01Facts
The Respondent (Divine Infracon) paid ₹23 lakhs to the Appellant (DPCC) in 2008 following an order for environmental violations.
¶ 8In 2010, the Appellant issued a new show-cause notice for subsequent violations, seeking to encash a bank guarantee.
¶ 8On 12.04.2012, a Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the DPCC lacked jurisdiction to levy penalties, and directed the refund of ₹18 lakhs and the return of the bank guarantee.
¶ 1, 2The Single Judge relied on a Division Bench ruling in DPCC v. Splendor Landbase Ltd., which was later overturned by the Supreme Court on 04.08.2025 during the pendency of this appeal.
¶ 2, 302Issues
i.1. Whether the DPCC has the statutory jurisdiction to impose restitutionary damages or demand bank guarantees for environmental damage under the Water and Air Acts.
¶ 3ii.2. Whether the Respondent was entitled to a refund of the ₹23 lakhs previously paid in 2008.
¶ 803Law Applied
The Court applied Sections 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 757-760/2013.
¶ 3The Supreme Court established that Pollution Control Boards can collect compensatory damages and require bank guarantees as ex-ante measures.
¶ 3(b)Such powers must be exercised via subordinate legislation that incorporates the principles of natural justice and details specific procedures.
¶ 3(c)Issues that have attained finality in previous proceedings cannot be reopened via subsequent litigation.
¶ 8Provisions in the judgment · 2
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Section 33A
Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981 Section 31A
04Reasoning
The Court observed that while the Supreme Court validated the DPCC’s power to impose damages, it mandated a prior regulatory framework for such enforcement.
¶ 3, 7In the present case, no such regulatory framework existed during the 2010-11 period when the show-cause notice was issued.
¶ 7Regarding the ₹23 lakhs refund ordered by the Single Judge, the Court reasoned that this payment was made in 2008 and had attained finality; it was distinct from the 2010 notice and thus could not be legally disturbed or refunded.
¶ 805Holding
The Court set aside the Single Judge’s direction to refund the money, holding that the ₹23 lakhs paid in 2008 shall be retained by the DPCC as that matter had attained finality.
¶ 8The Court upheld the direction to return the original bank guarantee to the Respondent, as no regulatory framework existed at the time of the 2010 notice, and directed the DPCC to return the guarantee within four weeks or issue a letter of cancellation.
¶ 7, 9Original Court PDF
Delhi Pollution Control CommitteevsDivine Infracon Private Ltd.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
