National Green Tribunal
Shri Gurudas Amerkar Anr vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority ... on 25 April, 2013
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
(PRINCIPAL BENCH), NEW DELHI
Appeal No. 75/2012
25th APRIL, 2013
CORAM:
1. Hon'ble Shri Justice V.R. Kingaonkar
(Judicial Member)
2. Hon'ble Shri P.S. Rao
(Expert Member)
3. Hon'ble Shri Ranjan Chatterjee
(Expert Member)
4. Hon'ble Shri Bikram Singh Sajwan
(Expert Member)
B E T W E E N:
1. SHRI GURUDAS AMERKAR,
2. MRS. ANAMIKA AMERKAR
R/o H. No. 416/3
4thWard Colva Salcete,
Goa. ..... Appellants
AND
Page 1 of 7
1. GOA COASTAL ZONE MANGEMENT AUTHORITY
Through its Member Secretary, C/o Department of
Science, Technology & Environment, Government of Goa,
Opp. Saligao Seminary, P.O.
Saligao, Bardez, Goa. 404 511
2. STATE OF GOA through the Chief
Secretary, having office at
Secretariat, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa- 403 521
3. Judith Almerde
257/1, Ward 3,
Colva, Saleceta,
Goa- 403708
4. Village Panchayat, Colva
Colva Salcete Goa- 403708
Through its Sarpanch
.........Respondents
(Advocates appeared:Mr. Ninad Laud and Mr. Jayant
Mohan, Advocates for Appellants; Mr. Pawan Kumar
Bansal and Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Advocates for
Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Parul Gupta and Ms. Srilekha
Sridhar, Advocates for Respondent No. 3)
Page 2 of 7
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Appeal is directed against order dated 21.12.2012 purportedly passed by theRespondent No. 1 (Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority) (for short, GCZMA).
2. The main contention raised by the Appellants is that the impugned order could not have been passed by only five (5) Members of the Authority in as much as the quorum as fixed under the Rule was not available. The contention of the Appellants is that the GCZMA consists of twelve(12) Members and presence of at least eight(8) Members is compulsorily required to render any definitive and legally binding decision. Still, however, the GCZMA could not ensure presence of eight(8) Members as required under the relevant provision. The decision rendered by only five(5) Members is invalid because of non-availability of required quorum. Thus, the impugned decision is liable to be quashed.
3. The Respondents, however, deny the contention of the Appellant on the ground that the quorum was not fixed under therelevant Rules. They also submit that the impugned decision is valid because of the fact that on Page 3 of 7 merits, the case was considered by the five (5) Members committee of GCZMA which was ratified and validated by the other Members and the fact that there was no divergence of opinions by the others.
4. The short question which arises for determination is as stated below:
"Whether the formation of committee by the Respondent No. 1 (GCZMA) is legal and proper and whether the impugned decision is rendered illegal and inoperative for want of required quorum?"
5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the relevant documents and records. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently argued that for technical defect, the impugned decision should not be set aside in as much as it may have larger ramifications.
6. Before we proceed to examine legality of the constitution of the committee and the legal requirement of the quorum needed for arriving at any decision of the Respondent, it is worthwhile to locate the source of quasi- judicial power available to the Respondent under the CRZ Page 4 of 7 Notification. By order dated 19.04.2010, the MoEF constituted GCZMA in exercise of powers conferred by sub- sections (1) and (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Perusal of the Government gazette notification dated 19.04.2010 reveals that the GCZMA as constituted by the MoEF comprised of twelve (12) Members. It is pertinent to note that it was for the Respondent to deal with inquiries into cases of alleged violation of the provisions of the CRZ and Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP). The said GCZMA was also empowered to take action on basis of the complaints and to issue directions under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Rule XI of the MoEF order dated 09.04.2010 reads as follows:-
"xi. The Authority shall ensure that atleast 2/3 Members of the Authority are present during the meetings."
(Emphasis supplied) The use of words "at least" in the above Rule reflects intention of the Legislative authority. It shows that the quorum is mandated for decision making process of the Respondent.
Page 5 of 7
7. Considering the rival submissions and the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the issue is duly covered by our earlier decision in Application No. 62/2012 (THC). We are of the opinion that the reasons stated in the earlier decision in Application No. 62/2012 (THC) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. We do not find any substantial reason to deviate from the previous decision which is the outcome of the identical fact situation. Needless to say, for the reasons stated in the earlier decision in Application No. 62/2012 (THC), the present Appeal will have to be allowed. We make it clear, however, that we have not touched the merits of the matter and all the issues are kept open.
8. Considering the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that the impugned decision is invalid for want of required quorum as well as for the reason that constitution of the committee of GCZMA was illegal. We make it clear that we have not touched upon the merits of any other issue. Under the circumstances, the impugned decision will have to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remitted to the RespondentNo.1 for taking appropriate decision in accordance with law.
Page 6 of 7
9. In the net result, the Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Respondent No.1 for the purpose of reconsideration of the material and to take decision afresh by following the Notification of the MoEF after securing the presence of required number of Members for the purpose of contributory decision making process.
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
.........................................., JM (V. R. Kingaonkar) ........................................., EM (P.S. Rao) ........................................., EM (Ranjan Chatterjee) ........................................., EM (B.S. Sajwan) Page 7 of 7