Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. vs Manoj Misra

Supreme Court24 October 2019Hemant Gupta · L. Nageswara Rao

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a regulatory body has issued directions in environmental remediation proceedings, and subsequently issues a modified direction that supersedes and replaces the earlier direction addressing the same subject-matter, the later direction shall govern and the earlier direction need not be implemented.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos.9276-9290 of 2015
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. NDPL House..... Appellant(s)Versus
Manoj Misra and Ors. Etc. Etc.…. Respondent (s)
O R D E R
1. Respondent No.1 filed Original Application No.6 of
2012 under Section 14 and 15 read with Section 18 (1) of
the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 before the National
Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the
Tribunal’). The subject matter of the application was the
encroachment and dumping of building debris in the river
bed/flood plain and the natural water body of river Yamuna.
O.A. No.300 of 2013 was also filed by Respondent No.1
complaining of ongoing encroachment and the conversion of
Kushak drain into parking and road-cum-parking space,
conversion of land use of the Shahdara Link Drain from
‘utility’ to ‘commercial’, and proposed construction of
commercial undertaking in the form and nature of ‘Delhi
Haat’, over and above the drain. The grievance of the
1Respondent No.1 was that the conversion of the drains has
reduced the easy and efficient drainage and compromised
the biodiversity present in and along the drains and their
ability to recharge ground water. The Tribunal divided the
issues involved in the O.As. into:
a) Issues relating to the drains (natural or artificial),

coverage thereof and the pollution resulting

therefrom.

b) Steps required to be taken for ensuring and

rendering river Yamuna free from pollution.

c) Restoration and beautification of the banks of river

Yamuna.

2. Expert Committees were constituted by the Tribunal

which submitted their reports on 19.04.2014 and

13.10.2014. After a careful scrutiny, the Tribunal accepted

the reports of the Expert Committees.

3. The O.As. were disposed of by the Tribunal by its

judgment dated 13.01.2015 in which several directions were

issued. The Tribunal heard several Miscellaneous

Applications that were filed in the O.A.s and issued

directions for the phased implementation of the judgment

2 | Page dated 13.01.2015. In this appeal, we are concerned with

directions 15, 16 and 17 which are as follows:

“15. The cost of the project is 3659 crores which includes establishing of new STP’s as well as providing of interceptors and sewer line in relation to the first phase only.

16. Finances for the project shall be resourced inter alia but definitely from the Ministry of Water Resources under the National Mission for Clean Ganga. DDA has nearly 281 unauthorized colonies and 10.80 lakhs residential flats in various parts of Delhi, thus, heavily contributing to the generation of the sewage. We direct Ministry of Urban Development under Urban Development fund to require DDA to release funds.

Delhi Jal Board and NCT, Delhi shall finance this project primarily.

All these Ministries, Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Jal Board and other authorities of NCT, Delhi would share the liability in the proportion that may be determined by the Principle Committee under this Judgment keeping in view the total cost of first phase of the project.

We direct NCT of Delhi, Delhi Jal Board and all Municipal Corporations, Cantonment Board, electricity companies like BSES and all other civic authorities to require payment of environmental compensation from every house hold which is generating sewage in the entire NCT of Delhi on the Polluters Pay Principle. It will be irrespective of whether a house hold is sewered

3 | Page or not. This would be equally applicable to the house hold located in the unauthorized colonies.

17. The monthly compensation payable by all the house hold in the NCT Delhi would be directly proportionate to the property tax or water bill whichever is higher, payable by such house hold. Where the house hold or person is not paying water bill, property tax and are located in un-authorized colonies, in that event, such house hold shall pay the sum of Rs.100 or Rs. 500 per month as the case may be. This amount would be determined by the concerned authority with reference to the construction existing on the plot.

The payment of the ‘environmental compensation’ in terms of the above clauses shall be added to electricity bills, water bill and the property tax demand in order of preference by the respective departments which will transfer the money to NCT, Delhi.”

4. The Appellant which is an electricity distribution

licensee filed this appeal against the order dated

08.05.2015 questioning the directions issued by the Tribunal

to the effect the environmental compensation has to be

collected from every household by adding it to the

electricity bill. By an order dated 13.10.2015, this Court

stayed the operation of the judgment dated 13.01.2015 and

the order dated 08.05.2015 which was modified on

4 | Page 18.01.2016 by restricting the interim relief only to the

extent it related to the Appellant. The Tribunal was

reviewing the progress in the execution of the directions

issued by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 13.01.2015

periodically. In the said process the Tribunal passed an

order dated 11.09.2019 which dealt with levying of

environmental compensation. The Chief Secretary,

Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Jal Board and the Delhi

Municipal Corporations were directed to introduce the

regime of levy of sewerage charges within two months

including in areas where network have been laid (whole of

East Delhi).

5. The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC)

filed its response to the appeal pursuant to the direction of

this Court. According to the DERC, the revenue of

distribution licensees from the sale of electricity cannot be

used towards the collection of the environment

compensation fees. It was further stated on behalf of the

DERC that the costs incurred by the Appellant towards

collection of the environment compensation fee cannot be

passed on to the consumers in the form of a hike in tariff.

The DERC asserted that the imposition of any additional

tariff burden on the consumers resulting from costs incurred 5 | Page towards collection of environment compensation fee would

be contrary to the object and purpose of the Delhi Electricity

Reforms Act, 2000 and the Electricity Act, 2003.

6. We are informed that the directions issued by the

Tribunal on 11.09.2019 could not be implemented due to the

interim order passed by this Court in the above appeals.

7. The final judgment in O.A. No.6 of 2012 and O.A.

No.300 of 2013 was passed on 13.01.2015. Later, the

Tribunal issued direction relating to the imposition of

environment fee on all the households by an order dated

08.05.2015. The latest order passed by the Tribunal is

dated 11.09.2019. Without commenting upon the

correctness or otherwise of the direction issued by the

Tribunal on 08.05.2015, we are of the opinion that the

direction issued by the Tribunal on 11.09.2019 shall be

implemented and sewerage charges shall be introduced by

the Government of NCT of Delhi as directed by the Tribunal.

8. In view of the direction issued by the Tribunal on

11.09.2019 for the introduction of levy of sewerage charges,

the direction issued by the Tribunal on 08.05.2015 stands

modified and need not be implemented. The direction

6 | Page issued on 11.09.2019 shall be implemented within a period

of two months from today.

9. The appeals are disposed of, accordingly.

..…................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..…................................J [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, October 24, 2019

7 | Page

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free