BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL. Original Application No. 27/2014 (CZ)

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL Original Application No. 27/2014 (CZ) CORAM: Hon ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh (Judicial Member) Hon ble Mr. P.S.Rao (Expert Member) BETWEEN: 1. Niraj Mishra S/o Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Aged about 28years, Occupation Social Worker, R/o D-26, Harduli Colony, Bargi Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)...Applicant Versus 1. Union of India Through Director, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryawaran Bhawan,C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 2. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Chief Manager Jhabua Power Co. Ltd., Gram Barela, Tehsil Ghansor, District Seoni (M.P.), Head Office 2 nd Floor, Cenrum Plaza, Golf Course Road, Sector-3, Gurgaon, Haryana Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Nodal Officer, Department of Forest, Madhya Pradesh, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) Page 1 of 5

2 5. Forest Divisional Officer North Seoni (General), District Seoni (M.P.) 6. Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board Through Regional Officer, Plot No. 455/456, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.).Respondents Counsel for Applicant : Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Counsel for Respondent No.6 : Counsel for Respondent No.2, 4 : & 5 None appeared Shri Om S Srivastava, Advocate Shri Shivendu Joshi, Advocate for Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, Advocate Shri Sachin K Verma, Advocate Dated : April 30 th, 2014 Delivered by Hon ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh, Judicial Member 1. This Original Application was registered as OA No. 27/2014 on transfer of Writ Petition No. 6999/2013 (PIL) to this Tribunal by the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur vide its order dated The applicant has made two fold prayer one for quashing of order for establishment of power plant by the Respondent No. 3 and second for direction to the Respondents to get the necessary rules complied with to avoid Air, Water & Land Pollution. 3. The Writ Petition was filed before the Hon ble High Court on and the notices were ordered to be issued after which the Respondent No. 3 put in appearance before the Hon ble High Court on and filed their return before the Hon ble High Court on Page 2 of 5

3 4. As per the reply submitted by the Respondent No. 3, the Environmental Clearance (in short EC) was granted to the Respondent No. 3 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, vide its communication (Annexure R-3/6) dtd in accordance with the procedure prescribed under EIA notification of with the Corrigendum issued subsequently on (Annexure A-3/7) and a further corrigendum issued on Since under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 the period of limitation is prescribed under Section 16 and the Writ Petition in this case having been presented before the Hon ble High Court on i.e. much beyond the period of limitation, even if it is considered with effect from the date of issue of last corrigendum on , it would be barred by limitation. The mere fact that notices were ordered to be issued by the Hon ble High Court to the Respondents after entertaining the writ petition would not, in our considered opinion alter the position as even if the appellant was to show sufficient cause, which has not been done in the instant case the Tribunal cannot extend the limitation period beyond 90 (30+60) days as provided in the provisio of the Section 16 of the NGT Act, The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 came into force on having received the assent of the President of India on Therefore, the remedy under the statute was that of filing an appeal under the Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 before the Tribunal and not by way of Writ Petition. A statutory remedy by way of appeal which could not be availed by the applicant on account of being barred by limitation and it could not have been resorted to under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Page 3 of 5

4 6. Therefore, in our view mere filing of the writ petition beyond limitation period and it being entertained by the Hon ble High Court, cannot confer jurisdiction for entertaining the appeal against the grant of EC which is otherwise barred by limitation under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and there is a valuable right which has accrued to the Respondent No. 3 as per the material placed on record. As per the reply, the Respondent No. 3 has made substantial investment and has proceeded with the construction of the plant which is in advanced stage. Interfering with EC at such late stage would be highly prejudicial and detrimental to the interests of the Respondent No In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the relief sought against the grant of the EC dated , and , the latter two being corrigendums only, cannot be entertained having been barred by limitation. 8. Having dealt with the first prayer we now proceed to examine the second prayer that is with respect to the non-observance of the EC conditions. 9. The Learned Counsels appearing for the Respondent 1 and Respondent 6 submitted that during the period of construction the Project Proponent is required to submit the six monthly progress reports and the authorities of Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forests are required to examine the same and take necessary action in case of violation or deviations from the EC conditions. It was submitted before us that in the absence of any specific violation of EC the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 6 have to carefully examine the reports submitted by the Project Proponent and action has to be taken against the Project Proponent in accordance with law in case of any specific violation of EC conditions. Page 4 of 5

5 10. Since the Applicant has chosen not to appear before this Tribunal despite notice having been issued to the Applicant and no specific allegation has been averred with respect to violation/deviation from EC conditions, we direct the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 6 to consider the report submitted to them by the Project Proponent and they shall be at liberty to inspect the site as well and if they find any instance of violation of EC conditions then they shall take necessary action in accordance with law. 11. This OA accordingly stands disposed of with the liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application before this Tribunal concerning any new instances of breach of EC conditions by the Project Proponent. The Original Application No. 27/2014 accordingly stands disposed of. Bhopal April 30 th, 2014 (Mr. Justice Dalip Singh) Judicial Member (Mr. P.S.Rao) Expert Member Page 5 of 5