[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sadar Co-Op. Group Housing Society vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 26 February, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9965/2023 and CM APPL. 38423/2023
Date of Decision: 26.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
SADAR CO-OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K.Devesh and Mr. Jitesh
Saluja, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms Avni Singh (Panel Counsel-
GNCTD) with Mr Vaibhav Sharma,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. A bare perusal of the Impugned Order dated 15.11.2022 passed by
respondent no. 2 would reveal that upon finding the petitioner guilty of
causing environmental pollution, a liability has been imposed, to pay
compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
2. The solitary grievance of the petitioner is that it has not been heard
prior to the passing of the Impugned Order which, on the face of it, affects
the rights of the petitioner. It contends, that if at all, a liability was to be
imposed on it, a hearing should have been offered, wherein, it could have
explained and/or justified the actions impugned.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV
3. The controversy involved herein stands covered by the decision
passed by the Court in the case of 'Public Works Department, GNCTD vs.
Central Pollution Control Board',1 which reads as under:
"The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
Demand Letters dated 08.04.2019, 15.05.2019 and 17.09.2019 issued by
the respondent demanding Environmental Compensation of Rs.1 crore
from the petitioner under Section 5 of The Environment (Protection) Act,
1986.
The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Rule 4(3)(a) of
The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 submits that prior to the
passing of the Impugned Directions, the respondent had not issued any
notice to the petitioner seeking a response of the petitioner to the
proposed levying of Environmental Compensation.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that
prior to the issuance of the Impugned Directions, the respondent had
carried out repeated inspections and even meetings with the petitioner
calling upon the petitioner to adhere to the "Guidelines of dust
mitigation measures in handling construction material and C&D
Wastes". He further submits that it is only on the petitioner's non-
compliance of the guidelines that the Impugned Direction was first
passed.
However, on a specific query with respect to any notice having been
issued to the petitioner specifically with respect to levy of Environmental
Compensation, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly admits that
no such notice was issued.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that immediately
on receipt of the Impugned Direction, the petitioner made repeated
representations to the respondent seeking recall of levy of the
Environment Compensation, however, the respondent merely reiterated
its demand without considering such representations.
Clearly, the petitioner has not been granted a pre-decisional or a post-
decisional hearing on the levy of the Environmental Compensation by the
respondent.
In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, directing the
W.P.(C) 2693/2020 dated 11.03.2020.
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV
respondent to consider the contents of the present petition as a
representation of the petitioner against the levy of the Environmental
Compensation. The respondent shall pass a speaking order after
granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If such order is
adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the
same in accordance with law.
There shall be no order as to costs."
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and the law discussed
above, the Impugned Order dated 15.11.2022 and Recovery Notice dated
23.06.2023 issued in furtherance of it, are found to be violative of the
principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same are set aside.
5. However, respondent no. 2 is granted the liberty to pass a fresh order
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of.
7. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
Nc/ksr
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:10:26 KUMAR KAURAV
