Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sreerampore Silpanchal Gana Udyog ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 December, 2018
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
1
13.12.2018 W.P. No. 27996 (W) of 2016
a.g. (CAN 10635 of 2017)
Sreerampore Silpanchal Gana Udyog Samity & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bhaskar Ghosh, ld. Senior Advocate,
Mr. Prodyut Banerjee,
Mr. Pratip Mukherjee,
Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya
...for the Petitioners
Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu,
Mr. Satyajit Talukdar
...for the Respondent No.5
Mr. Jishnu Saha, ld. Senior Advocate, Mr. Pramit Kumar Roy, Mr. Aditya Kanodia, Mr. I. Basu ...for the Respondent No. 16 Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, ld. Addl. Adv. General Mr. T.M. Siddiqui Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee ...for the State The aforementioned writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the writ petition no.3) has been filed by an organization engaged in protecting the natural environment including wet land and water bodies, challenging the permissions granted by the respondent authorities to M/s. Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt. Ltd. for construction of an Integrated IT Township and 2 Auto Ancillary Park with a view to construct two 20 storied buildings along with hospitals, schools, IT hub, etc. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:-
"In the premises, your petitioners respectfully and humbly pray before the Hon'ble Court for passing of the following order and/or orders that:-
a) A writ of Mandamus and/or appropriate writ or writs be issued, inter alia, directing the respondents authorities
i) to recall and/or cancel and/or quash the direction/decision of the cabinet passed on August
02.2006;
ii) to recall and/or cancel and/or withdraw the order dated September 13, 2006 bearing Memo No. 2675- GE(M)/5M-03/06 issued by the Department of Land & Land Reforms;
iii) to recall and/or cancel and/or withdraw a Memo No. 2463-Fish/C-III/2M-36/2008 dated December 10,2008 issued by the Ministry of Fishery, Government of West Bengal;
iv) to recall and/or cannel and/or quash and/or withdraw the letter dated February 27,2009 bearing Reference No. 46/KMDA/SP-65A (Mise). Issued by the Chief Executive Officer, KMDA;
v) to recall and/or cancel and/or quash and/or withdraw the Minutes of the 100th Meeting on dated 21- 03-2015 of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, West Bengal Environment Impact Assessment Authority;
vi) to recall and/or cancel and/or quash and/or withdraw the permission and/or clearance and/or 'no 3 objection' granted on March 25,2015 by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority;
b) A writ of Certiorari and/or other appropriate writ or writs be issued directing the respondent authorities to send up and certify the relevant files of the writ petitioners, papers and documents and/or impugned orders issued by the Cabinet, L & LR Department, West Bengal fisheries Department, KMDA and/or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority so that the aforesaid impugned order be, and are, cancelled and/or quashed and/or set aside, and the conscionable justice be rendered to the petitioners;
c) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct and enquiry, if necessary, and appoint the Investigation Authority of C.B.I or any other Institutions for the purpose of assessing loss and damages suffered by the State of West Bengal and the respondent Nos. 15 and 16 be directed to re-compensate the State Government upon quantification of the land and/or damages suffered by the State of West Bengal, the Respondent No.1 herein;
d) Alternatively, Direction be imparted for the purpose of quantification of the area and/or quantification of the wet land/marshy land situate within the aforesaid 314 acres of land in the area of Hindustan Motors at Uttarpara- Kotrang area be ascertained by applying the scientific test Remote Sensing Satellite Imagery map on 1 : 10000 Scale as recommended by H.P.C;
e) Direction and/or Enquiry be made whether the filling up of the aforesaid wet land/marshy land endangering the reverine system popularly known as "DAMODAR GANGA" spreading from Uttarpara - Bhadrakali - Kotrang
- Konnagar - Nabagram - Kanaipur - Bassai - Makhla - Raghunathpur areas infringing upon the natural drainage system in the light of the report, published by Fisheries Department dated 16.04.2008 being Annexure "P-2"
hereof;4
f) Injunction restraining the respondents by themselves and/or their servants and agents etc. to take further step or steps in furtherance of the illegal and/or ultra vires scheme for building I.T/Its etc. township in the aforesaid area of Uttarpara - Bhadrakali - Kotrang - Konnagar -
Nabagram - Kanaipur - Bassai - Makhla - Raghunathpur;
g) Ad interim order in terms of prayer(s) above;
h) Costs of, and other consequential and/or incidental expenses thereto be borne by the respondent;
i) Such further or other order, and/or orders, direction and/or directions be made as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;
And for this act of kindness, your petitioners as in duty bound, shall every pray"
At the first instance a preliminary objection was raised by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the State respondents as also on behalf of the respondent no. 16, that is, M/s. Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Shriram) as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.16 submitted that the instant writ petition was hit by the doctrine of res judicata and/or the doctrine of issue estoppel. He submitted that in an earlier writ petition being WP No.7666 (W) of 2016 the issues which were directly and substantially decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated December 23, 2016 which is again sought to 5 be reopened in the instant writ petition. According to him, the judgment passed in the WP No.7666 (W) of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as writ petition no.2) was a judgment in rem, binding on the public at large including the petitioners herein.
