Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

National Green Tribunal

Rajendra Singh Bhandari vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 March, 2016

Author: Swatanter Kumar

Bench: Swatanter Kumar

                  BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                      PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                        Original Application No. 318 of 2013
                              (M.A. No. 1128 of 2015)

               Rajendra Singh Bhandari Vs. State of U.K. & Ors.

CORAM :    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. NAMBIAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
           HON'BLE PROF. A.R. YOUSUF, EXPERT MEMBER
           HON'BLE MR. BIKRAM SINGH SAJWAN, EXPERT MEMBER

Present:   Applicant:                 Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Adv. and Mr. Neeraj Jain,
                                      Sr. Adv.
                                      Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, Adv.
                                      Mr. M.R. Shamshad, AOR and Ms. Soumya
                                      Kumar for State of U.P.
           Respondent Nos. 3 to 5:    Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for Govt. Of

Maharashtra Ms. Alpanna Poddar, Adv. with Mr. Bhupender Kumar, LA for CPCB Mr. Vikas Malhotra, Adv. for MoEF Mr. Suryanarayan Singh, AAG for State of HP Mr. Karanveer Jindal, Adv.

Mr. Ravi Kant Pal and Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Advs. for State of Mizoram Mr. C.D. Singh and Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Advs. for State of Chattisgarh Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mr. Avneesh Arputham and Ms. Anuradha Arputham Advs. for State of Sikkim Mr. K. Enatoli Sama, Adv. fro State of Nagaland Mr. Sarthak Chaturvedi, Mr. Rohit Pandey, and Mr. D.N. Tripathi, Advs. for UT Chandigarh and for UT of Andaman & Nicobar Administration Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee and Mr. Upendra Mishra, Advs. For State of Meghalaya.

Mr. P. Venkat Reddy and Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Advs. for the State of Telangana Mr. Prnona Singh, Mr. G. Pramod Kumar, Adv. for State of Andhra Pradesh Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv. Additioanl Advocate General for State of Tamil Nadu & TNPCB & Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. for Standing Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu, TNPCB Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Adv. for Chandigarh Mr. Anil Grover, AAG with Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advs. For State of Haryana & HSPCB Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Ms. Eisha Krishn and Mr. Salik Shafique, Advs. For State of Rajasthan (RSPCB) Ms. Priyanka Sinha and Ms. Anu Tyagi, Advs. for State of Jharkhand Mr. Som Raj Choudhary, Adv. for State of Odisha Mr. Abhimanyu Garg, Adv. for Govt. of Puducherry Mr. V.K. Shukla, Adv. for State of MP Mr. Rajul Shrivastava, Adv. for MP PCB Mr. G.M. Kawoosa and Ms. Antima Bazaz, Adv. for Sate of J&K and J&K PCB Mr Devraj Ashok, Adv. for State of Karnataka Ms. Vinakshi Kadar and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advs. For State of Gujarata & GSPCB Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. for Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma and Ms. Kalyani, Advs. For State of Manipur & Manipur PCB Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. Rituraj Biswas and Ms. Varsha Poddar, Advs. For State of Tripura Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv. Mr. Sumit Razora, Adv. for UT of Lakshadweep Ms. Reegan S. Bel, Adv. for Mr. Jogy Scaria, Adv. for State of Kerala Ms. Deepika Ghatwar, Ms. Kankana Arandhare, Advs. for State of Assam Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, AG of Goa, Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, Mr. Santosh Rebello, Mr. Debarshi Bhuyan AND Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Advs. For State of Goa & GSPCB Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Mr. Sanyam Saxena, and Mr. Pranav Rishi, Advs. For State of Anunachal Pradesh and APPCB Alok Kumar, Advs. For UT of DD and DNH Dr. Abhishek Attrey, Adv. and Mr. Sumit Razora, Adv.

Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar and Mr. Parijat Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Ravikant and Mr. Dragyan Sharma, Advs. For State of Mizoram Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Mr. Prashant Kr. Advs. For State of Telengana Mr. S. Raj Choudhary, Adv. for State of Odisha Date and Orders of the Tribunal Remarks Item No. 28 In the present case the Tribunal is primarily March 15, concerned with the interpretation of Section 4 (2) (a) and 2016

(f) of the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act of ss 1974. These provisions deal with the constitution of the Board and appointment of the Chairman and Member Secretary of the Board. Various states have concluded their arguments. While we were hearing the State of U.P., the Learned Counsel appearing for the State relied upon the submissions submitted on behalf of the state, relevant part of the submissions reads as under :-

"Special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection Or Having knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid.
B. In terms of the above statutory requirement a person shall be qualified to be nominated as the Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board in case if he satisfies one of the conditions set out as under:-
a) The person has special knowledge in respect of matters relating to environmental protection.
b) The person has practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection
c) The person has knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with the matters aforesaid.

C. Accordingly it is submitted that the position of Chairman is not based upon a particular specialized degree from particular institution or a particular designation/title which he may have achieved during the course of his functioning in his/her specialized field.

With reference to clause (c) of the written submission afore-extracted, we put a question to the Learned Counsel appearing for the State, if reference to members having specialized knowledge is not based upon the basic qualification would it mean that a person who has no educational qualification whatsoever (to put it in a most rough manner he can be an illiterate) could still be appointed as a Chairman of the Board. In response to this question of the court, the Learned Counsel appearing for U.P. contended that according to the State of U.P. a person may not possess any educational qualification, but if he has experience and knowledge as contemplated under section 4 (2) (a) he would be eligible to be considered for the appointment as the Chairman, though the presently appointed Chairman is not illiterate.

List this matter tomorrow i.e. on 16th March, 2016.

..........................................,CP (Swatanter Kumar) ..........................................,JM (M.S. Nambiar) ..........................................,JM (Raghuvendra S. Rathore) ..........................................,EM (Prof. A.R. Yousuf) ..........................................,EM (B.S. Sajwan)