National Green Tribunal
Sridevi Datla vs Union Of India Rep. By Its Secretary ... on 5 July, 2022
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.1:- Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(By Chamber Circulation)
Review Application No.07 of 2022 in
Appeal No. 18 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Sridevi Datla
Aged about 49 years,
W/o DRSS Kumar Varma,
R/o Door No. 10-37-11, Ramanagar,
Vishakhapatnam - 530 002, Andhra Pradesh.
...Review Applicant/Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi- 110 003.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh
Through its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad
3. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Through the Member Secretary,
D. No. 33-26-14D/2,
Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre,
Chalamvari Street, Kasturibaipet,
Vijayawada- 520 008. Andhra Pradesh
4. M/s. Bhogapuram International Airport Corporation Limited
Through the Managing Director,
1st Floor, FDC Complex,
AC Guards, Hyderabad- 500 028.
5. GMR Vishakhapatnam International Airport Limited
Reg. office at 10-1-43,
Flat No. 2020, Second Floor,
Siripuram Fort, Siripuram,
Vishakhapatnam- 530 003.
Andhra Pradesh.
... Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 4
Date of Order: 05th July 2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
ORDER
Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member.
1. This is a Review Application filed by the Review Applicant/Appellant in Appeal No.18 of 2020 (SZ) to review the Judgment dated 09.12.2021 under Section 19 (4) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and Rule 22 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011, on the ground that the finding of this Tribunal that no Cumulative Impact Assessment of the project is necessary despite the fact that the Phase - II and III of the projects are contemplated in the near future. They may require additional land for this purpose and such a finding was against the EIA Notification, 2006.
2. The observations made by the Tribunal that airport project is not an interlinked despite clear evidence that the viability of airport depends on the interlinked components and it is impossible to have an airport with other linked and interlinked component.
3. This Tribunal had also not considered the discrepancies in the area with respect to the land requirement of the project as well as the area that will be utilized.
4. Further, this Tribunal had not properly appreciated the dictum laid down in Maheshwar Dahagam Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Para (29) of the Judgment regarding the requirement of Cumulative Impact Assessment.
5. The Review Applicant/Appellant had also relied on the dictum laid down in Kamalesh Verma Vs. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 and Sow. Chandra Kanta & Anr. Vs. Sheik Habib reported in AIR 1975 SC 1500 in support of their case.
Page 2 of 46. So, they filed this Review Application seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Review and recall the Judgment dated 09.12.2021 in Appeal No.18 of 2020;
(ii) Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."
7. Since this Tribunal felt that there is no necessity to have a detailed hearing in the Open Court, it was directed to be decided in circulation as provided under Rule 22 (3) of the National Green Tribunal (Procedure and Practice) Rules, 2011.
8. The main ground alleged in the Review Application was that the Tribunal erred in holding that there is no necessity for Cumulative Impact Assessment Study and the discrepancies in the land required and the land in their possession and also the finding that it cannot be treated as interlinked project.
9. It may be mentioned here that this Tribunal had given reasons, after considering the dictums relied on by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and submissions made by both counsels and thereafter, gave finding on each aspect in detail including for the aspect that has been agitated in the Review Application.
10. There is no dispute regarding the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Kamalesh Verma Vs. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 and Sow. Chandra Kanta & Anr. Vs. Sheik Habib reported in AIR 1975 SC 1500 regarding the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal/Court and the circumstances under which the Judgment passed can be reviewed. Even in those cases, it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the review is not a ground for rehearing of the entire appeal and only if there is any error apparent on the face of the record as pointed out, then the Tribunal need to review the Judgment to that extent.
Page 3 of 411. Merely because, the findings are not satisfactory to the review applicant, in spite of the reasoning given by the Tribunal is not a ground for review, it is a matter for appeal, if the appellant is not satisfied with the findings. The Review Applicant/Appellant had no case that the points raised by them were not considered by the Tribunal, but the manner in which it was considered is not satisfactory to them and that cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record which requires the review of the Judgment as claimed in the Review Application. So, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the Judgment passed by this Tribunal on 09.12.2021 in Appeal No.18 of 2020 (SZ).
12. So, there is no merit in the Review Application and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
13. In the result, the Review Application fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M. Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M. R.A. No.07 of 2022 (SZ) in Appeal No.18 of 2020 (SZ), 05th July 2022. Mn.
Page 4 of 4