BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ... - …awsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/dr_saunandini...Opp Cine planet Cinema, Near Sion Circle, Sion(E), Mumbai-400022. 5. Maharashtra

1 (J) M.A. No.46/2013, MA No.9/2014, In Appeal No.7/2013 with Appeal No.2/2014

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

(WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE

M.ANo. 46/2013

M.ANo.09/2014

IN

APPEAL NO.7/2013

Along with Appeal No.2/2014

CORAM:

Hon’ble Shri Justice V.R. Kingaonkar

(Judicial Member)

Hon’ble Dr. Ajay A.Deshpande

(Expert Member)

B E T W E E N:

1. Dr.(Sau.) Nandini Sushrut Babhulkar, M.D. Age -42 years, Occ: Doctor, R/ at At-Plot,Kanadewadi, Taluka Gadhingalj, Dist: Kolhapur.

2. Shri Narayan Saturam Patil Age-60 years, Occ: Agriculturist, Residing at Navin Vashati, Chandgad, Taluka, CHandgad, Dist: Kolhapur.

3. Shri Umesh Bharamaji Patil Age 40 years, Occ: Service, At Post-Dholgarwadi, Taluka Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur.

….APPLICANTS

A N D

1. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Regional office, Kolhapur Udyog Bhavan Nagala Park,


Near Collector Office, Kolhapur.

2. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board Through Secretary,

Kalptaru Point,2nd ,4th Floor, Opp Cine planet Cinema,

Near Sion Circle, Sion(E), Mumbai-400022.

3. Government Maharashtra,

Through The Secretary, Environment Department

Room No. 217, 2nd Floor, Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai-400032.

4. M/s. AVII Chemicals Pvt. Ltd,

2nd Floor, Raj Mahal, 84 Veer Nariman Road,

Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

5. The Ministry of Environment & Forests,

Through its Principal Secretary, Government Of India,

CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003.

6. The District Collector,

Kolhapur, District Kolhapur.

………Respondents

Counsel for Applicant(s) Mr.Hemant V. Chavan, Sangramsingh R.Bhonsale, Mr. A.B.Bhonsale, Aarti .D.Bhonsale.

Counsel for Respondent(s):

Ms Shamali Gadre, Mr. Deepak Pawar, i/by Little & Co. for Respondent No.1,

Mr. Karl Tamboly w/Ms Sneha Jaisingh Adv i/b Bharucha &

Partners, for Respondent No.4.

…….


Appeal No.2/2014

B E T W E E N:

Mr. Narsing Patil, Age: 80 Yers, Occ: Social Work (Ex MLA) R/at Plot No.8, ‘Gurukunj, Maratha Colony’ Tilakwadi, Belgaum (Karnataka State) ….APPLICANT

A N D

1. M/s AVH Chemicals P. Ltd & Ors,

2nd Floor, Raj Mahal,

84 Veer Nariman Road,

Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

2. The Ministry of Environment & Forests,

Through its Principal Secretary,

Government Of India,

CGO Complex, Lodi Road,

New Delhi-110003.

3. State of Maharashtra,

Through The Secretary, Environment Department Room No. 217, 2nd Floor, Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai-400032.

4. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Through Secretary, Kalptaru Point,2nd ,4th Floor, Opp Cine planet Cinema, Near Sion Circle, Sion(E), Mumbai-400022.

5. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Regional office, Kolhapur Udyog Bhavan Nagala Park, Near Collector Office, Kolhapur.

6. The District Collector, Kolhapur, District Kolhapur ...Respondents

Counsel for Applicant(s) Mr Asim Sarode, Mr. Vikas Shinde, Ms. Pallavi Talware.


Counsel for Respondent(s)

Mr. Karl Tamboly w/ Ms Sneha Jaisingh Adv i/b Bharucha & Parners

For Respondent No.1.

Mr.Krishna D. Ratnaparkhi, Mr. Amol Nehru, for Respondent No.2.

Mr. D.M.Gupte w/ Supriya Dangare for Respondent Nos.3,4. Shamali Gadre, Deepak Pawar i/by Little & Co. for Respondent No.5.

Date: May 16th, 2014

C O M M O N - J U D G M E N T

1. By this common Judgment, all the above matters, are being

disposed of together, inasmuch as identical question is required to

be determined in both the Appeals and the Misc. Applications.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Appeal No.7 of 2013, will

be treated as leading matter and the relevant averments and

documents filed therein, will be referred for the purpose of

discussion.

