National Green Tribunal
K.Saravanan vs Tamilnadu Polymer Industries Park Ltd on 18 January, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.09:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Appeal No. 11 of 2020 (SZ)&
I.A. No. 13 of 2022(SZ)
(Through Video Conferencing)
IN THE MATTER OF:
K. Saravanan
...Appellant (s)
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Polymer
Industries Park Ltd. &Anr.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 18.01.2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran
For Respondent(s): Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Ramesh Venkatachalapathy for R1
Mr. G.M. Syed NurullahSheriff for R2
ORDER
I.A. No. 13 of 2022
1. The above Interlocutory Application was filed by the applicant seeking the 1 intervention of the Tribunal under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to punish the officials of the 1st respondent for committing violation of the status quo order passed by this Tribunal.
2. It is alleged in the application that as per order dated 01.12.2021while considering the I.A. No. 184 of 2021, this Tribunal re-opened the matter and then after hearing both sides directed both sides to maintain status quo till 10.12.2021. Thereafter, on 10.12.2021, the status quo order was extended till the disposal of the Appeal.
3. According to the applicant, the 1st respondent had committed violation of the status quo order passed by this Tribunal and they are putting certain pilings and laying concrete structures and construction tanks in the project area. Though, it was informed to them, they are not amenable for stopping their activities. They were doing land filing the areas with ash in order to make it appear that there was no existence of water body in that area and there is no stagnation of water. The applicant also produced certain correspondence between the applicant and the officials of the 1st respondent regarding this aspect. They have also filed additional affidavit in support of their allegations and also reply to the reply submitted by the 1 st respondent. So, they filed this application seeking following reliefs:
It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to punish the1st respondent for their failure to comply with the orders of this Hon‟ble Tribunal dated 01.12.2021 and 10.12.2021 directing the maintenance of status quo and render justice.2
4. 1st respondent has filed a detailed reply affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable. The applicant has not come with clean hands. During the pendency of the appeal, no interim order was granted by this Tribunal and after the case was reserved for Judgement, an application was filed as I.A. No. 184 of 2021 to re-open the matter to bring certain facts before this Tribunal and the allegation in this application was that they are trying to fill the low lying area where the water is stagnated and birds were seen to make it appear that it is not a part of the water body/wetland and is a dry land as claimed by them. Subsequently this Tribunal considered those aspects and passed a status quo order and there was no status quo order passed in respect of the entire project area and the officers have understood in such a way that the low lying areas should not be disturbed during the pendency of the Appeal and they are doing the work in the other areas.
5. Further, the intention of the applicant is not clean as even before coming before this Tribunal, they went to the media and this was reported in „Indian Express‟ dated 12.01.2022 under the caption " State industrial park work on despite ruling by NGT? Status quo ordered based on proof of migratory birds at Ennore site." This report was given by the appellant in this case. So according to them, they have not committed any wilful violation of the status quo order passed and they will not do any such activity as they are respecting the orders of the Tribunal. So, they prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. Heard. Mr. A. Yogeshwaran, Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant, 3 Mr. N.R. Elango, Learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ramesh Venkatachalapathy appearing for 1st respondent and Mr. G.M. Syed NurullahSheriff for 2nd respondent.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant reiterated their allegations in the application and also submitted that on account of extensive act of violation committed by them, serious environmental damage has been caused and they are trying to erase the evidence of existence of water body in that area by such illegal activities. On the other hand, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for 1st respondent submitted that the officers have understood the status quo order only in respect of the low lying area of that portion where water stagnation was projected by the applicant by producing certain video graph. The genuineness of those video graphs were also to be doubted and without getting proper evidence on those aspects, the Tribunal cannot rely on those video graph for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that it is a water body and migratory birds are coming to those areas as alleged by the Learned Counsel for the applicant. It is an extensive area which was allotted for the purpose of establishment of industrial park and 3rd party contracts were also involved for establishing certain units and if status quo is passed in respect of entire area, the entire project will come to a standstill.That aspect will also have to be considered by this Tribunal while passing any order.
8. The Learned Counsel appearing for MoEF&CC submitted that Tribunal can 4 pass appropriate orders considering the allegations made.
9. First of all, we are not able to accept the submission made by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the status quo order was passed in respect of a limited portion of low lying area alone of the project area. We are not making any opinion at this stage as to whether it is a water body or not. But the case of the applicant was that the entire area is part of river belt which is deemed to be one of the eco-sensitive zone which has to be protected and on account of large scale industrial establishment coming in those areas the eco-sensitiveness of the area has been affected and they want to protect that area. The question as to whether it is a water body/wetland or not, whether this aspect has been properly understood by the SEIAA while issuing environmental clearance etc are matters to be considered by this Tribunal while considering the appeal.
10.But however, since the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that it was due to some misunderstanding of the status quo order passed by this Tribunal limiting to low lying area alone, certain works have been carried on and that cannot be treated as a wilful violation of the status quo order passed by this Tribunal, this Tribunal wants to clarify the same. Though under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as this Tribunal had found as per order in M.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2021 that no prosecution can be taken by this Tribunal itself under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 but at the same time during the 5 pendency of the proceedings if any interim order has been passed, invoking the principlesof Order 39 Rule 2(A), this Tribunal can consider those aspects and pass appropriate punishment. But however, for the purpose of convicting a person for violation of the interim injunction order passed, the Tribunal must satisfy that there is deliberate, wilful violation of the order. If there is any possibility of any misunderstanding of the order passed and something has been done by them on that basis, then that cannot be treated as a wilful violation of the order passed by this Tribunal. So under such circumstances, by clarifying the misunderstanding of the 1st respondent that the status quo order passed by this Tribunal is only in respect of limited area of low lying area where water stagnation was projected by the appellant, we clarify the same that it is not in respect of that area alone. Once this Tribunal intend to pass a status quo order, this Tribunal is considering the entire project area and not limited to the particular area alone. So, the status quo order passed by this Tribunal is extended to the entire project area and the project proponent is directed to maintain the status quo of the entire project area till the disposal of the appeal by this Tribunal. Since, certain activities have been carried out by the officials of the 1st respondent on the basis of the misunderstanding of the status quo order passed by this Tribunal, we feel that it is not a fit case where any penal action will have to be taken against the officials but at the same time they are directed to maintain status quo of the entire project area till the Appeal is disposed of by this Tribunal. 6
11.Though, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and Hon‟ble High Courts had come heavily on media trial of cases which are pending before the Tribunal, but such practices are being continued which we are not able to restrict. The media trial has been deprecated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and Hon‟ble High Courts on several occasions.
12.With the above observations and directions, I.A. No. 13 of 2022 is disposed of.
13.Registry is directed to communicate this order to the 1 st respondent, so that they cannot pretend ignorance of the order passed by this Tribunal immediately.
Appeal No. 11 of 2020
14. I.A. No. 13 of 2022 is disposed of vide separate order.
15.Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents. Parties are at liberty to file additional written submission, if any, and they are at liberty to file the same within three days.
16.Heard. Judgement Reserved.
...................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ................................E.M. (Dr.Satyagopal Korlapati) Appeal No.11/2020(SZ)& I.A. No. 13 of 2022(SZ) 18th January, 2022. AM.
7