the

source and description of these photographs are not clear. In fact,

the report itself refers to a different google generated satellite

image of the event site to demonstrate the state of event site

before the event. The said image is dated 05.09.2015. After

referring to this image and the presence of healthy floodplain in

the said image, the report moves on to describe the damage

caused by the appellant.

39. Thus, effectively, the expert committee’s report is based on

a satellite image dated 05.09.2015 to ascertain the pre-event state

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 31 of 45

of the floodplain. The Tribunal accepted this description, almost

without question, and placed reliance on the report as well as the

sole satellite image generated from google earth. In a judicial

proceeding, it was expected of the Tribunal to have tested the

report and solitary satellite image with other contemporaneous

evidence on record before giving a stamp of judicial approval to

the opinion of the committee. More so, because the committee’s

report appears to be palpably contrasting with other material,

including its own reports filed earlier.

40. Since, soon before this proceeding, the Tribunal was seized

of another proceeding pertaining to the same floodplain, the

reports filed in the said proceeding ought to have weighed with

the Tribunal as independent, contemporaneous and dispassionate

evidence. One such report was filed on 19.04.2014 which

described the dilapidated and damaged state of the Yamuna

floodplain. This report as well as the condition of the floodplain

described therein were accepted by the Tribunal and it culminated

in the final judgment passed on 13.01.2015. After judgment, an

order dated 14.07.2015, already referred above, was passed by

the Tribunal in the said matter wherein it lamented the state of

floodplain and called out the inaction of the authorities. Pursuant

thereto, it is the admitted position that a report was submitted by

the same committee in October, 2015 wherein the committee

submitted a restoration plan and recommended immediate action

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 32 of 45

for ecological restoration by DDA. In fact, the committee in the

present matter referred to this report in its interim report dated

22.02.2016.

41. On appreciation of this contemporaneous material, it could

be observed with certainty that the pre-event state of the

floodplain did not present a happy picture, and it was in a

damaged condition till the handing over of the site to the

appellant. Despite so, the satellite image dated 05.09.2015

depicted something in stark contrast to other material. The

Tribunal ought to have questioned as to how the satellite image

presented a flowery picture of the floodplain, however, it did not.

In fact, huge amount of debris/construction material was

removed by none other than the appellant, immediately after

handing over of site, to make way for the event. In the face of

such material, the committee’s description of the pre-event state

of the floodplain, describing it as a green vista, is unreliable. In

our opinion, the satellite image dated 05.09.2015 is not a reliable

document, not only because it is generated from the internet, but

also because it is in stark contrast with the entire surrounding

material. Moreover, we fail to understand as to how the Tribunal

found the google generated image of the committee as reliable,

while failing to grant the same indulgence to the images produced

by the appellant.

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 33 of 45

42. Be that as it may, the only fault that the Tribunal found

with the report dated 28.07.2016 was that it did not suggest any

cost for restoration of the floodplain. Accordingly, it directed the

committee to furnish another report regarding the cost of

restoration of the floodplain. It culminated in the report dated

28.11.2016, which we may now advert to. Interestingly, in this

report, the committee impliedly acknowledged some inherent

flaws in its earlier reports. Most importantly, it stated that there

were some inherent limitations/constraints in restoration of the

site as it was not possible to “assess the ecological status of the

riparian ecosystems at the site before event”. Therefore, the

committee ended up questioning its own assessment of the

ecological status of the site before the event. In its earlier report,

the committee described the pre-event condition of the floodplain

as a green vista and in the subsequent report, it admitted the

impossibility of restoration as the earlier status was not known.

A complete flip. The committee went on to state that it was not

possible “to determine the state of ecosystem to which restoration

has to be carried out”. The relevant part reads thus:

“Committee takes this opportunity to further

request the Hon'ble NGT, that the entire floodplain

area has to be re-planned to restore topographic

features, restore water bodies, and check erosion

along river banks. This aspect has already been

submitted in the Committee's report on restoration

of flood plains in October 2015.

