National Green Tribunal
Yashaswi Fish Meal And Oil Company ... vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2020
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan
Item No.06:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Appeal No. 05 of 2020 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company
... Appellant(s)
WITH
Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary to the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 20.02.2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s): M/s. T.K. Bhaskar, Aditya Balaji &
Mathuvanthy Mathavan.
For Respondent(s): None.
1
ORDER
1. Heard the counsel for the appellant.
2. The above appeal has been filed against the order of demolition passed by the second respondent under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 invoking the provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 dated 05.03.2018 directing the appellant to demolish the portion of the building said to have been encroached in CRZ area for an impermissible purpose under the CRZ Notification, 2011.
3. It is seen from the documents produced that earlier show cause notice was issued on the basis of the alleged inspection observing that one Unity fish and oil mill had encroached in the CRZ-I area and put up the building without getting any prior permission from them and also on the ground that it is not a permissible activity under the CRZ-I Zone.
4. The appellant filed objections stating that they have no connection with the unit mentioned in the show cause notice and they have not made any construction.
5. According to the appellant, ignoring these facts and without considering the objection raised the authority has passed the impugned order. They challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru by filing Writ Petition as 2 W.P. No.14808/2018 and the same was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by Order dated 04.11.2019 as follows:-
"In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal as contemplated supra within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Interim order granted earlier will enure to the benefit of the petitioner for a period of three months from today."
6. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A. No.01 of 2020 and 02 of 2020 in the above Writ Petition seeking extension of stay as certified copy has not been obtained and the same was granted by the Hon'ble High Court by Order dated 04.02.2020, extending the time by another fifteen days and thereby the present appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal.
7. When the question was raised as to how this appeal without filing an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, will be maintainable, counsel for the appellant submitted that the above order has been passed by the constitutional court giving liberty for the appellant to file the appeal by extending the time by three months and also further extending the same by another fifteen days by two orders mentioned above and the appeal has 3 been filed within the extended time allowed by the constitutional court.
8. However, we admit the appeal but subject to the right of the respondent to raise the question of limitation if required and consider the same along with the appeal.
9. The appellant is directed to issue notice to the respondents No.2 and 3 alone as others are not necessary parties to the appeal.
10. In the mean time, there will be an interim order of stay of execution of the impugned order in No.FEE/187/CRZ/2017 dated 15.03.2018 passed by the second respondent until further orders.
11. For appearance of parties post on 30.03.2020.
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .................................E.M. (Saibal Dasgupta) Appeal No.05/2020, 20th February, 2020.
Mn.
4