National Green Tribunal
Hazira Machimar Samiti vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 6 April, 2016
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, WESTERN ZONE
BENCH, PUNE
Appeal No.79/2013
(Disposed of on 08.01.2016)
In the matter of :-
Hazira Macchimar Samiti & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AJAY A. DESHPANDE, EXPERT MEMBER
Present: Applicant/Appellant : Nemo
Respondent No.3 : Mr. Parth Bhatt, Adv.
Date and Orders of the Tribunal Remarks Item No.2 Hazira Macchimar Samiti, a registered Society was the 6th April, 2016 Appellant before this Tribunal in Appeal No.79/203 represented by Order No.4 Appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4.
On merits the Appeal has been disposed of by our Judgment dated 8th January, 2016 in which several directions were issued. As seen in Paragraph No.13 direction at (b) was directing Respondent Nos.6 and 7 to deposit Rs.25 Crores with the Collector, Surat within four (04) weeks which shall be kept in Escrow Account till further directions for utilisation thereof, may be towards compensation and restoration as permissible under Section 36 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices & Procedure) Rules, 2011.
By direction (c) Respondent Nos.6 and 7 were to pay cost of Rs.2 Lakhs each to the Appellants as litigation cost.
It is brought to our notice by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Collector, Surat that Respondent Nos.6 and 7 had taken Judgment in the Appeal before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.256 of 2016 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court passed an Order staying demolition of reclamation area spread over 25 hectares but further directed that Order of stay was subject to Petitioner before it depositing the amount in terms of our directions contained in Paragraph No.13(b) and (c). Thus, it is manifests from the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that directions (b) and (c) referred to above have not been stayed but on the other hand the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted stay subject to such deposit. In the circumstances, there are two modes available to the Appellant. One is to enforce the Order in totality as the grant of stay was subject to deposit including Rs.2 Lakhs each to the Appellants as litigation cost.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Collector Surat Item No.2 submits that Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have deposited Rs.25 Crores in 6th April, 2016 the Escrow Account but have not made available Rs.8 Lakhs Order No.4 calculated Rs.2 Lakhs per Appellant to be paid to them. He submits that Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have not deposited this amount. In the circumstances, Collector is unable to comply with the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to disburse the amount to the Appellants.
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 shall be secured to enforce direction (b) and (c) passed by this Tribunal in terms of the Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, issue Cause Notice to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 as provided under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of the submission made on behalf of Collector Surat as to why further order shall not be passed for attachment of their property or their arrest or detention. This Order is passed in exercise of power under Order XXI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent Nos.6 to 7 are granted three (03) weeks time to show cause.
List this case on 13th May, 2016.
........................................., JM (Dr. Justice Jawad Rahim) ........................................., EM (Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande) mk