National Green Tribunal
Sushant Subhash More vs M/S Hotel Sahyadri Puspa Through Mr. ... on 4 September, 2023
Item No.2 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.37 OF 2023 (WZ)
Sushant Subhash More .... Applicant
Versus
M/s Hotel Sayadri Puspa & Ors. ....Respondents
Date of hearing : 04.09.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Asim Sarode, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Raghvendra Kulkarni, Advocate holding for
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Respondent Nos.16,
22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38,
39, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 62, 65, 67, 72, 82, 86
and 93
Ms. Kirti Bhoite, Advocate, representing Economic
Laws Practice, Advocates & Solicitors, for R-21
Mr. Nitin Deshpande, Advocate along with
Mr. Sudhakar S. Bhosale, SDO for R-101
Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-102
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-103
ORDER
1. From the side of the applicants, learned counsel Mr. Asim Sarode has appeared and states that service affidavit has been filed, as per which the notices have been served upon respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 7, 9 to 18, 22, 24 to 28, 31, 32, 35 to 37, 39 to 42, 44 to 52, 54, 58, 62, 64, 65, 67 to 69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 80, 85 to 87, 90, 92 to 95, 97, 98, 100 and 101 and the proof of service i.e. track consignment has been filed. Therefore, we find that the service of notice on above respondents is sufficient. [NPJ] Page 1 of 4
2. Mr. Sarode, learned counsel further submits that respondent Nos.3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 48, 55, 56, 66, 74, 78, 81, 84 and 89 were also sent notices by registered post. Out of them, some have returned with an endorsement "refused". He seeks time to submit an affidavit to the effect that who out of these respondents mentioned above have refused to receive notice and on the returned registered envelopes, what are the other endorsements made. As regards the endorsement `refused', we can very well hold the service sufficient on those respondents who have refused to receive the registered notices, but on remaining respondents, the service would have to be effected dasti by the applicant.
3. Therefore, we direct learned counsel for the applicant to submit an affidavit within seven days disclosing as to who amongst the above respondents have refused to receive the notices and on remaining respondents, we direct him to effect service dasti, returnable within four weeks and file service affidavit to the effect that he has complied with the order of this Tribunal, within one week next.
4. From the side of respondent No.21 - Mr. Farukh Nariman Koopar, vakalatnama has been filed in the name of the firm "Economic Laws Practice, Advocates & Solicitors". But we do not find it to be appropriate. We want the exact name of the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.21. Today, learned counsel Ms. Kirti Bhote has appeared and submits that she would file her vakalatnama within a week. She also prays for four weeks' time to file the reply-affidavit. The same is allowed.
5. From the side of respondent No.2 - M/s Sai Shivar, learned counsel Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan has appeared and says that he would be filing his vakalatnama during the course of the day and seeks four weeks' time to file the reply-affidavit. The same is allowed.
6. From the side of respondent Nos. 16, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 62, 65, 67, 72, 82, 86 and 93, learned [NPJ] Page 2 of 4 counsel Mr. Raghvendra Kulkarni, holding brief of Mr. Rahul Garg, learned counsel has appeared and says that Mr. Rahul Garg has filed vakalatnama for all these respondents, who is being represented today by him (Mr. Raghvendra Kulkarni) and he would also be representing respondent No.69 i.e. M/s Shrileela Resort (Agro Tourism) through Mr. Ravindra Chandru Mane, but he says that name of Ravindra Chandru Mane has been wrongly mentioned. The same should be "Shripati Chandru Mane". We direct the learned counsel for the applicant to move necessary amendment in the name of respondent No.69 and grant opportunity to the learned counsel to file reply-affidavit of respondent No.69 within four weeks. From the side of above mentioned respondents also, reply affidavit be filed within four weeks.
7. From the side of respondent No.102 - MPCB, learned counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi has appeared and seeks four weeks' time to file the reply-affidavit. The same is allowed.
8. From the side of respondent No.101 - District Collector, Satara, learned counsel Mr. Nitin Deshpande has appeared and states that he has filed the reply through e-mail, but we direct him to e-file the same within a week. Copy of the same shall be served upon all the parties.
9. From the side of respondent No.103 - State Environment Department, learned standing counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni has appeared and seeks four weeks' time to file the reply-affidavit. The same is allowed.
10. It transpired that as per the allegation made in paragraph No.2 of the application, the area where the illegal construction is said to be going on or has been done, is a reserved forest area. Therefore, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Satara appears to be the necessary party to be impleaded in this case. We direct the applicant to implead the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Satara as party-respondent No.104 in the Original Application today itself and direct the Registry to issue notice to the newly added respondent No.104, returnable within four weeks.
[NPJ] Page 3 of 4
11. The applicant is directed to provide copies of the Original Application and annexures thereto to the newly impleaded respondent No.104. He is also directed to take necessary steps for service upon respondent No.104 by both ways and also through available e-mail.
12. We further direct that all the documents which have been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant be served on the learned counsel of other parties today only. After receipt of the reply-affidavits, the rejoinder thereto, if any may be filed within one week.
13. Put up this matter for further consideration on 04.12.2023.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM September 04, 2023 O.A. No.37/2023(WZ) npj [NPJ] Page 4 of 4