He has taken us through the relevant documents in order to substantiate that the writ petitioners in writ petition no.3 were working ad idem with the petitioners in the writ petition no.2 and they had jointly made several representations for redressal of their grievances which constitute the subject matter of dispute in both the writ petition nos.2 and 3. His next contention was that challenging the decision of the respondent authorities in granting permission to construct Shriram and to fill up the same wet lands which were transferred to them by Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd. the respondent no.15 two original applications had also been filed before the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, bearing O.A. No.140 of 2016 (In re: Mr. Surojit Roy vs. Union of India and Ors.) and O.A. No.04 of 2017 (In re: Pawan Kumar Somani vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). It was contended that by an order dated January 5, 2017 the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application being no. OA No.04 of 2017 with the following observations:-
"In view of the above, since the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has already rendered a decision on merit stating that the 6 land in question is not a water body or marshy land, certainly it is not open to this Tribunal to take a contrary stand. Judicial discipline requires that the decision of the Division Bench should be followed by the Tribunal in order to avoid contradictions and strengthen the faith of people in the judicial system.
In view of what has been discussed above, we are unable to grant any relief as prayed for. The application is not only barred by limitation but also from other angles on merit, it is not entertainable. However, if the applicant is so advised to intervene in the other pending application before this Tribunal, it is open to him to take appropriate step in the manner known to law.
Normally we would have imposed cost since the application is an abuse of process of law. But considering the fact that the matter is posted for admission and respondent's counsel have taken notice voluntarily, we are of the view that no cost should be imposed on the applicant.
Accordingly the application stands dismissed.
There will no order as to costs".
By another order dated March 23, 2017 the learned Tribunal dismissed the OA No.140 of 2016 as being infructuous. In view of the decision passed in the matter of Pawan Kumar Somani (supra).
Mr. Saha further urged that the writ petition no.3 was liable to be dismissed also on the ground of delay as the petitioners were well aware of the permissions and clearances granted to the respondent no.16 and the allotment of the land granted to the respondent no.15 under Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 on and from the year 2006 but they waited for 10 years before they filed the writ petition no.3. 7
Mr. Saha relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. All India Manufacturers Organization & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683.
Adopting the arguments made on behalf of the respondent no.16 Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State respondents submitted that the cause of action in the writ petition nos.2 and 3 were same and the writ petitioners by a circuitous manner was reagitating those issues which had been finally decided in writ petition no.2 by judgment and order dated December 23, 2016. He drew our attentions to the fact that in the writ petition no.2 representations of Gana Udyog had been annexed and that the writ petitioner was previously known as Gana Udyog. According to him, this was an abuse of process of Court. It has been further submitted by him that for the time being Shriram has been accorded permission for construction of the phase one of the project which involves 30 acres wet land and not 100 acres.
Mr. Bhaskar Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in his reply to the point of maintainability of writ petition at first, drew our attention to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, the 8 principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata would not apply as in the writ petition no.2 the writ petitioners were not parties. He further submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition no.3 were not directly and substantially issue in the writ petition no.2. According to him, the cause of action in the writ petition no.3 arose with the approval of the Cabinet in its meeting dated August 24, 2006, by which the proposal of Hindustan Motors was approved and the subsequent order of Government of West Bengal Department of Land and Land Reforms dated September 13, 2006 issued under the Second Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14Z of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1955) resettling 314 acres of land in favour of the Hindustan Motors.
