Delhi Pollution Control Committee vs Divine Infracon Private Ltd.

$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 19.05.2026

+ LPA 25/2013 CM APPL. 261/2013 CM APPL. 262/2013
DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Mr. Krishna
Chaitanya and Mr. Divyansh Singh
Dev, Advs.
versus

DIVINE INFRACON PRIVATE LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr. Navneet
Thakran and Mr. Aditya Awasthi,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 12.04.2012,
whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court by stating in paragraphs 8 and 9 as under:
“8. From the aforesaid, it appears that there is merit in the
respondent’s plea that the petitioner did cause some
environmental pollution. While exercising its writ jurisdiction to
direct refund of the amount collected by an authority without
jurisdiction, this Court exercises discretionary jurisdiction on
equitable considerations. In the light of the aforesaid, it was put
to learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court is inclined to
direct refund of the amount of Rs. 23 lakhs, as well as the return
of the bank guarantee as aforesaid, subject to an amount of Rs. 5
lakhs being retained by the respondents, for which the learned
counsel for the petitioner has agreed, after taking instructions.


Signature Not Verified
LPA 25/2013 Page 1 of 5


Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:41

However learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
said consent has been given on the condition that the respondent
does not delay the refund of the remaining amount and the return
of the bank guarantee.
9. Accordingly I allow this petition and direct the respondent to
return the amount of Rs. 18 lakhs (i.e 23 lakhs minus 5 lakhs) and
also to return the original bank guarantee to the petitioner as
aforesaid, within six weeks from today. However in case the said
refund is not made within time, the respondents shall refund the
entire amount of Rs. 23 lakhs and also return the original bank
guarantee.”

2. Suffice to state the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition only
on the ground that the appellant herein does not have the jurisdiction to levy
the penalty or impose conditions even if the respondent had violated the
environmental norms. Learned Single Judge passed the impugned order by
relying upon judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 465/2011,
Bharti Realty Ltd. v. Delhi Pollution Committee decided on 12.07.2011 and
also the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Delhi Pollution
Control Committee v. Splendor Landbase Ltd. in LPA No.895/2010
decided on 23.01.2012. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of
Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Splendor Landbase Ltd. became a
subject matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court, being C.A. No. 757-
760/2013. The civil appeals have since been decided vide judgment dated
04.08.2025 and the judgment of the Division Bench has been set aside.
3. In the said judgment dated 04.08.2025, the Supreme Court has held
that the Pollution Control Board can impose and collect as restitutionary and
compensatory damages fixed sums of monies or require furnishing of bank
guarantee(s) as an ex-ante measure towards the potential environmental


Signature Not Verified
LPA 25/2013 Page 2 of 5


Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:41

damage in exercise of powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and
Air Acts. The Supreme Court has also, in paragraph 39 of this judgment,
stated as under:
“39. For the reasons stated above:
(a) we allow these appeals and set aside the judgement and order
dated 23.01.2012, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
of Delhi to the extent of declaration of law but direct that the
show cause notices that have been set aside by the High Court
shall not be revived.
(b) we direct that the Pollution Control Boards can impose and
collect as restitutionary and compensatory damages fixed sums of
monies or require furnishing bank guarantees as an ex-ante
measure towards potential environmental damage in exercise of
powers under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts.
(c) it is further directed that the power to impose or collect
restitutionary or compensatory damages or the requirement to
furnish bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure under Sections
33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts shall be enforced only
after detailing the principle and procedure incorporating basic
principles of natural justice in the subordinate legislation.”

4. The present appeal was adjourned from time to time to await the
decision in C.A. No. 757-760/2013.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It was put
to the learned counsel for the respondent that whether the respondent would
be satisfied if the Court directs the appellant herein to return the bank
guarantee and retain the amount of Rs. 23 lakhs with itself, and accordingly,
modify the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of
the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions is agreeable to the
suggestion of the Court.


Signature Not Verified
LPA 25/2013 Page 3 of 5


Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:41

7. Having noted the directions which have been given by the Supreme
Court, more specifically at paragraph nos. 35 and 36, for framing of Rules
and Regulations before imposing penalty, we note that admittedly no
regulatory framework existed at the relevant time in 2010-11, when the
show cause notice dated 26.05.2010 was issued. As per the Supreme Court
judgment, the procedure for imposing penalty for environmental damage
and the quantification thereof requires the Pollution Control Board to follow
a procedure incorporating basic principles of natural justice in the
subordinate legislation. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has
decided the issue only on the aspect of the powers of the Pollution Control
Board to impose damages, which has been now answered by the Supreme
Court in its judgment. However, we find that no purpose would be solved if
we remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge as admittedly, no
regulatory framework existed at the relevant time in 2010-11, when the
show cause notice dated 26.05.2010 was issued and therefore, the notice
may be vulnerable to challenge. Therefore, the direction of the learned
Single Judge for return of bank guarantee is upheld.
8. We however, find that the sum of Rs. 23 lakhs was paid by the
respondent on 10.09.2008 in pursuance to the order passed by the appellant
on 28.08.2008 and the said issue, had thus, attained finality in the year 2008
and could not have been reopened by the respondent subsequently, when a
fresh show cause notice dated 26.05.2010 was issued for subsequent acts
and omissions of the respondent. Learned Single Judge could have only
examined the issue of encashment of bank guarantee, which was the subject
matter of the said show cause notice dated 26.05.2010. However, the


Signature Not Verified
LPA 25/2013 Page 4 of 5


Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:41

proceedings initiated by appellant pursuant to notice in 2008 had already
attained finality. The appellant is therefore, not required to refund any part
of the amount of Rs. 23 lakhs already received by it on 28.08.2008 and
accordingly, the direction in the impugned judgment for refund of monies is
hereby set aside.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that as per his
instructions the bank guarantee has already been returned to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this is not correct. We direct
that, if the bank guarantee has not been returned to the respondent herein,
the appellant herein shall return the bank guarantee, within a period of four
weeks from today. In case, if for any reason, the bank guarantee is not
traceable, appellant shall issue a letter to this effect to the respondent and the
concerned bank so that the respondent can take steps for having the bank
guarantee cancelled.
10. We make it clear that the appellant shall not take any further action
pursuant to the show cause notice dated 26.05.2010.
11. The aforesaid shall entail the disposal of the present appeal. Pending
applications are disposed of.
12. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MAY 19, 2026/ msh/AJ




Signature Not Verified
LPA 25/2013 Page 5 of 5


Signed By:RASHMI
DABAS
Signing Date:30.05.2026
18:41