National Green Tribunal
K. Karthi vs Tamil Nadu Pcb & Ors on 28 August, 2012
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
(PRINCIPAL BENCH), NEW DELHI
APPEAL NO. 42/2012
Tuesday, 28th August, 2012
Quorum:
1. Hon'ble Shri Justice V.R. Kingaonkar
(Judicial Member)
2. Hon'ble Shri Prof. DR. R. Nagendran
(Expert Member)
B E T W E E N:
K.KARTHI
S/o. Kailasan
North Sullipalayam, Uppappalayam Post
Paramathi Vellare Taluk
Namakkal District ... Appellant/ Petitioner
AND
1. THE STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
Assessment Authority -Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
4-B, Pangal Maligai,
No. 1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600015.
2. TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
Rep. by its Chairman
76-Mount Salai, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
Namakkal District
Namakkal - 637 001.
4. KABILARMALAI PANCHAYAT UNION,
Rep. by its Commissioner,
Kabilarmalai, Paramathi Taluk,
Namakkal District,
Tamil Nadu-637 207
5. PERUNKURICHI PANCHAYAT UNION
Rep. by its President,Kabilarmalai Union
Paramarthy TK.
Namakkal District.
6. SHREER RASI INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Rep bty its Director Mr. N. Udayakumar,
86, kakkarayan Pettai Road
Truchengode Town,
Namakkal District. ... Respondents
(Advocates Appered: Ms Shweta Mohta for appellant and Shri G.
Sivabalamurugan for Respondent-6)
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment delivered by the bench) Miscellaneous Application No. 114 of 2012 in Appeal No. 42 of 2012.
This application is filed for condonation of delay.
Briefly stated, the case of the appellant is that his agricultural land is situated in the proximity of the site of the proposed project pertaining to establishment of Steel Rolling factory in Perunkurukhi, Village, Paramthi TK, Namakkal District. The project was objected to by the villagers. At public hearing, such objections were raised. The EC was granted by order dated 19.2.2011 by the Respondent No. 2. The order was not known to him. He gathered information about the said order when he came across the work of the leveling the ground at the site of the proposed project. He thereafter obtained copy of the EC order. The order was challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Madras. The writ petition No. 13443 of 2011 came to be dismissed with observation that the applicant may approach the Green Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. According to the applicant, the time spent in the High Court of Madras could be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963. It is stated that the applicant bonafidely filed such writ petition as he laboured under the impression that the said petition was maintainable. It is further stated that he immediately filed the present appeal after the order of the High Court which was rendered on 2nd July 2012 and therefore there are sufficient reasons to condone the delay.
The Respondent No. 6 appeared through Counsel G. Sivabalamurugan. Though no counter reply is filed yet the learned counsel for the R- 6 i.e., Project Proponent, brought to our notice that a similar Appeal No. 5/2012 was filed by one A.S. Mani, claiming to be President of Amman Lift Irrigation Society, and the delay condonation application filed in the said appeal came to be dismissed by another Bench of this Tribunal by order dated 27th March, 2012. He would submit that the applicant malafidely filed writ petition after the disposal of the earlier writ petition filed by A.S. Mani and has claimed exclusion of time without any substantial reason. He would further submit that once a similar question is decided by another Bench of this Tribunal, the same cannot be reagitated by the applicant.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant material.
A copy of the order passed by another Bench in MA No. 12/2012 in Appeal No. 5/2012 is placed on record and is marked as "X". It appears from the record that the EC order was passed by the Respondent No. 2 on 19th February, 2011. It is obvious that the time started running from the date of such order. It is well - settled that once time started running, the same cannot be arrested unless there is specific provision in the law which may permit exclusion of time spent in a bona fide litigation. The order passed in writ petition filed by A.S. Mani would show that the said writ petition No. 31374, 2011 was disposed off on 24th August, 2011. Said A.S. Mani hails from the same village and had filed the writ petition in his capacity as President of Aman lift irrigation society. It is difficult to say that the present applicant was totally unaware of such litigation initiated by A.S. Mani. The delay condonation application shows that the applicant filed the writ petition No. 73443 of 2012 on 21.3.2012. It is clear therefore that after dismissal of the writ petition filed by A.S. Mani by Madras High Court on 26th August, 2011 the present applicant had filed another writ petition, perhaps with a view to secure an order of dismissal thereof with a liberty to approach this Tribunal. In other words, the applicant has made an attempt to seek filing of the said writ petition as a lee-way to claim exclusion of time spent in filing of writ petition before the Madras High Court. We are of the opinion that the applicant has made an attempt to resurrect life in the litigation which has become lifeless much earlier.
We may point out at this juncture that the Division Bench in earlier Appeal No. 5/2012 gave a categorical finding that the delay cannot be condoned beyond a period of 60 days after the initial prescribed period of 30 days. The statutory provision cannot be eroded by claiming exclusion. We are of the opinion that the appeal is filed after considerable delay which is not properly explained nor can be condoned. Consequently, the application is dismissed and so also the appeal is dismissed.
(Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran) (Justice V. R. Kingaonkar) Expert Member Judicial Member