National Green Tribunal
Puducherry Environment Protection ... vs Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No. 02 (Court No. 1)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SPECIAL BENCH
(By Video Conferencing)
M.A. No. 125/2016(SZ)
IN
OA No.103/2016(SZ)
Puducherry Environment Protection Association Applicant
Versus
Union of India, New Delhi and Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 06.05.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Yogeshwaran.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R2.
Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan represented Mrs. Shanmugavalli Sekar
for R3 & R4.
Mr. S.R. Rajagopal along with Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan for R5.
ORDER
1. This Miscellaneous Application (MA) has been filed and is pending for enforcement of an interim order in the main application though the said main O.A. No. 103/2016 stands dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2016 on limitation as well as merits.
2. O.A. was filed against grant of EC by SEIAA, Tamil Nadu on 24.06.2014 for expansion of capacity of Respondent No. 5, M/s Shasun Pharmaceuticals Limited, Cuddalore Taluk and District, Tamil Nadu. One 1 of the grounds for challenge was that the project should have been taken as category A in view of 'General Condition', appended to the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, requiring appraisal as category A by MoEF&CC if the project is within the specified distance from the Critically Polluted Area (CPA).
3. The Tribunal framed following issues for consideration:-
"(1) Whether the impugned EC issued by the second respondent dated 24.6.2014 and the consequential amendment dated 24.11.2015 are to be declared as null and void on the point of jurisdiction and on 'fraud' stated to have been committed by the project proponent.
(2) Whether the application is maintainable on the ground of limitation?"
4. The Tribunal held that the General Condition was not applicable as at the time of grant of EC, the area was not CPA. It was further held that application was barred by limitations specified under Section 14(3) of the NGT Act, 2010.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the matter. It is well settled that interim order is in aid or final order and merges in final order. If main application is dismissed, interim order is treated to have never been passed unless otherwise expressly directed1. Once the main matter was disposed of on 18.10.2016, it is difficult to understand how proceedings in M.A. could survive. However, the same has remained pending till date. We ask learned Counsel for the applicant to explain maintainability of M.A. after main application is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as merits whereby all interim orders stand vacated and merged in the final order. Only explanation is that there is 1 See (1997) 5 SCC 772 Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. SEB 2 such practice, we are unable to understand how there can be any such practice of enforcing an interim order which stands vacated after final order contrary to settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The application is thus clear abuse of process of law and is dismissed.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM May 06, 2022 M.A. No. 125/2016(SZ) In OA No.103/2016(SZ) SN 3