3. Original Appellants in Appeal No.7 of 2013, Dr.(Sau)

Nandini Sushrut Babhulkar and Ors, have preferred Appeal against

the Environment Clearance (EC) certificate dated March 28th, 2012,

granted by the Respondent No.3 –SEIAA, i.e. competent authority of

the Environment Ministry of the State of Maharashtra, in favour of

Respondent No.4 M/s AVH Chemicals P Ltd. (For short, hereinafter

referred to as “Chemical Industry”).

4. The same the Environment Clearance (EC) certificate dated

March 28th, 2012, is the subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.2

of 2014, filed by the Appellant – Narsing Patil. Needless to say, both

the matters are clubbed together, in order to avoid over lapping

consideration of the same issues.


5. Miscellaneous Application No.46 of 2013, is filed in Appeal

No.7 of 2013, by the Appellants for condonation of delay of five (5)

days. It is stated that there is delay of only five (5) days in filing of

the Appeal, which occurred due to time consumed in collecting of

various documents, travelling to Pune, engaging of a Counsel and

preparing the Appeal, along with voluminous record.

6. The Chemical Industry, has filed M.A.No.9/2014, seeking

framing of preliminary issue in respect of bar of limitation, prior to

proceeding with hearing of the appeals and deciding of the same.

On behalf of the Chemical Industry, it is submitted that the Appeal

is hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore, it should not be

taken up for hearing.

7. We have heard learned Counsel, appearing for contesting

parties. We have gone through the relevant record. It is important

to note that in both the Appeals, a categorical statement is made

that the Appellants had preferred Writ Petition (PIL) No.184 of 2013

in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, raising identical issues and

challenging the Environment Clearance (EC) certificate dated March

28th, 2012, issued in favour of the Chemical Industry by the State

Environment Ministry (SEIAA). They allege that by Judgment dated

11.10.2013, they were directed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay, to withdraw that Writ Petition with liberty to file

proceedings on the same cause of action in this Tribunal. This

Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide on merits substantial issue

relating to environment. They claim, therefore, that in pursuance of

such Judgment/Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay they


have withdrawn earlier Writ Petition (PIL) No.184 of 2013 and have

preferred the Appeal.

8. According to the Appellants, limitation period has to be

computed from 11.10.2013, when they were directed to withdraw

the Writ Petition (PIL) No.184 of 2013, with liberty to file the

Proceedings in the NGT. The case of Appellants Dr.(Sau) Nandini

Sushrut Babhulkar and others, is that on the date of filing of the

Appeal, which was filed on 19.11.2013, there was delay of only six

(6) days, if the period is counted from the date of withdrawal of Writ

Petition (PIL) No.184 of 2013. They would submit that the Appeal is

filed six (6) days after the initial period of thirty (30) days, but falls

within period of sixty (60)days as permissible under the proviso

appended to Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, and as such, the

delay of six (6) days can be condoned, when the same is

satisfactorily explained. They submit that delay is marginal, duly

explained and condonable under the circumstances.

9. In case of Appeal No.2 of 2014, the Appellant Narsing Patil, states

that there is no delay caused in filing of the Appeal. It is stated in

the Appeal Memo that the Appeal is filed within limitation,

inasmuch as the appellant Narsing Patil, got knowledge about

withdrawal of Writ Petition (PIL) No.184 of 2013 at later date and

therefore, the Appeal is preferred after such knowledge was

received.

10. The questions which emerge for consideration are as

follows:


1. Whether there is only delay of six (6) days, as contended by

Appellants Dr. (Sau) Nandini Sushrut Babhulkar and

others and it is liable to be condoned?

2. Whether the Appeals are barred by limitation under Section

16 of the NGT Act,2010?

11. Before we proceed to deal with the above questions on

merits, it would be appropriate to consider import of the order

dated October 11th, 2013, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay. The copy of said order (P-104) annexed with the Appeal

No.7 of 2013, reveals that withdrawal of Writ Petition was allowed

with liberty to file proceedings on the “same cause of action” before

the NGT. The order itself may be reproduced for the purpose of

clarity:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.184 OF 2013

Dr, (Sau) Nandini Shushrut

Babhulkar £ Ors. .. Petitioners

vs.