He produced before us copies of another writ petition being no.606 of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petition no.1) (In re: Forum of Human, Legal and Ecological Rights, Bansdroni & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors.). According to Mr. Ghosh, the said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated February 3, 2012 in favour of the petitioners with a direction upon the State respondents to constitute a high powered committee comprising of members having specialized knowledge in the 9 field of environment, maintenance of ecological balance and preservation and conservation of water bodies. The Coordinate Bench further directed the high powered committee to look into the grievances of the writ petitioners in the writ petition no.1 and also the allegations against the respondent no.16 regarding filing up of water bodies on the area settled to Hindustan Motors which were transferred to the respondent no.16 by Hindustan Motors.
Mr. Ghosh argued that although the high powered committee had submitted a report wherein it was observed that Shriram was filling up water bodies measuring an area of 100 acres of land, contrary to the provisions of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1984) but, the respondent authorities by totally ignoring the recommendations of the said committee had allowed Shriram to continue with the construction illegally and contrary to law. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that Hindustan Motors, by transferring the land in favour Shriram had violated the provisions of Second Proviso to Section 14Z of the said Act, 1955 and further, the Department of Fisheries and Department of Environment by giving their respective clearances and permissions to Shriram had not only deviated from the recommendation of the high powered committee but had also 10 acted contrary to the provisions of Section 17A of the said Act, 1984. He vehemently argued that the aforementioned violations were not the subject matters of dispute in either the writ petition no.1 or the writ petition no.2 and as such the writ petition no.3 was maintainable.
We have heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Admittedly, the writ petition no.3 is the third public interest litigation filed in this Court by an organization engaged in social work for preservation and conservation of wet land and environment. We find from the writ petition no.1 that the petitioner no.3 therein was the petitioner no.1 in writ petition no.2. There was a prayer in the writ petition no.1 for an injunction restraining the resumption of construction work of the high-tech city by Shriram within the premises of Hindustan Motors and further restraining Shriram from continuing with the work. It is further seen from the annexures to the writ petition no.2 that representations against the environment clearance for the proposed phase one of the construction of the integrated IT Township and Auto ancillary park by Shriram were made by the General Secretary and organizing Secretary of Gana Udyog as also the President of Society for Direct Initiative for Social & Health Action, (DISHA) and Paribesh Academy. 11
We find from the another annexure to writ petition no.2 that Gana Udyog had submitted a representation on the self same issues which have been raised in writ petition no.3. In the representations of Gana Udyog which has been annexed to the writ petition no.2 we find that the judgment dated February 3, 2012 passed in W.P. No.606 of 2011 has been mentioned and a specific point had been taken that the recommendation of the high powered committee as regards construction of Shriram had been ignored by the authorities. The violation of Section 17A of the said Act, 1984 was also urged in the said representation. Paragraphs 25, 27 and 28 of writ petition no.2 deal with the submissions made by Mr. Ghosh before us regarding the violation of the recommendations of the high powered committee and also illegal transfer of the land to Shriram.
We find from the annexures in writ petition no.2 that most of the issues urged in the writ petition no.3 were directly and substantially in issue in the writ petition no.2 by the judgment and order dated December 23, 2012 those issues have been decided and they have reached a finality. We have also found on perusal of the three writ petitions that the petitioners in each of these writ petitions were fighting together for a common cause which are interconnected and their 12 grievances have been redressed by the different Coordinate Benches of this Court. As regards the allegation of violation of provisions of Section 14Z of the said Act, 1955 we are of the considered opinion that the remedy of the petitioners at the relevant point of time was before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1997) under Section 10 of the said Act, 1997. We do not agree with Mr. Ghosh that the remedy of the petitioners were not before the Tribunal inasmuch as the petitioners were aggrieved by a Cabinet decision and not by a decision of an authority under the notified Act of 1955. In this connection Section 10 of the said Act is quoted herein below:-
"10. Application to Tribunal.- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 6 and other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order passed by an authority or any action taken either by an authority or by the State Government may refer an appeal to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date on which such order was passed or such action was taken, as the case may be, or within such further time as may be allowed by the Tribunal for cause shown to its satisfaction, and shall be made in such form, and shall be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed.
