National Green Tribunal
Shri Lakhan Singh Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Its ... on 20 February, 2024
Item No.01
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL
(By Virtual Mode)
Original Application No.40/2014(CZ)
(I.A. No. 18/2024)
Lakhan Singh Dhurve Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 20.02.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Advocate for State of Madhya
Pradesh (through VC)
Mr. Shreyas Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent 5
With Mr. Teerthesh Bharilya, Advocate
ORDER
1. This matter was finally decided vide judgment dated 22.08.2023. Tribunal found serious violations of environmental laws and norms on the part of respondent 5 while working on its stone crushing unit and thereupon, took a view that respondent 5 was liable to pay environmental compensation. Since earlier by order dated 06.05.2015, Tribunal had directed respondent 5 to deposit Rs.5 lakhs as environmental compensation for restoration of environment and Tribunal was under
impression that Rs.5 lakhs was deposited by respondent 5, taking a considerate view on the matter, confined quantum of environmental compensation to Rs.5 lakhs and observed that amount had already been 1 deposited, the same shall be utilized for restoration/ rejuvenation/remediation of environment for which an environmental remediation plan would be prepared by a Committee comprising officials as mentioned in para 25 of the judgment dated 22.08.2023 and plan prepared by Joint Committee was to be executed by spending the above Rs.5 lakhs.
2. Thereafter, a Report was submitted by Registrar, Central Zonal Bench of NGT at Bhopal on 23.09.2023 that Tribunal has observed that Rs.5 lakhs was already deposited by respondent 5 but in fact, no such amount was deposited and therefore, appropriate clarification of the direction was sought from this Bench. In order to have a clear stand on this respect, District Collector, Umaria as also the proponent (respondent
5) were issued notices. Now, it has been come on record that in fact Rs.5 lakhs was never deposited by respondent 5.
3. In that view of the matter, we modify our order dated 22.08.2023 and direct that Rs.5 lakhs towards environmental compensation shall be paid/deposited by respondent 5 in three months and in case, the said amount is not deposited within three months, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law and, thereafter, the direction with regard to utilization of the said amount for restoration/rejuvenation/remediation of environment as contained in para 25 of the judgment dated 22.08.2023 shall be given effect.
I.A. No.18/2024:
4. This IA has been filed by respondent 5 on the ground that judgment dated 22.08.2023 was ex-parte and the same be re-called.
5. IA has been preferred under Section 19 (f) and (g) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
2
6. Section 19 (f) and (g) reads as under:
"19. Procedure and powers of Tribunal.--
(f) reviewing its decision;
(g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte;"
7. National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 35 read with Section 4(4) of NGT Act 2010 and Rule 21 conferring power upon Tribunal to set aside an order passed ex-parte if the concerned respondent apply within 30 days from the date of the order of Tribunal. Similarly, Rule 22 apply for review and it also provides a limitation of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order sought to be reviewed.
8. It is not disputed that the present application has been filed beyond the above period of limitation prescribed in Rules 21 and 22.
9. Moreover, we do not find any valid reason for the respondent- applicant for remaining absent in the matter.
10. In fact, in IA itself, applicant (respondent 5) himself has stated that he was directed to appear before Tribunal on 09.08.2023 by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2023 in Civil (Appeal) No. 9145/2015 (supra) but respondent 5 defied Supreme Court's direction and did not appear before us on 09.08.2023. The relevant extract of Supreme Court's order dated 18.07.2023 is hereby reproduced as under:
"In order to cut short delay, parties are directed to appear before the NGT on 09.08.2023."
11. Thus, after receiving Supreme Court's order, Registry itself issued advance notice to all including respondent 5. We also issued notice again 3 vide order dated 09.08.2023. Despite all this, respondent 5 did not appear. It has also not given any satisfactory reason for absence.
12. Further, after Supreme Court's order dated 18.07.2023 in Civil (Appeal) No. 9145/2015, Tirupati Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lakhan Singh Dhurve & Ors., this Tribunal also passed an order on 09.08.2023 issuing notices to all the concerned parties so as to give them opportunity of hearing. Para 5 and 6 of order dated 09.08.2023 reads as under:
"5. We are informed by Registry that on its own it has also issued notices to applicant Mr. Lakhan Singh Dhurve; State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary; Collector, Umaria; Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Umaria, Sub Divisional Officer, Pollution Control Board, Amlai, District Shahdol and proponent M/s Tripati Balaji Constructions Company on 25.07.2023. Service report has also come showing applicant and proponent both have been served 05.08.2023 and 02.08.2023 respectively. Still no one is present.
6. However, we give further opportunity to them and direct this matter to be listed after a week. We make it clear that in case any party do not appear on next date we shall proceed to decide the matter on the basis of record and assistance of learned counsel appearing for State of Madhya Pradesh, Collector, Umaria and MPPCB."
13. In these facts and circumstances, neither the application is bona- fide nor even otherwise, it is maintainable since barred by limitation. IA 18/2024 is accordingly dismissed.
Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM February 20, 2024 Original Application No.40/2014(CZ) R 4