Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mr Aman Sethi vs State (Environment Dep )Ors on 30 January, 2017
Bench: K.S. Jhaveri, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1629 / 2016
Mr. Aman Sethi, Sole Proprietor of M/s FGM Mining &
Infrastructure Co., Aged About 45 Years, 30, Ishwar Nagar, New
Delhi
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Deputy Secretary, Department of
Environment, Government of Rajasthan
2. Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Rajasthan
Through Its Director,, Bharatpur
3. District Collector,, Bharatpur
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil, Kama, District Bharatpur
5. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Through Its Member
Secretary,, Having Its Office At 4, Jhalana Institutional Area,
Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rafique Dada Senior Counsel with Mr. Jaideep Singh For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment / Order 30/01/2017
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment & order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the application for recalling the order dated 16th April, 2013, which reads as under:-
"Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of (2 of 3) [SAW-1629/2016] this court to withdraw the petition and instead approach the National Green Tribunal. In view of the submission made, the petition is dismissed as withdraw with liberty as prayed for. Stay application also stands dismissed."
2. However, the appellant has approached the National Green Tribunal which has declined to entertain the application of the petitioner and the same was disposed off on the ground of delay and it was made clear that it will be open for him to approach this Court. The order of National Green Tribunal is produced on record as Annexure-2, whereby vide order dated 7th May, 2015, the National Green Tribunal has observed as under:-
"16.It is like rejection or return of a plaint under the procedure of Order VII of the CPC to the applicant for its institution in the court of competent jurisdiction. Firstly, it cannot be said that the High Court is not a court of competent jurisdiction. Secondly, in the case of Wilfred J. & Anr. v. MoEF & Anr. M.A. No. 182 of 2014 & M.A. No. 239 of 2014 in Appeal No. 14 of 2014 and M.A. No. 277 of 2014 in Original Application NO. 74 of 2014 decided on July 17, 2014, a five- Member Bench of the Tribunal have already taken the view that the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, is no way affected by coming into force of the NGT in light of the NGT Act.
17. The impugned direction or orders that are challenged before the Tribunal are of 11th September, 2012 and 6th November, 2012 respectively. The appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order or its communication, which should have been filed on or before 6th December, 2012, or at best by 15th December, 2012, if the averment of the applicant that he was communicated the order on 15 th November, 2012 is accepted. However, the appeal is filed on 8th May, 2013, which is even beyond the total period of 90 days, as prescribed in proviso to Section 16 of the NGT Act.
18. The appeal has been filed after 175 days of the admitted communication of the order dated 6 th November, 2012. Even if for the sake of (3 of 3) [SAW-1629/2016] arguments, 94 days as prayed are excluded, still the appeal has been filed with a delay of 51 days, i.e. beyond the 30 days period which is the prescribed limitation. There is no explanation, much less a sufficient cause shown for condonation of 51 days delay in filing the appeal. Even if we, for the sake of arguments, take the view that the appellant is entitled to consideration of the application for condonation of delay in terms of proviso to Section 16 of the NGT Act, still, the appeal would be liable to be dismissed as being barred by time.
19. Thus, we find no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant. The application M.A. No. 896/2014 is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. Since we have declined to condone the delay as prayed, the application M.A. No. 896/2014 is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
3. Against which SLP was preferred and SLP was not entertained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed summarily on 2nd July, 2015. Thereafter, the review application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
4. However, in view of the provisions of Order 47 CPC, we are not entertaining this appeal. However, the contention raised by the petitioner/appellant regarding this matter is required to be considered in appropriate judicial reform but for lack of jurisdiction, we cannot entertain the appeal.
5. The appeal stands disposed off.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. A.Sharma/3