National Green Tribunal
A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 29 July, 2024
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.03(i) to (vi):
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Monday, the 29th day of July, 2024.
(Through Video Conference)
R.A. No.01 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 25 of 2024 (SZ) in
Appeal No.20 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.02 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 27 of 2024 (SZ) in
Appeal No.21 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.03 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 26 of 2024 (SZ) in
Appeal No.22 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.04 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 28 of 2024 (SZ) in
Appeal No.23 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.05 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 29 of 2024 (SZ) in
Appeal No.24 of 2024 (SZ)
AND
R.A. No.06 of 2024 (SZ) in
I.A. No. 30 of 2024 (SZ) in
Appeal No.25 of 2024 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
A. Thiyagaraj,
S/o. K. Arogyasamy,
4/231, Nagarakalandai Pirivu,
Dasanaikan Palayam Post,
Malaipalayam Village, Sulur Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 642 202.
... Review Applicant/
Applicant/ Appellant(s)
Versus
1) The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Rep. by its Chairman, Corporate Office,
No.76, Mount Road, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
2) The District Environmental Engineer (Coimbatore South),
Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board,
Plot No. E-55A, Kuruchi, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Pollachi Main Road,
Coimbatore - 641 021.
Page 1 of 4
3) M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited - Unit I.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road,
Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 642 202.
R.A. No.01 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited - Unit I.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road,
Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 642 202.
R.A. No.02 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Remmy Substrates India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.299/2, Kattampatti Village,
Kinathukadavu Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 642 202.
R.A. No.03 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited - Unit I.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road,
Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 642 202.
R.A. No.04 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Duinkop Enterprises Private Limited - Unit I.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.58/1, Palladam Pollachi Main Road,
Kattampatti Village, KinathuKadavu Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 642 202.
R.A. No.05 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
M/s. Remmy Substrates India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
No.299/2, Kattampatti Village,
Kinathukadavu Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 642 202.
R.A. No.06 of 2024 - Respondent No.3
...Respondent/Respondent(s)
(In all these cases)
For Review Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran.
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
Page 2 of 4
JUDGMENT
1. The above Review Applications [R.A. Nos.01 to 06 of 2024 (SZ)] are filed to review the Judgment dated 19.03.2024 in I.A. No. 25 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.20 of 2024 (SZ), I.A. No. 27 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.21 of 2024 (SZ), I.A. No. 26 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.22 of 2024 (SZ), I.A. No. 28 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.23 of 2024 (SZ), I.A. No. 29 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.24 of 2024 (SZ) and I.A. No. 30 of 2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.25 of 2024 (SZ) respectively.
2. Originally, the appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The appellant claims that they received the impugned order only on 13.09.2023.
3. Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 provides for a period of statutory limitation of 30 days and an extended period of 60 days, giving power to the Tribunal to condone when sufficient cause is shown.
4. Admittedly, the appellant has filed the appeal on 12.12.2023 i.e. on the 90th day. However, they filed an interlocutory application to condone the delay of 59 days and they have calculated it wrong.
5. While dismissing the delay condonation application, it is held that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 90 days, as the appeal was filed on the 91st day.
6. Upon perusing the record, it was found that the appeal was filed on the 90th day only. However, the appellant had filed the interlocutory applications [I.A. Nos.25 to 30 of 2024 (SZ)] for condoning the delay of 59 days. It is a mistake done by the appellant and the counsel, which has resulted in inviting the wrong order.
Page 3 of 47. Therefore, having found that it is a factual error, the Review Applications [R.A. Nos.01 to 06 of 2024 (SZ)] are allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 19.03.2024 is reviewed accordingly.
8. As a result, the interlocutory applications [I.A. Nos.25 to 30 of 2024 (SZ)] for condoning the delay in filing the appeal are allowed.
9. The Registry is directed to list the appeals [Appeal Nos.20 to 25 of 2024 (SZ)] under the caption 'For Admission'.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM R.A. No.01 to 06/2024 (SZ) in I.A. No.25 to 30/2024 (SZ) in Appeal No.20 to 25/2024 (SZ) 29th July, 2024. Mn.
Page 4 of 4