National Green Tribunal
Pratap Lal Teli vs Member Secretary Envoronment Impact ... on 26 September, 2023
Item No.7 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.54/2017(WZ)
Pratap Lal Teli
.....Applicant
Versus
Member Secy., SEIAA & Ors.
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 26.09.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Aditya Pratap, Advocate
Respondent(s) : Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/SEIAA
Mr. Raghvendra Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Mr. Sameer Khale,
Advocate for R-2/MCGM
Mr. Parikshit Desai, Advocate for R-3/PP
ORDER
1. Today, this matter is listed for final hearing. The learned Counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni for respondent No.1/SEIAA has brought to our notice that there is another matter pending before us being Original Application No.31/2015(WZ) (Chetak Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), where-in the applicant of that Original Application has sought relief against the respondent Nos.8 to 11 to the effect that the permissions granted to them for construction of the subject development project be declared to be illegal.
2. On perusal of the contents of that Original Application, we find that the subject property in that application is constructed over plot nos. CTS No.C1629-A1/10 (part) 318, CTS No.1381, CTS No. C1382 C and CTS No.C1378A situated at Village: Danda, Pali Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai respectively, which are being done by the Sandhu Page 1 of 5 Builders/respondent No.3 and in that Original Application, the next date for further consideration is fixed to be 23.01.2024.
3. In the present Original Application, the CTS Numbers mentioned are 1381, 1382/C, 1378/A, 1629A/1-10, Village: Bandra, Pali Hill Road, Mumbai. Therefore, we find that few plot numbers appear to be common, over which the allegation of illegal construction is said to have been done. We proposed to the learned Counsel for applicant that this matter should be taken up for hearing with the Original Application No.31/2015(WZ) but the said learned Counsel resisted and said that these two matters be taken up separately.
4. Pursuant to the insistence of learned Counsel for applicant, we gave him an opportunity of hearing by way of final argument and he took us through the prayer clause made in the amended application dated 22.12.2022, where-in he read out prayers (a to f), which included the amended prayers as well. He pointed out specifically with respect to the prayer (a), by which it is prayed by him that orders may be issued to the respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation not to issue any permission including an Occupancy Certificate till the time of this Original Application is decided and that an order be issued directing the respondent No.3 to stop all type of construction activities.
5. In the light of above prayer, we made a pointed query from the learned Counsel for applicant, as to whether the construction has already been completed or is still going on, to which he responded that since the Completion Certificate has been issued, therefore, it may be presumed that the construction work is over.
6. Pursuant to that response, we asked from the learned Counsel for applicant, as to why prayer no.(a) with respect to seeking direction to stop construction be not treated infructuous/redundant, to which he Page 2 of 5 responded that at the time, when he had filed this application, the said prayer was maintainable.
7. During the course of argument, the learned Counsel for applicant took us through the pleadings given in para no.2.7, where-in it is pointed out that the approval taken from the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.3 with respect to the construction was obtained on a blank application form, which has been annexed as Annexure A-3 to the said application. He took us through the said annexure, which begins from page no.28 of the paper book and has pointed out that the information, which was required to be furnished in front of serial nos.2 to 23, are left blank, which were required to be filled up specifically but in front of these serial numbers, is recorded "as per the documents/plan attached".
8. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the information, which was required to be filled up at serial nos.2 to 23, instead of filling the same, specifically, it appears to have been provided as per the documents and the plans attached. But the learned Counsel for applicant submits that even those documents and plans were not attached and that Commencement Certificate was prayed to be issued despite this information not having been given.
9. Pursuant to this, we had to verify from the pleadings of the other respondents and tried to know from the learned Counsel for respondent No.3, as to what was the response given to the averments made in para no.2.7 of the amended application of the applicant, the said learned Counsel took us through its reply affidavit dated 12.04.2023, where-in, in para no.(o), it is submitted that he denies that the approval for construction was obtained on a blank statutory application form. A bare perusal of the application form (Annexure 'A-3') would show that the relevant fields in the said application form were answered by the answering respondent by giving reference to the documents attached to Page 3 of 5 the said Application Form. The applicant has deliberately stated the same with a view to mislead and prejudice this Tribunal and has made false statement on oath.
10. It is further submitted in this reply affidavit by the respondent No.3 that the applicant has not disclosed as to how he obtained the said document from the concerned authority as the same does not bear a stamp that the same has been obtained pursuant to an application under RTI Act, 2005.
11. After having perused the response of the respondent No.3/Project Proponent, we tried to know from the learned Counsel for respondent No.2/MCGM, who is present before us, as to what was the response given by it of the allegation/averment made in para no.2.7 by the applicant, to which he took us to its reply affidavit dated 25.09.2017 in para no.6. But we find that no specific response has been given in the said para of this affidavit. It is very disturbing for us to note that the respondent No.2 failed to give para-wise reply of the allegations made by the applicant in their reply affidavit. Therefore, we direct the respondent No.2 to give para- wise reply of the allegations/averments made by the applicant within a period of two weeks.
12. At this stage, we had no option but to defer the hearing of this matter.
13. At the time of passing of this order, the learned Counsel for applicant has stated that he had never argued that the documents/plan were not submitted by the respondent No.3 before respondent No.2, rather he intended to mean by his argument that the information, which was required at serial nos.2 to 23, was required to be filled up specifically after culling out from the documentary evidences, which were attached.
14. Be that as it may, we adjourn the hearing of this matter at this stage and expect the respondent No.2 to give para-wise reply of the Page 4 of 5 averments made by the applicant in his Original Application, within a period of two weeks.
15. We also noticed during hearing of the arguments of the learned Counsel for parties that huge difficulty was confronted by us in locating the replies given by the applicant as well as the respondents because of the continuation pagination not being proper. Therefore, we direct all the parties in this case to have the pagination done of their respective documents, in accordance with the pagination done by the Registry at our end so that on the next date of hearing, we do not find any kind of confusion in referring to the documents.
16. At the beginning of argument, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has prayed that this matter may be adjourned because the arguing Counsel Shri R. Subramanian is not available today. In view of the prayer made by the learned Counsel for respondent No.3, we adjourn the hearing of this matter today.
17. Registry is directed to place this matter along-with Original Application No.31/2015(WZ) on 23.01.2024.
18. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM September 26, 2023 Original Application No.54/2017(WZ) P.Kr Page 5 of 5