National Green Tribunal
Cavelossim Villagers Forum vs The State Of Goa Through Its Chief ... on 21 July, 2023
Item No.3 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
APPEAL NO.54 OF 2022 (WZ)
WITH
I.A.NO.24/2023 IN APPEAL NO.54/2022
Cavelossim Villagers Forum .... Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
State of Goa through Chief Secretary & Ors. .... Respondents
Date of Hearing : 21.07.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant/Applicant : Ms. Laxmi Desai, Advocate
Respondents : Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-1 and R-7
Mr. Dhruv Tank, Advocate for R-4
Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Advocate for R-5 and R-6
ORDER
I.A. NO.24/2023 (WZ) :
1. From the side of the appellant/applicant, learned counsel Ms. Laxmi Desai has appeared today for the first time and submits that she has received the brief of this appeal today only from earlier counsel and from now onwards, she would be representing the appellant/applicant.
She further submits that she would file vaklatnama during course of the day after taking no objection from the earlier counsel.
2. The record reveals that the service-affidavit has already been filed from the side of the appellant/applicant, as per which the service is sufficient on all the respondents.
[NPJ] Page 1 of 5
3. From the side of respondent No.1 - State of Goa through Chief Secretary and respondent No.7 - the Water Resource Department, learned counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi has appeared and states that she does not want to file objection against the application for condonation of delay.
4. From the side of respondent No.2 - the Village Panchayat, Cavelossim and respondent No.3 - the Senior Town Planner, none has appeared.
5. From the side of respondent No.4 - GCZMA, learned counsel Mr. Dhruv Tank has appeared and states that he has already filed reply to the delay condonation application.
6. From the side of respondent No.5 - Mrs. Radha Satish Timblo and respondent No. 6 - M/s Shree Balaji Concepts, learned counsel Mr. Preetam Talaulikar has appeared and states that he has filed reply to the delay condonation application.
7. By this application, the applicant has pleaded that the applicant received the impugned order on 14.09.2022 through post and in order to file appeal, he immediately on 15.09.2022 contacted the Advocate namely Shri Bazilio Pacheco, who was detected jaundice and was unwell from 20.09.2022 to 29.10.2022 and that the doctor advised him rest. According to the applicant, 30 days' period to file appeal expired on 14.10.2022. Hence, there is delay of 30 days in filing this appeal. There is no willful delay on his part and therefore, the same may be condoned.
8. From the side of respondent Nos.5 and 6, learned counsel Mr. Preetam Talaulikar has submitted that the present application for condonation of delay is filed on untrue and fabricated grounds. He has [NPJ] Page 2 of 5 been served with a copy of Medical Certificate dated 29.10.2022 on 17.07.2023, which was issued by a doctor from Graca Polyclinic and Pathology Laboratory, whose qualification is B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery). According to the learned counsel, it is not understandable as to how a doctor can give treatment to an Advocate for an ailment which can be cured only through allopathic treatment. The Medical Certificate filed by the appellant/applicant is totally silent as to whether the doctor admitted Advocate Mr. Basilio Pacheco in the hospital or not. Even Doctor's name is not clearly visible. The said certificate is concocted. Hence this application deserves to be rejected.
9. From the side of respondent No.4 - GCZMA, counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is submitted that the ground raised for condonation of delay must meet "sufficient test" enumerated in Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai; (2012) 5 SCC 157, relevant paragraph of which is quoted therein in order to help this Court assess as to what "sufficient cause" would mean and how it should be interpreted.
10. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.5 and 6. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel and others; (1996)4 SCC 332, wherein he has placed reliance on paragraph Nos.36 to 38, which read as follows:
36. A combined reading of the aforesaid Acts, namely, the Bombay Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1959, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 indicates that a person who is registered under the Bombay Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1959 can practice Homoeopathy only and that he [NPJ] Page 3 of 5 cannot be registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or under the State Act, namely, the Maharashtra Medical Council, Act, 1965, because of the restriction on registration of persons not possessing the requisite qualification. So also, a person possessing the qualification mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the Maharashtra Medical Counsel Act, 1965 cannot be registered as a Medical Practitioner under the Bombay Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1959, as he does not possess any qualification in Homoeopatnic System of Medicine. The significance of mutual exclusion is relevant inasmuch as the right to practice in any particular system of medicine is dependent upon registration which is permissible only if qualification) and that too, recognised qualification, is possessed by a person in that System.
37. It is true that in all the aforesaid Systems of Medicine, the patient is always a human being. It is also true that Anatomy and Physiology of every human being all over the world, irrespective of the country, the habitat and the region to which he may belong, is the same. He has the same faculties and same systems. The Central Nervous System, the Cardio-Vascular System, the Digestive and Reproductive systems etc. are similar all over the world. Similarly, Emotions, namely, anger, sorrow, happiness, pain etc. are naturally possessed by every human being.
38. But merely because the Anatomy and Physiology are similar, it does not mean that a person having studied one System of Medicine can claim to treat the patient by drugs of another System which he might not have studied at any stage. No doubt, study of Physiology and Anatomy is common in all Systems of Medicines and the students belonging to different Systems of Medicines may be taught physiology and Anatomy together, but so far as the study of drugs is concerned, the pharmacology of all systems is entirely different."
11. We are not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 because in the affidavit filed on behalf of these respondents, it is submitted that how a doctor, who is having qualification of B.A.M.S. could treat an Advocate for the ailment which can be cured only through allopathic treatment. There is no reason why the patient could not be treated by a B.AM.S. doctor who seeks treatment. In the present case, since the counsel for the appellant/applicant was said to be sick, who has consulted a Medical Practitioner with qualification of B.A.M.S., should not be treated to be [NPJ] Page 4 of 5 telling a lie. Accordingly, in our estimation, the delay, which is sought to be condoned, appears to be for genuine ground. Hence, the delay is condoned. I.A. No.24/2023 (WZ) is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
12. Put up this matter (Appeal No.54/2022 (WZ) for admission on 31.07.2023.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM July 21, 2023 APPEAL NO.54 OF 2022 (WZ) npj [NPJ] Page 5 of 5