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 34 of 45

There are certain constraints/limitation to

ecological restoration of AoL site. For example, it

is not possible to: (i) assess the ecological status

of the riparian ecosystems at the site before event

and also to determine the state of ecosystem to

which restoration has to be carried out, as the

ecosystems exist in more than one state. Further,

the Committee in its earlier Report clearly pointed

out that:

"It is extremely difficult to assess the costs of

environmental damage and degradation

accurately and its restoration in terms of

compensation payable because: It requires

substantial time, human and other resources to

collect detailed quantitative information on the

nature, extent and magnitude of various activities

listed earlier for the restoration. For example, the

amount of debris to be dredged out and its nature

and the time required, and where and how far has

it to be transported for disposal has to be decided

accordingly.

(a) Another major factor is the long time period

required for restoration that may be a decade or

more for the trees and many other species to

establish.

(b) Estimation of the costs of restoration requires

the preparation of a Detailed Project Report that

may take several months to a year besides

financial resources.””

(emphasis supplied)

43. After noting the impossibility of restoration of the site to

its pre-event status, the committee went on to suggest that

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 35 of 45

complete rehabilitation of the site ought to be carried out so that

the floodplains perform their optimum ecological functions. The

relevant part of the report reads thus:

“In light of above mentioned limitations it was

decided to rehabilitate the impacted site to the

state that enable the rehabilitated ecosystems to

perform their ecological functions — (i)

regulation of floods, storage of flood water,

recharge ground water, stabilization of banks,

purification of water, habitat for biodiversity and

other ecological functions.

Ecological Rehabilitation

The ecological rehabilitation is not similar to

ecological restoration in the sense that the

impacted site is restored to some states of riparian

ecosystems that render ecological

functions/services and may not be to restored to

its original natural states.”

(emphasis supplied)

44. Therefore, a careful examination of the reports filed by the

expert committee suggests that in its earlier reports dated

22.02.2016 and 28.07.2016, the committee described the pre-

event status of the event site in a certain manner and stated that

the appellant was responsible for damaging the same. Thereafter,

the committee did a somersault, as rightly submitted by the

appellant herein, and admitted its inherent “limitation” or

“constraint” in suggesting any restorative exercise as the pre-

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 36 of 45

event ecological status of the site was not known. It ended up

admitting that the committee was clueless about the condition to

which restoration ought to be carried out. Having acknowledged

so, the committee went on to suggest “rehabilitation” of the

floodplain and gave various recommendations on the lines of its

earlier recommendations in the Yamuna matter. It also suggested

costs for the proposed rehabilitation exercise. We have no doubt

in observing that the committee’s mandate was limited to suggest

measures and expenses for restoration of the event site to its pre-

event condition, and to fix the liability of the appellant as it had

earlier submitted that the appellant had caused the damage.

Rehabilitation of the floodplain was never the issue before the

committee or the Tribunal.

45. Evidently, the committee not only exceeded its mandate

but also brought its earlier opinions on the issue under scanner.

Unfortunately, the Tribunal could not see through the inherent

flaws in the committee’s reports and instead of holding the

committee’s views as unaccountable and unreliable, the Tribunal

went on to adjudicate the matter by holding the appellant liable

for “rehabilitation” of the floodplain. Notably, the appellant

objected to the same and even raised a question of jurisdiction by

submitting that restoration and rehabilitation could not be

equated as identical concepts. However, the Tribunal cursorily

rejected this objection by holding that on a purposive outlook of

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 37 of 45

the Tribunal’s mandate of environmental protection, restoration

could very well extend to rehabilitation of the affected area.

46. In our view, the Tribunal fell in error in equating the

distinct concepts of rehabilitation and restoration. Going by its

plain meaning in the context of environmental jurisprudence,

rehabilitation refers to complete reparation of the affected area in

a manner that it becomes fully functional and provides optimum

ecological services. Restoration, however, refers to a process

whereby the affected area is simply brought back to its original

state, regardless of how optimum the original state was. Whereas

the focus of rehabilitation is to achieve optimum ecological

functionality; the focus of restoration is to achieve the original

state, irrespective of functionality. No doubt, rehabilitation is

supposed to be the ideal end goal for any ecologically affected

area, however, we are not contemplating the same in this lis. The

task of rehabilitation of public resources falls upon the shoulders

of the State and it must be undertaken by the State by upholding

the spirit of public trust doctrine and the principle of

intergenerational equity. The responsibility of private persons

gets triggered when environmental damage or degradation is

attributable to them.

