Raju, J. - (1.) The above matter has been set down for hearing before us pursuant to the orders passed by this Court (Justice S. Saghir Ahmad and Justice Doraiswamy Raju) on May 12, 2000 and the consequent Notice issued to the Executive Director, M/s. Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. at Manali, and the Executive Director, Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. Operations Headquarters at New Delhi, calling upon them to show cause as to why in addition to damages, exemplary damages be not awarded for having committed the various acts set out and enumerated in detail in the main judgment reported in M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others (1997) 1 SCC 388 wherein it was held as hereunder : "39. We, therefore, order and direct as under : 1. The public trust doctrine, as discussed by us in this judgment is a part of the law of the land. 2. The prior approval granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest by the letter dated 24-1-1993 and the lease deed dated 11-4-1994 in favour of the Motel are quashed. The lease granted to the Motel by the said lease deed in respect of 27 bighas and 12 biswas of area, is cancelled and set aside. The Himachal Pradesh Government shall take over the area and restore it to its original natural conditions. 3. The Motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area. The pollution caused by various constructions made by the Motel in the riverbed and the banks of River Beas has to be removed and reversed. We direct NEERI through its Director to inspect the area, if necessary, and give an assessment of the cost which is likely to be incurred for reversing the damage caused by the Motel to the environment and ecology of the area. NEERI may take into consideration the report by the Board in this respect. 4. The Motel through its management shall show cause why pollution fine in addition be not imposed on the Motel. 5. The Motel shall construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 metres from the cluster of rooms (main building of the Motel) towards the river basin. The boundary wall shall be on the area of the Motel, which is covered by the lease dated 29-9-1981. The Motel shall not encroach/cover/utilize any part of the river basin. The boundary wall shall separate the Motel building from the river basin. The river bank and the river basin shall be left open for the public use. 6. The motel shall not discharge untreated effluents into the river. We direct the Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board to inspect the pollution control devices/treatment plants set up by the Motel. If the effluent/waste discharged by the Motel is not conforming to the prescribed standards, action in accordance with law be taken against the Motel. 7. The Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board shall not permit the discharge of untreated effluent into River Beas. The Board shall inspect all the hotels/institutions/factories in Kullu-Manali area and in case any of them are discharging untreated effluent/waste into the river, the Board shall take action in accordance with law. 8. The Motel shall show cause on 18-12-1996 why pollution fine and damages be not imposed as directed by us. NEERI shall send its report by 17-12-1996. To be listed on 18-12-1996."
(2.) On being served with a Notice dated 14-12-1996, the matter was heard on 19-12-1996, when this Court (Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice S. Saghir Ahmed) passed the following order : "Pursuant to the above quoted direction NEERI has filed its report. A copy of the report was given to the learned counsel for the Motel yesterday. Show cause notice to the Motel has been given on 2 counts (i) why the Motel be not asked to pay compensation to reverse the degraded environment and (ii) why pollution fine, in addition, be not imposed, Mr. H. N. Salve, learned counsel appearing for the Motel states that he intends to file counter to the report filed by the NEERI. He has asked for short adjournment. We are of the view that prayer for adjournment is justified. We, however, make it clear that this Court in the judgment dated December 13, 1995 has found as a fact that the Motel by constructing walls and bungs on the river Banks and in the river Bed, as detailed in the judgment has interfered with the flow of the river. The said finding is final and no argument can be permitted to be addressed in that respect. The only question before this Court is the determination of quantum of compensation and further whether the fine in addition be imposed, if so, the quantum of fine." (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) When the matter came up for hearing on 4-8-98, the State of Himachal Pradesh was directed to examine the Report submitted by NEERI and also submit its own Plan of Action, too. Since, it was felt that the various owners of properties along the river banks would be benefited by the plan that is prepared, they should also be heard before any action is taken on the basis of such plan. The suggested plan and list of owners of properties were directed to be filed and thereupon Notices were also issued to them, in due course. On 16-3-99, Notice was issued to the Ministry of Environment, Government of India, to indicate their response to the Action Plan submitted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 21-12-98, wherein it was also stated that they are not possessed of sufficient financial means to implement their own action plan unless the Government of India provides them necessary finances. On 3-8-99, it was ordered that the larger issue regarding Action Plan will be considered later and the matter will be taken to decide the question relating to pollution fine, if any, to be imposed on the 1st respondent. On 28-9-99, the statement of Mr. Salve, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, that M/s. Span Motels (P) Ltd. was prepared to bear their fair share of the project cost of ecological restoration was recorded, and directed the same to be submitted in writing. On 19-1-2000, it was also ordered that the question of apportionment of cost of restoration of ecology as also the question of pollution fine will be considered by the Court on the next date of hearing. At the hearing on 29-2-2000, Shri G. L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate, appearing for M/s. Span Motels (P) Ltd. challenged the legality of the proposed levy of fine, otherwise than through the manner envisaged under the relevant pollution laws by resorting to prosecution before criminal Court and after a fair trial therefor. Mr. M. C. Mehta, apart from making submissions, was permitted to submit a note in response to the submissions of Shri G. L. Sanghi.;