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. A. S. Desai for Petitioners, Mr. Samir Patil - AGP for Respondent - State, Mr. D. D. Madon - Senior Advocate i/b. Bharucha & Partners for Respondent No. 4. Mr. Y. R. Mishra with N. R. Prajapati for. Respondent No. 6.

AM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD. AND M.S. SONAK, JJ.

11 October 2013

In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith

Mahila Sangathan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. we allow the Petitioners'

Counsel to withdraw the petition with liberty to file proceedings on

the same cause of action before the National Green Tribunal. The petition is


accordingly disposed of.

(Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)

(M. S. Sonak, J.)

A plain reading of above order, goes to show that Hon’ble

Bench did not by itself direct the Appellants to withdraw the Writ

Petition (PIL) No.184 of 2013. There is no affidavit of concerned

Counsel that the Hon’ble Bench directed him to withdraw the Writ

Petition and as such, it was withdrawn. What appears from the

order is that withdrawal of the Writ Petition was allowed with liberty

to file proceedings in the NGT, ‘on the same cause of action’. In any

case, the Writ Petition itself was not transferred by the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay for determination of the issues raised therein. Had

it been transfer order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay,

then all the issues raised in the Writ Petition, could be deemed as

open for consideration.

12. In such a case, there could perhaps be leverage available to

this Tribunal to go into the merits of the matter, particularly in

respect of the issues raised in the Application.

13. As stated before, the order of the Hon’ble High Court

categorically states that the withdrawal of Writ Petition, was

permitted with liberty to file the proceedings in this Tribunal on the

“same cause of action.” This conditional permission for withdrawal

has significance and utmost bearing on the question of limitation

raised as a preliminary objection, on behalf of the contesting

Respondents as well as in regard to condonation of the delay sought


by the Applicants – Dr. (Sau.) Nandini Sushrut Babhulkar and

others. The very fact that the Writ Petition (PIL) No.184 of 2013 was

filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, based upon the very

same cause of action, challenging the Environment Clearance (EC)

Certificate dated March 28th, 2012, reveals that the Appeal period

was over as on October 11th, 2013, when the Writ Petition was

withdrawn by the Applicants. The averments in paragraph 11,

where under objections raised by the Applicants are set out, go

show that in October, 2012, the brother of Applicant No.3, namely

Sh. Ramesh Patil, who is working at London, informed him about

information gathered from Internet that the Respondent No.4, is

going to set up Coal Powered Distillery plant at MIDC Halkarni. It

was thereafter that Applicant No.3, Ramesh, gave information to

other Applicants and a meeting was convened on 11.11.2012. The

villagers formed ‘Janhit Andolan Samiti’ to oppose setting of the Coal

Powered Distillery plant by the Respondent No.4, (Chemical

Industry) in MIDC area. Applicant No.3, Ramesh and other people

of the village visited the project site on 16.12.2013, to collect

further information. It is also stated that they came to know that

the Coal Powered Distillery plant is hazardous and obnoxious to

environment and therefore it was necessary to oppose the plant by

issuing circulars, pamphlets etc. The Applicants gathered

knowledge about the impugned Environment Clearance Certificate,

granted to the Chemical Industry, in view of aforesaid facts, after

collecting necessary information and it was more than clear that

they did not file Appeal against such Environment Clearance (EC)

Certificate within prescribed period of limitation, as provided under


Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. According to

the Appellants, the E.C. was granted in violation of the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and illegality has continued

‘cause of action’ also has continued. They further submit that after

coming to know about the EC, they immediately started agitation

and therefore the Respondent No.3, granted stay to commissioning

of the project vide an order passed by the Respondent No.3, which

is the subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition filed by the

Respondent No.4, (Project Proponent) and also that the

Environment Clearance Certificate granted by the Respondent No.3,

- SEIAA, is without jurisdiction and as such the Appeal is within

limitation.

