Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of a hospitality firm seeking a direction to Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to refund Rs 39.54 lakh to it, saying the company's hotel had been polluting the city for the last two decades.
The court noted that the firm had not taken any consent to establish or operate the hotel and a "very important and salutary provision" of environmental law has not been complied with by them for nearly 20 years.
"However, this court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on another ground also inasmuch as the petitioner (Krishna Continental Ltd) has not approached this court with clean hands as it had been polluting the city for the last 20 years i.E. From 1993 to 2013," Justice Manmohan said.
"During this period, neither a 'consent to establish' nor a 'consent to operate' had been obtained by the petitioner. To say that the lapse on the part of petitioner was an innocent non-compliance is to trivialise a statutory provision which has a direct and vital impact on the life of the citizens of this city," the court said.
The court's order came on a writ petition filed by Krishna Continental Ltd, which runs a hotel here since 1993, seeking a direction to the DPCC to refund Rs 39,54,900 to it along with interest.
The petitioner said that in April 2013 it was served with show cause notices under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention Control of Pollution) Act 1981 in which "serious deficiencies" were pointed out.
It said thereafter in June 2013, they received a modified direction to install adequate effluent treatment plant and was also asked to submit an application for consent.
The firm said that "under the threat of imminent closure and penal actions" it filed an application in August 2013 with a demand draft of Rs 41 lakh as condonation fee with the DPCC "under protest seeking consent to operate."
It claimed that as per the previous fee structure it was liable to pay Rs 46,000 only and the DPCC was not authorised to levy penalty in the garb of condonation fee retrospectively at an exorbitant rate of Rs two lakh per annum from the date of establishment of hotel.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner said that they should not be penalised for "innocent non-compliance of laws".
However, DPCC argued in court that the petition was not maintainable and the petitioner had been running its hotel without obtaining a 'consent to establish' and 'consent to operate' and without installation of any anti-pollution equipment for the last 20 years.
Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), meanwhile,
showed the court satellite images from NASA showing the extent of biomass or crop burning in northern India.
Referring to the images, the bench and amicus curiae Kailash Vasdev said the main culprit was Punjab where majority of fires were happening.
Vasdev said that while Haryana and Rajasthan have taken steps like training farmers, employing new tools for cutting crops, recycling the biomass and using it for power generation, Punjab was only asking for money.
He also said that as per Punjab's affidavit, it was bringing in political issues and angles as well as citing economic constraints in preventing biomass burning.
Agreeing with the amicus, the bench also said the state appeared to be "in denial" even though the extent of biomass burning was "much, much more" there than in other states, with resultant smoke reaching as far as Madhya Pradesh.
The bench then asked the counsel for Punjab how it would apologise to the people who have died and those who continue to suffer respiratory diseases due to air pollution caused by biomass burning.
The court also asked how the state would make good the huge national economic loss that would have been caused due to closure of schools in Delhi and people falling sick and not being able to work.
"You have failed as a state," the bench remarked while referring to Punjab waiving off agricultural loans of over Rs 80000 crore, but being unable to arrange Rs 9900 crore for procuring "rota and re-seeding machines" to reduce biomass generated after harvesting.
The counsel for Punjab, while defending the state, said the government may have been slow to start but it has taken steps like setting up biomass power plants.
He said the state required around Rs 9900 crore for the machines and has written to the Centre.
Rejecting the contentions, the bench said it had warned all the states well in advance on these issues.
"But you (Punjab) did nothing. There is dereliction of duty. Does your Chief Secretary intend to continue in that position? We are contemplating issuing contempt notice to him. You can reply to that," the court said and added "put a stop to it immediately".
It also said that despite the advance warning, "damage has been done" and the actions of Punjab was akin to "capital punishment" for the people of Delhi.
"Literally capital punishment as the capital is punished and that too for no offence. People are being killed in the capital," the bench said.
