National Green Tribunal
Dileep vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 15 October, 2024
Item No.8 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.25/2023 (WZ)
I.A. No.139/2023(WZ) & I.A. No.150/2023(WZ)
Dileep B. Nevatia
.....Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
....Respondents
Date of hearing: 15.10.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Applicant in-person
Respondents : Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC
Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2/MCZMA
Mr. Sameer Khale, Advocate for R-4/MCGM &
R-7/Chief Fire Officer
Mr. Saket Mone, Advocate along-with
Ms. Anchita Nair, Advocate for R-8 to 12/PP
ORDER
1. From the side of the applicant, applicant has appeared in-person before us through Video Conferencing.
2. In compliance with our previous order dated 04.09.2024, the learned counsel Mr. Sameer Khale representing respondent No.4-MCGM and respondent No.7- Chief Fire Officer, Mumbai fire brigade has submitted a report dated 08.10.2024 before this Tribunal, stating therein that the joint inspection of the site in question was carried out along-with staff of B.P. (City) on 19.09.2024, during which following details were observed:-
Page 1 of 3
3. In view of above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 7 that the FSI Violation on site as per joint site visit was found to be 1423.39 sq. mtrs., which is being disputed by the applicant saying that the same is just double and it is close to 3,000 sq. mtrs. Therefore, applicant prays before us that the respondent Nos.4 & 7 may be directed to file a Plan of File No.16330/2023/(730)/G/ Sough/Worli in order to ascertain the correct area, within four weeks.
4. In the above-mentioned report, it is also stated that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No.18045 of 2023 has passed following order on 11.07.2023:-
"
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Corporation and also learned counsel for Respondent No.5, who appear by giving notice on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith for final disposal by consent of parties.
3. In response to the impugned show cause notice, the Petitioner has already filed regularization application under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. This application is of the date of 31st May, 2023. So it is quite clear that till the time the application is decided by the Corporation, Corporation is not expected to act upon the impugned show cause notice. It is also clear that an appropriate decision in accordance with law on the regularization application would have to be taken by the Corporation at the earliest.
4. That being so, we are of the view that purpose of this petition would stand served by issuing the following directions:
(i). Respondent No.4 is directed to decide the regularization application dated 26th May, 2023 filed by the Petitioner, which was received by the Commissioner on 31st May, 2023 at the earliest, in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.Page 2 of 3
(ii). We direct that, if felt necessary by the Petitioner, the Petitioner shall be permitted to file additional documents, if any.
(iii). We further direct that the final order that would be passed by Respondent No.4 in pursuance of these directions shall be communicated in writing to the Petitioner.
(iv). We further direct that till the time decision is taken on the regularization application of the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice.
(v). We further direct that in case the final decision to be rendered by Respondent No.4 goes against the Petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner for a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of such an order by the Petitioner.
(vi). Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the above terms."
5. In view of above-mentioned order, it is quite clear that since regularization application is pending before the respondent No.4, which has to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law and it is also clear that a direction is issued that till the decision is taken on the regularization application, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner, we have to await the process of the regularization application to be completed by the respondent No.4-MCGM and thereafter only, we can proceed in this matter. Therefore, we direct the respondent No.4- MCGM to inform us about the decision taken on the said application.
6. We direct the Registry to fix this matter for further consideration tentatively on 05.02.2025, as prayed by the applicant.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM October 15, 2024 Original Application No.25/2023 (WZ) I.A. No.139/2023(WZ) & I.A. No.150/2023(WZ) P.Kr Page 3 of 3