14. The settled legal position is that once limitation has started

running then it cannot be halted in the midst. The Appellants were

required to challenge the Environment Clearance Certificate, dated

March 28th, 2012, within period of thirty (30) days, as

contemplated under Section 16( ) of the NGT Act,2010. Assuming

that for some tangible reason, there was delay on the part of the

Appellants to file the Appeal, yet the delay could not be condoned

beyond period of sixty (60) days. The commencement of period of

limitation has to be computed from the date of ‘communication’ of

impugned Environment Clearance Certificate. The expression

‘communication’ includes placement of such Environment

Clearance Certificate on the website of Environment Ministry of the

State or publication thereof in the newspaper at the behest of the

Project Proponent. As demonstrated earlier, the Appellants have

stated that the information was received by them from the relative


of the Appellant No.3 that the Environment Clearance Certificate

was granted to the Chemical Industry, as per the Internet

information and news. They had also visited the site of the project.

They had also challenged the Environment Clearance Certificate by

filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court. Not only that

but on their own showing they took up the issue by starting

agitations and therefore, the Respondent No.3, (Environment

ministry) granted suspension to the project activities, which

apparently is the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition filed by

the Project Proponent (Respondent No.4). These are events much

prior to October, 2013 and therefore, it will have to be said that

there was communication of the Environment Clearance Certificate

dated March 28th, 2012, granted in favour of the Chemical Industry

i.e. Respondent No.4, to the Appellants, much earlier than October,

2013. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the expression

‘communication’ will not be necessarily restricted to mean

communication by way of full-fledged publication of the Notices in

the newspapers, as published by the Project Proponent, or that

putting the said Environment Clearance Certificate in public

domain by the Competent Authority. As a matter of fact, the

averments in the Application, go to show that it was put in the

public domain by the Respondent No.3, and therefore, was available

for perusal of the Appellants, which gave them cause for protest

and to make demand for withholding of the EC granted to the

Chemical Industry (Respondent No.4). The Competent Authority

thereafter granted Suspension/Status Quo. The Respondent No.4,


filed the Writ Petition against such order of the Competent

Authority. The Appellants too filed writ Petition (IL) No.184 of 2013.

15. The consequence of events indicated above, leave no

manner of doubt, that the Appellants can be imputed with due

knowledge of the Environment Clearance Certificate much prior to

October, 2013. The averments in the Application, would make it

manifestly clear that on 17th December, 2013, the Appellants had

filed Application under RTI Act, in order to obtain information

regarding the setting up of the industrial plant. The relevant

averments made by the Appellants in paragraph 11 (h) may be

reproduced for ready reference :

“11. Objections raised by the Appellants:

(h) the Applicant made Application under RTI to get

the information and various orders issued by the

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 17.12.2012.”

16. They have further alleged in paragraph (i) as below:

“11. Objections raised by the Appellants:

(i) On 28.12.2012 there was a gathering

organized by Applicant No.3 of residents of

Chandgad Taluka at Patne Phata which was

also attended by is Lordship Justice (retired)

Shri. B.G.Kolse Patil and other political leaders

and workers of all political parties and there

were about more than 20000 attended by said

gathering and in the said meeting it was

decided to take strong action to oppose setting

up Coal Tar Distillation Plant by the

Respondent No.4.”


17. It can be gathered without difficulty, from the averments

shown above that the Appellants received information regarding the

Environment Clearance Certificate at least before the end of

December 2012. The very fact that one of the retired High Court

Judge, namely Sh. B.G.Kolse-Patil, was amongst leading members

who attended gathering of 20,000 people, is indication of the fact

that there was knowledge of Environment Clearance Certificate in

question granted by the Respondent No.3, in favour of the

Respondent No.4.

18. It does not stand to reason that inspite of Application

presented by the Appellants under the RTI Act, they did not receive

any copy of Environment Clearance Certificate dated 28th March,

2012, within reasonable period, nor is it their case that they did not

receive copy of the said EC within a reasonable period. A bare

perusal of the Environment Clearance Certificate, reveals that the

Applicants could be imputed with knowledge that they were

required to file Appeal within period of thirty (30) days in the NGT,

if they wanted to challenge the Environment Clearance Certificate.

This categorical information is stated at the end of the certificate

itself, as shown at serial No.9. i.e. Clause-9, of the Environment

Clearance letter dated 28th March, 2012, which reads as below:

“Any Appeal against this EC shall lie with NGT, Van-

Vigyan Bhawan, Sec-v, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-1100 22,

if preferred within thirty (30) days, as prescribed under

Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 ”.


Obviously, when copy of this Environment Clearance

Certificate was obtained by the Appellants in exercise of the right

under the RTI Act, somewhere at the end of January, 2013, the

Appeal ought to have been preferred by the end of January, 2013.

