₹5,000 compensation for river offerings does not limit penalties for unauthorised floodplain parking.

The appellant operated CNG school buses that, during renovation work at the school from July to November 2025, were parked beneath a flyover opposite Mayur Vihar Phase-I Metro Station, on the Yamuna floodplains.

The DDA issued 22 challans imposing penalties of ₹50,000 per bus, totalling ₹11,00,000, relying on the NGT’s directions in Manoj Mishra v. Union of India, O.A. No. 6/2012.

After an earlier writ proceeding, the appellant made a representation and received a personal hearing; the DDA rejected the representation, holding that lack of parking at the school did not justify parking in a prohibited floodplain area.

The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s subsequent writ petition.

On review, the court directed deletion of a sentence referring to photographs said to show dumping of waste, but left the remaining findings unchanged.

Whether, absent a finding that the appellant’s buses were used to dump debris or waste, the applicable compensation was limited to ₹5,000 under paragraph 94(vi)(d) of Manoj Mishra, rather than ₹50,000.

Whether the challans should be set aside because they were issued without a prior show-cause notice or hearing, or because the DDA lacked authority to penalise unauthorised parking and the aggregate penalty was disproportionate.

The court applied the NGT’s directions in Manoj Mishra v. Union of India, O.A. No. 6/2012, including paragraph 94(vi)(c), under which the challenged ₹50,000 compensation was imposed, and paragraph 94(vi)(d), which prescribes ₹5,000 for throwing pooja material or other material, such as food grains and oil, into the Yamuna except at designated sites.

The court treated the NGT directions as addressing the broader protection of the Yamuna floodplains from encroachment and illegal parking, and held that paragraph 94(vi)(d) does not prescribe compensation for unauthorised vehicle parking.

Deleting the sentence about photographs did not disturb the findings that the buses were parked on the Yamuna floodplains and that such parking was impermissible; the appellant did not dispute the location of the buses.

The appellant’s explanation that school renovations left no parking space did not justify continued parking in a prohibited, environmentally sensitive area.

Nor did paragraph 94(vi)(d) apply: it concerns specified materials thrown into the river, not unauthorised parking on the floodplains.

The court also found no basis to interfere on procedural grounds, since the appellant’s representation was considered and a personal hearing was provided before the DDA rejected it.

It dismissed the appeal, disposed of any pending applications, and made no order as to costs.