47. The present matter pertains to alleged environmental

damage by one party and if so proved, the ascertainment of

environmental compensation payable by that party for restoration

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 38 of 45

of the area to its original state. The Tribunal, while deciding the

subject matter in question, was exercising its powers under

Section 15 of NGT Act, which provides for restitution/restoration

of the environment and compensation in lieu thereof. In the

exercise of this power, the Tribunal could have ordered the

compensation for restoration or restitution of the event site to its

original condition. However, the same was clearly ruled out as

the expert committee itself admitted in its report dated

28.11.2016 that the original ecological condition of the event site

could not be known. In order to take the proceeding to a logical

conclusion, the expert committee exceeded its own mandate and

proposed full-fledged rehabilitation of the floodplain in view of

its earlier recommendations in the Yamuna matter, and the

Tribunal got swayed and ended up passing directions for

rehabilitation of the floodplain. In doing so, it missed the fine

distinction between rehabilitation and restitution/restoration, and

exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 15 of NGT Act. Notably,

even the expert committee underscored this distinction in its

report dated 28.11.2016 and specifically observed that

“ecological rehabilitation is not similar to ecological restoration

in the sense that the impacted site is restored to some states of

riparian ecosystems that render ecological functions/services

and may not be to restored to its original natural states”.

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 39 of 45

48. Importantly, while passing rehabilitative directions, the

Tribunal also directed the recovery of costs of proposed

biodiversity park from the pocket of the appellant. Whereas, it is

no one’s case that any biodiversity park was in existence at the

event site allotted to the appellant. The proposal of biodiversity

park at the Yamuna floodplain was a result of the Tribunal’s

judgment dated 13.01.2015 and it was a standalone responsibility

of the concerned public authorities/DDA. The Tribunal

completely altered the character of the dispute before itself and

converted it into a proceeding for fresh development of the

Yamuna floodplain, and in doing so, it burdened the appellant to

bear the expenses of such development activity. Effectively, the

Tribunal burdened the appellant with the task of developing

something that it never destroyed.

49. We may, at this stage, also take note of the third report filed

by a different committee, mainly constituted by government

officials. This committee was directed to propose an action plan

for rehabilitation of the event site and it filed its report on

28.07.2017. Interestingly, this committee inspected the event site

and reported that the site where the event in question was held

was fully covered with grass and portions thereof were under

water. It also reported that there was no debris at the site and no

significant wetland/water body was found in the area allotted for

the event. Furthermore, this committee examined the google

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 40 of 45

earth images of the event site taken before and after the event,

and reported that there was not much difference in the condition

of the area before and after the event. The difference, if any, was

attributable to the monsoon season at the time when the pre-event

picture dated 05.09.2015 was taken. The committee further

reported that no compaction of soil was found at the event site

and the said land was used for agriculture purposes as well.

50. Therefore, the third report effectively nullified the

allegations of damage and removed the taint of causing

damage/degradation from the event organized by the appellant.

However, the Tribunal rejected this report on the ground that the

committee was not supposed to report on damage, and was only

tasked to propose an action plan. In doing so, the facts reported

by the committee were neither challenged nor disproved.

Notably, even prior to the third report, the question of damage at

the hands of the appellant had become a moot question. For, the

original state of the event site could not be ascertained by the

expert committee and whatever could be ascertained indicated

that the site was already in a dilapidated state. However, the third

report fully seized the question and left no doubt that the entire

issue was a complete non-starter. Despite so, the Tribunal chose

to focus on the fact that the committee had exceeded its domain

and needlessly reported about the absence of any damage at the

site. We cannot approve of the approach adopted by the Tribunal.

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 41 of 45

As a neutral fact-finding body, the Tribunal ought to have taken

all relevant material into consideration for deciding the liability

of the appellant.

51. Before parting, we feel constrained to note the manner in

which the principle of no-fault liability has been invoked by the

Tribunal in this matter. The Tribunal has observed that it was for

the appellant to have shown that it took due precautions or that it

caused no damage or deterioration of the environment. The

impugned judgment notes that the appellant could not discharge

its burden and therefore, the appellant must bear the liability on

account of the principle of no-fault liability. Since the Tribunal

has drawn its powers from Section 17 of NGT Act, we reproduce

the same as follows:

“17. Liability to pay relief or compensation in

certain cases.