Admittedly, It was not so done. This Appeal is filed on 19th

November, 2013, which is clearly barred by limitation, even if

maximum stretching of limitation period is permitted in favour of

the Appellants.

19. On behalf of the Appellants, learned Counsel Mr.

Sangramsingh R.Bhonsale, contended that the Environment

Clearance Certificate dated 28th March, 2012, itself is null, void and

must be overlooked because of the fact that it is outcome of fraud,

inasmuch as instead of appraisal of the project under category 5(c)

of the Schedule appended to the EIA Notification dated 14th

September, 1986, it has been purposefully and erroneously

appraised under category 5(f). It is argued that the project ought to

have been assessed for clearance of the MoEF and not for clearance

by SEIAA. In our opinion, this is a disputed question. For

consideration of the Appeal, the question whether impugned

Environment Clearance Certificate is granted by the Competent

Authority, or that the Authority itself is incompetent, is required to

be gone into if the Appeal has to be considered on merits. However,

if the Appeal itself is barred by limitation, then such a question

cannot be considered by this Tribunal, otherwise there will be

hardly any relevance to the preliminary objection pertaining to the

question of limitation and provision made in respect of special


limitation under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, may become

otiose. Under these circumstances, we do not think it proper to

consider the contention of learned Counsel for the Appellants by

examining merits of the issues involved in the Appeal.

20. At this juncture, we may point out that the learned Counsel

for the Respondent No.4, also invited our attention to certain

observations of the Hon’ble Principal Bench in Application No.1373

of 2013 (MA No.686 of 2013 and MA No.96). The MoEF filed

affidavit of Aditya Naryan Singh, Deputy Director in that matter,

which shows that category of “Coal Tar manufacturing industry”

does not fall under any project or activity of the Schedule appended

to the EIA Notification 2006. It also appears from order dated

January 10th,2014, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Tribunal at Principal Bench, New Delhi, that on basis of such

affidavit, it is observed that under Sub-clause 5(f) of the Schedule

appended to MoEF Notification dated 14th September 2006, only

“Synthetic organic chemicals industry (dyes & dye intermediates;

bulk drugs and intermediates excluding drug formulations;

synthetic rubbers; basic organic chemicals, other synthetic organic

chemicals and chemical intermediates” is covered. We do not wish

to express any opinion in this behalf. We have pointed out the

contentions of both sides, in order to highlight the issue and show

that such issue is debatable and rather a disputed question. So, it

cannot be perse said that the Environment Clearance Certificate

dated March 28th, 2012, is outcome of fraud and as such stands

vitiated for all the purposes. Resultantly, the Appeal cannot be

entertained without considering the question of limitation for so


called reason that the Environment Clearance Certificate dated

March 28th, 2012, itself is non-est in the eye of Law.

21. The chronology of the events go to show that after the

agitations, the Respondent No.3 directed that the Environment

Clearance Certificate shall be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the

Respondent No.4, (Chemical Industry) preferred Writ Petition

No.7098 of 2013, in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. By its order

dated August 6th, 2013, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay granted

interim relief in favour of the Respondent No.4, (M/s AHV

Chemicals P. Ltd). Obviously, the order of Respondent No.3, to keep

the Environment Clearance Certificate in abeyance was stayed and

as such, there was no legal impediment for the Respondent No.4, to

go ahead with the project activity. The affidavit is filed by Shri. J.S.

Thakur, Scientist-II, of the Environment department, shows that in

a meeting dated 23/24 December, 2013, both the parties were

heard and after hearing them, it was decided that since the issue

was subjudiced before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition

No.7098 of 2013, further action should not be taken till outcome of

the Writ Petition No.7098 of 2013, pending before the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay, is decided and also till the present Appeal is

decided by this Tribunal.

22. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellants filed

Intervention Application in the Writ Petition No.7098 of 2013, which

is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Admittedly,

their Intervention Application is allowed. The very same issue is

being agitated by them befor the Hon’ble High Court.


