1. This application has been filed by the State of Karnataka for review A of order dated 06.12.2018 in Original Application No. 125/2017. Upon perusal of the application, we find that, in the garb of an application for review, the Applicant has questioned very merit of the findings in the said order.
2. Even otherwise, we do not find any merit in the application as the impugned order has been passed after dealing with the facts and circumstances of the case in detail that had transpired right from the inception of the case i.e. as far back as in the year 2014.
3. Facts and circumstances recorded upto paragraph 14 of the impugned order having revealed gross negligence and lack of seriousness on the part of the State and its instrumentalities in dealing with the alarming environmental concern arising out of severe pollution being caused to the precious water bodies in the city of Bengaluru, the Tribunal had perforce appointed a Committee to assess the factual situation and to suggest review of the action plan prepared earlier.
4. The report of the Committee that was filed before us substantiated the anxiety of the Tribunal that there was utter failure on the part of the authorities in discharging their responsibilities statutorily cast upon them. Paragraph 15 to 19 succinctly sets out the situation. Pertinently, the report was considered on 06.12.2018 with the assistance of the Learned Counsel of all the parties as would appear from paragraph 16 of the impugned order. We may also note that although the report was filed by the Committee on 31.05.2018, i.e., about 6 months before the impugned order was passed, neither objections nor any report of action taken filed. It was thus recorded so in paragraph 20 of the judgment.
5. Contrary to what has been averred in the application, the basis on which the impugned directions were passed was that there was utter failure on the part of the State and its authorities in protecting the three lakes and in keeping the Rajakaluvas joining the lakes clean and free from encroachments as revealed by the report crux of which have been reproduced in paragraph 19 of the impugned order.
6. The contention that the direction for transfer of Rs. 500 Crores in an Escrow Account is beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the Tribunal, also cannot be countenanced in view of the powers conferred upon the Tribunal under Section 25 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which under sub-section (1) unambiguously prescribes that an award or order or decision of the Tribunal under the Act shall be executable by the Tribunal as a decree of a civil Court, for which purpose, the Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil Court. Clause (e) under Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree in such manner as the nature of relief may require. Thus, the statute vests wide powers upon the Tribunal in matters of execution of its orders. The impugned direction would naturally fall within the ambit of these provisions negating the contention of the Applicant. On this, we may also refer to case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India: (2014) 8 SCC 470, where the ambit of the powers of the Court to order for arrest and detention has been traced to Section 51 read with Sections 55 and 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. So far as the prayer for open Court hearing of the case is concerned, sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the National Green Tribunal Rule, 2010 prescribes that “unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal sitting at the concerned place, a review application shall be disposed of by circulation and the Tribunal may either dismiss the application or direct notice to the opposite party”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the averments contained in the review application, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice and hear the application in open Court and is accordingly being disposed of in chamber by circulation. In any case, no useful purpose will be served in granting this prayer considering the facts and circumstances set out above.
8. We, therefore, do not find any error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record, in the impugned order as contended by the Applicant.
9. In the result, the Review Application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.