—(1) Where death of, or injury to, any person

(other than a workman) or damage to any property

or environment has resulted from an accident or

the adverse impact of an activity or operation or

process, under any enactment specified in

Schedule I, the person responsible shall be liable

to pay such relief or compensation for such death,

injury or damage, under all or any of the heads

specified in Schedule II, as may be determined by

the Tribunal.

(2) If the death, injury or damage caused by an

accident or the adverse impact of an activity or

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 42 of 45

operation or process under any enactment

specified in Schedule I cannot be attributed to any

single activity or operation or process but is the

combined or resultant effect of several such

activities, operations and processes, the Tribunal

may, apportion the liability for relief or

compensation amongst those responsible for such

activities, operations and processes on an

equitable basis.

(3) The Tribunal shall, in case of an accident,

apply the principle of no fault.”

52. Section 17 provides that where any injury is caused to the

environment as a result of the adverse impact of any activity, the

person responsible for such activity shall be responsible for the

injury. Sub-section (3) of the provision specifically applies to the

cause of an accident. The Tribunal has relied upon Section 17(3)

of the Act, however, it is quite evident that we are not dealing

with the consequences of any accident. The word “accident”

would refer to cases involving hazards, such as gas leak, etc.

Nevertheless, polluter pays principle has assumed a place of

permanence in our environmental jurisprudence and Section 17

is merely a legislative manifestation of the same. Therefore, there

is no doubt in the proposition that the polluter must pay and must

be held as absolutely liable for environmental degradation caused

by it.

53. However, the applicability of this principle is contingent

upon various factors and the foremost factor is the causation of

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 43 of 45

real damage. Further, the establishment of a causal link between

the actions of the project proponent and the resultant

environmental degradation is equally necessary. In other words,

the alleged person must be a “polluter” before it is held as

absolutely liable in law. No doubt, if this link is established, no

excuse matters. However, the principle cannot be invoked unless

the degradation is attributable to the alleged person. In the present

case, the causal link has not been established by any standard. In

fact, there is ample material on record to show that the event site

was already in a dilapidated condition prior to its handing over to

the appellant. We also find ourselves in disagreement with the

Tribunal’s view that the appellant could not prove that it did not

cause the damage. It is so because the Tribunal simply disallowed

the appellant from questioning its earliest findings in the interim

order dated 09.03.2016, and denied any opportunity to the

appellant to revisit the said findings. Moreover, the material on

record actually goes on to prove that damage, if any, cannot be

attributed to the appellant. It is a different matter that the Tribunal

overlooked the exculpatory material.

54. Having said that, we find ourselves in agreement with the

observations regarding DDA. The manner in which permission

was granted by DDA to hold the event on an active floodplain of

the river cannot be approved. It was not only avoidable, but was

also not consistent with the precautionary principle and doctrine

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 44 of 45

of public trust. We feel that the DDA was bound to act in a

manner that the trust reposed in it, as the agency responsible for

the rehabilitation and ecological maintenance of the Yamuna

floodplain, is not shaken in any manner. Further, DDA was bound

to take all preventive steps and precautions to avoid any further

deterioration of the active floodplain. Evidently, the authority

failed to act in accordance with its duties towards the public at

large.

55. However, as noted above, the question of grant of

permission by DDA is not a subject matter of consideration

before us and the task of rehabilitation of the Yamuna floodplain

has already been assigned to the authority. In this regard, the

Tribunal has already rendered a comprehensive judgment in the

Yamuna matter on 13.01.2015 and no further direction is

necessitated from this Court.

56. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the

impugned judgment dated 07.12.2017 is set aside along with all

consequential and interim actions taken against the appellant

herein. The appellant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 5

crores deposited by it to DDA, in compliance of the Tribunal’s

order dated 09.03.2016. The same shall be refunded by DDA

within four weeks from today. Suffice to note that DDA shall

continue to carry out the rehabilitation work at the Yamuna

floodplains as per the proposed plan and directions issued by the

C.A. No. 683 of 2018 Page 45 of 45

Tribunal from time to time. We have not altered the

responsibilities entrusted to DDA concerning the management or

rehabilitation of the Yamuna floodplains, in any manner.

57. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of along with

pending application(s), if any.

……………. …………………………………J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

...………………..……………………………J.

[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]

NEW DELHI

AUGUST 22, 2026.