- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Plea By Karnataka Government Challenging NGT Verdict On Bengaluru Lakes
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a plea by the Karnataka government challenging a National Green Tribunal (NGT) ruling to deposit Rs 500 crore in an escrow account for failing to take action on pollution in three lakes in Bengaluru.The NGT had also asked the Karnataka government to submit a performance guarantee of Rs 100 crore.Senior advocate Devadutt...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a plea by the Karnataka government challenging a National Green Tribunal (NGT) ruling to deposit Rs 500 crore in an escrow account for failing to take action on pollution in three lakes in Bengaluru.
The NGT had also asked the Karnataka government to submit a performance guarantee of Rs 100 crore.
Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, representing the Karnataka government, contended before a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde that the amount which was directed to be deposited did not qualify as fine or penalty, and to comply with this direction of such a huge amount, the state would have to make separate budgetary allocation.
However, Chief Justice Bobde declined to hear the arguments and dismissed the plea.
The NGT had ruled that the state of Karnataka would deposit a sum of Rs 50 crore by way of interim compensation for environmental restoration with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
In December 2018, the NGT had ruled that sheer failure of state authorities concerned, including the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), the three lakes -- Bellandur, Agara and Varthur -- as well as the storm water drains joining the lakes, were not clean or free from encroachments.
The NGT had stated that the authorities should perform their duties by developing the requisite action plan and associated funds.
“Inspite of admitted grave situation, the state and the BBMP have not taken any coercive measures against polluters or the concerned officers for their failure. No prosecution is shown to have been launched. No serious steps are shown to have been taken to remedy the situation. Thus, the state of Karnataka and the BBMP are also liable to pay compensation for the past failure,” the NGT had ruled.
The BBMP was ordered to deposit Rs 25 crore with the CPCB.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Santosh Hegde headed a committee, formed by the NGT, to monitor the cleaning and removal of encroachments.