National Green Tribunal
National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs The Secretary To Govt. Of Tamilnadu ... on 24 February, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Review Application No. 04 of 2022 (SZ)
In
Original Application No. 51 of 2020 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTERS OF:
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director
TANGEDCO,
6th Floor, TANTRANSCO Building,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002
2. Superintending Engineer.
TANGEDCO, Nilgiris EDC
New Dairy Complex, Coonoor Road,
Udhagamandalam,
Tamil Nadu- 643 001
... Applicant(s)
Versus
1. The Tribunal on its own motion
Suo motu based on the news item published in
Dinamalar Newspaper dated 27.02.2022,
Chennai Supplementary, " Elephant Indian Wild Boar
Dies of electrocution."
2. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Department of Forest,
Govt. Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai- 600 009
3. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
(Head of Department)
Panagal Maaligai, 1, Jennis Road,
Saidapet,
Chennai- 600 015
4. District Forest Officer,
Gudalur Division,
11/274, Kozhikode Salai,
Gudalur, The Nilgiris,
Tamil Nadu- 643 212
... Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 24th February, 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
Page 1 of 6
IN CHAMBER BY CIRCULATION
ORDER
Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
1. The review application has been filed by the review applicant, who is the respondents 3 and 5 in the Original Application, to review the Judgement dated 19.01.2022 under Section 19(4) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 read with Rule 22 of National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011.
2. It is alleged in the application that the above case has been suo motu registered by this Tribunal on the basis of a newspaper report wherein it was alleged that due to electrocution one elephant and some other wild animals died in Chungam Forest Divisons in Cherambadi Forest area in Pandalur, Nilgiris District. It is alleged in the newspaper report that the incident occurred due to snapping of live electric wire in that area.
3. This Tribunal also appointed a Joint Committee and the Joint Committee made an observation that the incident might have occurred due to pushing of the structure with enormous strength by the elephant and hence the jumper connecting two ends of the phase had popped out of the pin insulator and had touched the top channel of the Double Pole Structure and the elephant might have got electrocuted through the structure pole. It was also observed that the accident in question occurred not on account of any human error.
Page 2 of 6
4. They also alleged that they have given details of steps taken by them to avoid such things in future in consultation with the forest officials and they have also submitted the future action plan to this Tribunal but to the surprise of the review applicants, this Tribunal while disposing the matter imposed an Environmental Compensation of Rs. 75 lakh payable by the review applicants which according to them is against the general principles of law.
5. Further the Tribunal has no jurisdiction as it will not fall under Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the same was covered under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 which is not enumerated in Schedule-I of National Green Tribunal, 2010. Further, this will create huge financial burden on the TANGEDCO.
6. Further in view of the dictum laid down in the Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati1 "when a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him and mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and any other sufficient reason" the review jurisdiction can be exercised by the Courts. So according to the review applicants the Judgement to the extent of imposing compensation of Rs. 75 lakh against the review applicants has to be waived by reviewing the Judgement. Hence the Review Application.
7. Since, there is nothing to be considered in open court and also felt that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 Page 3 of 6 this tribunal felt that the same can be disposed of by circulation as contemplated under Rule 22 of National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011.
8. It is not a case where the question of imposition of compensation was passed by the Tribunal without giving an opportunity to the review applicants in this regard. Further, the question regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not raised by the review applicants at all. Further, they have filed their detailed statement and also filed detailed future action plan to avoid such things as directed by this Tribunal and this Tribunal had considered all those aspects and only thereafter passed the impugned Judgement.
9. Further, whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to consider the question was also discussed by this Tribunal as affecting the wildlife which play a great role in the forest ecosystem and protection of the integrity of the environment will also fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as it will amount to a substantial question of environment and held that the Tribunal can impose compensation as the definition of environment as contemplated under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is wide enough to cover these aspects as well which is one of the enactments enumerated in Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
10. Further, this Tribunal had applied the strict liability principle and then fixed the liability on the review applicants. There is no dispute regarding the dictum laid down in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Page 4 of 6 Mayawati 2 relied on by the review applicant in their review application that only reiterate under what circumstances the Tribunal can invoke the review jurisdiction to review the judgment already passed. Any observation or finding was arrived at by the Tribunal after considering the points raised by the review applicants, then it cannot be a ground for review unless they were able to establish that there was error apparent on the face of the record. This Tribunal had considered the portion of the Joint Committee report relied on by the review applicant and explained as to why the TANDGECO was responsible to pay compensation applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur and strict liability principle.
11. Further, this Tribunal had relied on a similar decision imposing compensation against the Electricity Board by the Principal Bench after considering their objections where in a similar incident some elephants died due to electrocution. There is dispute regarding the fact that the animals died due to electrocution by passing the electricity from disputed double pole established by TANDGECO. When the Tribunal had given reasons for entertaining the application and passed the order imposing compensation, then if review applicants are aggrieved by the same, their remedy is to file an appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and not filing a review application as there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the findings arrived at by this Tribunal.
2(2013) 8 SCC 320 Page 5 of 6
12. Further, review cannot be treated as a re-hearing of the case on points which has already been considered by the Tribunal after giving opportunities to the parties. So, there is no merit in the review application and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13.In the result, the Review Application fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ..................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) R.A. No. 04/2021 In O.A No.51/2020 24th February, 2022 AM.
Page 6 of 6