23. Relying upon certain observations, in case of Municipal

Corporatonl, Indore, vs Niyamatullah (dead) by his L.Rs, AIR

1971, SC 97, it is contended that the plea of limitation under the

special statute, may not be considered when an action is without

jurisdiction. In given case, a Govt. servant was dismissed by

Incompetent Authority. The dismissal could be ordered only by the

Competent Authority. Therefore, it was held that “action did not fall

within mischief of Section 135(2) of Indore Municipal Council Act,

and it was governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act”. As stated

before, we cannot presuppose that the Environment Clearance

Certificate dated March 28th, 2012, is by itself issued by an

Authority, having no jurisdiction to do so and is issued without

jurisdiction available to SEIAA. The competency of the Authority is

the subject matter of the dispute, which is not yet determined on

merits.

24. It need not be reiterated that the Writ Petition No. 7098 of

2013, is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The

Appellants have the legal forum available to ventilate their grievance

before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. So far as the question of

limitation is concerned, we are not satisfied with the contention of

the Appellants that the Appeal is filed within period of limitation,

because the Environment Clearance Certificate, is issued by

Incompetent Authority. In Rauf Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh and

others (Appeal No.1 of 2003), a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal

(Central Zone Bench, Bhopal) held that “the period of limitation

cannot be extended by the Tribunal, in view of the language used in

Section 16 of the NGT Act,2010.” The Hon’ble Bench of Central


Zone, further observed that the order of transfer of Writ Petition in

view of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Sangathan & Ors. vs. Union of

India & Ors. NGT by itself would not cover up the issue of

limitation, inasmuch as such issue had been kept open for decision

of the Tribunal. In present case too, withdrawal of the Writ Petition

was permitted by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay with liberty to

approach this Tribunal on the ‘same cause of action’ which would

indicate that whatever cause of action had triggered at the time of

filing of the said Writ Petition, was the same and was the starting

point for the purpose of limitation in respect of present Appeal or

any other remedy which the Appellants could have availed of.

Considering this aspect of the matter, we find that the Appeal is

filed beyond period of limitation, as envisaged under Section 16 of

the NGT Act, 2010. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, has

referred to observations in Ms. Medha Patkar Vs MoEF and Ors in the

Judgment of Hon’ble Principal Bench, passed in Appeal No. 1 of

2013. The Hon’ble Principal Bench elaborately considered the

issue of limitation by referring to the expression “communicaton”

and the other expressions in the context of cause of action. Similar

issue is considered in

1. Janhit Seva Samiti& Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. [Misc Application

No.59 of 2011].

2. Consumer Federation Tamil Nadu v. Union of India [Appeal No.33 of

2011 (PB.NGT)]

3. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Agency v. Tamil Nadu &

Ors [Appeal No.5 of 2012 (PB, NGT)]

4. Grampanchayat Tiroda & Anr V. MoEF & Ors [Appeal No. 2 of 2013

(WZ)]


5. Aradhana Bhargav & Ors. V. MoEF & Ors [Application No.11 of 2013

(P.B 46/2013 THC)]

25. It is not necessary to elaborate the discussion on the ratio

laid down in each of the above referred Judgments. Suffice to say

that the period of limitation is circumscribed by the specific

provision of the special enactment, namely, the National Green

Tribunal Act, 2010. Obviously, this Tribunal has no discretion to

extend the period by taking aid from the general provisions of the

Limitation Act. The negative expression used in the language of

Section 16 of NGT Act, creates embargo on flexibility in the context

of the limitation available for filing of the Appeal. Having regard to

legal position enumerated hereinabove, we have no hesitation in

holding that the Appeal is barred by limitation.

26. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, we

are inclined to allow the Misc Application No.46/2013, and hold

that the Appeals are barred by limitation. Consequently, MA

No.46/2013, is allowed. The Appeals are dismissed, as being barred

by limitation. However, it is made clear that we have not considered

any issue raised in the Appeal on merits. We are of the opinion that

the Appellants have raised certain important issues, which need

consideration and have already been allowed to intervene in the

Writ Petition No.7098 of 2013, and they are at liberty to agitate the

said issues. The Misc. Application No. 46 of 2013, and both the

Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

..……………………………………………, JM (Justice V. R. Kingaonkar)


….…………………………………………, EM (Dr.Ajay A. Deshpande)

Documents

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ... - …awsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/dr___sau__nandini...Opp Cine planet Cinema, Near Sion Circle, Sion(E), Mumbai-400022. 5. Maharashtra

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ... - …awsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/dr_saunandini...Opp Cine planet Cinema, Near Sion Circle, Sion(E), Mumbai-400022. 5. Maharashtra