National Green Tribunal
Sri. Shankar Narayanan Bala Krishnan vs State Of Telangana on 19 September, 2021
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.O1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 199 of 2021 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Sri. Shankar Narayanan Bala Krishna
Telangana and others. ..Applicant(s)
Verstis
Rep. by its Ck
Hyderabad y
HON'BI
For Applican
FOC Le
Mrs. H. Yaémeen Ali for RS, R7 & R8
1. The grievance in this application is regarding the non-implementation of
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in its letter and spirit in the State of
Telangana, especially in Jawahar Nagar, Hyderabad and also non-
1
implementation of the directions issued by the Principal Bench of National
Green Tribunal in this regard in O.A. No. 606 of 2018. In spite of several
directions issued and though the Telangana State Pollution Control Board
(TSPCB) had issued certain directions to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation (GHMC) to implem he Solid Waste Management Rules,
2016 and also the direction he Principal Bench of National
Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 60 nd also non- disposal of the waste
collected in a scientific mar der the Solid Waste
2,
Manageme ries |
tors \re
(@
"us"letter and
onycr, 1986,
fon) Act 1974, Air
seecurs, there is the offence
: © distinction between the two kinds of offences is
between an act oromission' which constitutes an offence and for
all and an act or omission which continues and _ therefore,
constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it
continues. In case of a continuing offence, there is thus the
ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the
case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is
committed once and for all."
In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient
of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an
offence which takes place when an act of omission if
committed once and for all.
This Hon'ble Tribunal has held in the matter of Forward
Foundation, A Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. State of
All (JD NGT Reporter (2) (Delhi)
is that in law of limitation, it is
only the injury alone ant and not the consequences of
the injury. If th
~~ there is né:
causes the injury which is
dimitation
oe ake
on multiple cause of action, peg.
=
Began to run from the eatewhen the right teu ugeessive violation of the right may nots ON SOF SP 3 of .{re@SNcause which by thay e the. applican right to sue. It may have cs itself would pro even be de hors the.first cause-of-action or the first wrong by which the right to sue accrues. Commission of breach or infringement may give recurring and fresh cause of action with each of such infringement like infringement of a trade mark. Every rejection of a right in law could be termed as a recurring cause of action , [Ref: Ex. Sep. Roop Singh Vs. Union of India and Others., 2006 (91) DRJ 324, M/s. Bengal Waterproof Limited Vs. M/s. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Another, (1997) 1 SCC 99].
32. The Principle that emerges from the above discussion is that the 'cause of action' satisfying the ingredients for an action which might arise subsequently to an earlier give result of accrual of fresh right to sue and hence reckoning of fresh period of limitation. A recurri tinuous cause of action may give rise to a fresh causé "ing in fresh accrual of right to sue. In such case ent wrong or injury would be independent of the ng or injury and a subsequent, composite. and comp] ction would not be hit by the SA SOF Municipal Solid 4 Waste dump yard to a oy ~~ § g inp time bound a&y plan. according tot ye he, ementation of the compliance of the conditions imposed in Environment Clearance, CFO etc., (IV)Direct the Respondent of State and Central Government to take the assistance of suitable agencies including institutes similar to IIMs to assess the massive financial loss caused to the residents, assets, soil, ground water, ambient ait, business, health of people etc., due 4 to environmental pollution caused by Jawahar Nagar Integrated waste management facility.
(V)Direct the Respondent of State of Telangana to shift the dumping activity as per the directions of Telangana State PCB, (VD Direct the Respondents of State of Telangana to provide clean water for drinking, d poses, agriculture, dairy etc., purposes in the impaé ahar Nagar Integrated Waste Management facility, (VIDDirect the State of facilities tae victims Nag Antegrated Was and GHMC to provide free health ¢,satisfied ww < quires the a "¥ He Oo " = ser wih acknowledgement on them by filing proof affidavit as per rules.
4. The applicant is also directed to serve a copy of the application along with the documents produced to the standing counsel appearing for the official respondents within a week and produce proof of such service, so as to enable them to get instruction for filing their independent response to avoid delay.
. The applicant is also directed to produce necessary requisite along with postal cover and the necessary postal stamps before this Tribunal within a through Tribunal, to ensure they did not appear in their ab ordance with law.
. In the mean time, the Telan a oe bad Mun 2ollution Control Board (TSPCB) and the Gre "ts SS SS "Gg SS ww Fes Bice reports to this am 4 Issby e- filing in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF along with necessary hard copies to be produced as per rules. . The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the official respondents including the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB) along with the copy of the application immediately through e-mail, for their information and compliance of the direction.
. For appearance of parties, for filing their independent response and also for consideration of report, post on 08.10.2021.
Sd/--
boseceecssccceesssseecessesuaanesess J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan)