It also warned that action will be taken against those who would pass strictures on the findings of the expert panel.
The green panel also questioned the DDA for granting nod to AOL, despite three initial rejections and said the civic body should have exercised proper caution while granting approval to the cultural extravaganza.
It said if the permission was granted, "it (DDA) should have fulfilled its responsibility properly."
He claimed that as a responsible organisation, the AOL had removed all the temporary structures from the site after the conclusion of the event and handed it back to the DDA without any damage.
The tribunal took exception to the submission of the counsel for DDA for questioning the conclusions of the seven-member expert panel.
The bench was expressed anguish over the statement of the DDA counsel that the report has been prepared by the expert members in such a manner that it would ensure their involvement with the issue of the Yamuna floodplains for 10 years.
The lawyer representing the DDA said he himself cannot answer instantly as he lacked the expertise but could reply after taking instruction.
At this, the bench shot back saying "how can you make such a sweeping statement about people who have devoted their life to environment. They have put 60 years of life and this is how you treat people. Anybody can err but you can't make such comments."
"We are warning you people that if anybody passes strictures, we will not hesitate to take action against them," the bench said.
The DDA counsel said he did not intend to cast aspersions and was just questioning the basis of the findings and technology used by the experts panel.
"All measurements are approximate. How did he work out the total area? Who is this engineer? What is his rank? What technology has been adopted for arriving at the conclusions? Whatever he said was the gospel truth," the DDA lawyer asked.
He strongly submitted that DDA was not responsible for any damage and if there was any liability.
The lawyer for AOL refuted the allegations that it had wiped out the vegetation on the Yamuna floodplains and contended that all such claims are completely "erroneous and false".
"All relevant statutory authorities had no objection or reservation with regard to the World Culture Festival event on the designated site. In the circumstances, AOL was entitled to proceed on the basis that there was no violation of any applicable law or any decision of any court or tribunal," the foundation said in its written submission before the NGT.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