(3) Save as expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall not admit an application referred to in sub-section (1) unless it is satisfied that-
(a) the application has availed of all remedial measures available to him under the relevant specified Act, and 13
(b) the remedial measures available under the provisions of the relevant specified Act are not adequate or shall cause hardship to the applicant.
(4) the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied after such enquiry as it may deem fit that requirements under this Act and the rules made thereunder are complied with in relation to the application referred to in sub-section (1), admit such application, but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may reject the application summarily giving reasons therefore.
(5) Where an application under sub-section (1) has been admitted by the Tribunal, it shall decide and dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible, and ordinarily within six months from the date of such admission or from the date of receipt of records from the concerned Authority or the State Government, as the case may be.
(6) While deciding the application under sub-section (5) the Tribunal shall issue such direction, or pass such order, as it may deem fit.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner) shall be made on, or in any proceeding relating to, and application made under sub-section (1) unless-
(a) copies of such application and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are duly furnished seven days in advance to each of the parties against whom such application is made or is proposed to be made.
(b) an opportunity of being heard is given to each of the parties against whom such application is made:
Provided that the Tribunal may pass an interim order as an exceptional measure if it is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is necessary so to do for preventing any loss being immediately caused to the applicant:
Provided further that if the application referred to in sub- section (1) is not decided and disposed of within a period of six months from the date of the interim order, the interim order shall, if it is not vacated earlier, stand vacated on the expiry of the period as aforesaid unless, for special reasons or in the interest of justice, the interim order is varied, modified or extended by the Tribunal".14
It is also necessary to consider the provision of Section 6 of the said Act, 1997, which is quoted below:-
"6. Jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunal.- Subject to the other provisions of this Act the Tribunal shall, with effect from such date as may be appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf, exercise jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to-
a) [any order] made by an Authority under a specified Act;
b) an application complaining inaction or culpable negligence of an Authority under a specified Act;
c) an appeal against an order of the Mines Tribunal appointed under Section 36 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (West Ben. Act I of 1954);
d) applications relating to matters under any provision of a specified Act or matters relating to any constitutional validity of any act under the provisions of a specified Act;
e) adjudication of matters, proceedings, cases and appeals which stand transferred from the High Court and other Authorities to the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of this Act".
On a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 6 and 10 of the said Act, 1997 and the ratio of the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 we are of the considered opinion that the challenge of the writ petitioners regarding resettlement of the land to Hindustan Motors by the Department of Land and Land Reforms, Government of West Bengal and the Cabinet decision ought to have been made before the Tribunal as the Court of first instance. However, the petitioners have chosen not to approach the appropriate forum by sitting on the fence and 15 watching the fate of writ petition nos.1 and 2. Thereafter they have filed writ petition no.3 by couching the prayers in a different language in order to substantiate that the issues involved in the writ petition no.3 were not directly and substantially in issue before the Coordinate Benches of this Court on the two earlier occasions. This in our opinion is an abuse of process of Court and contrary to justice and public policy. A party cannot be allowed to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier. The earlier decision may or may not be barred as res judicata but, if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated it amounts to abuse of process of Court.
By the judgment dated December 23, 2017 the issues regarding violation of the directives of the high powered committee and the permission granted to Shriram by the Department of Fishery as also the Department of Environment were considered and decided by Their Lordships by passing a comprehensive judgment. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
"The petitioners' allegation that clearance has been granted without defining the location of or the area covered by Phase 1 of the said project to facilitate the respondent no.11 to fill up water bodies indiscriminately needs to be discounted in view of the order dated 20th April, 2015 towards conversion and 16 classification of the plots of land towards the said project, which details the khatian numbers and the plot numbers.
The apprehension expressed by the petitioners to the effect that the respondent no.11 would not be creating and maintaining 30 acres of water bodies within the total area of 314 acres is unfounded inasmuch as the environmental clearance has been granted subject to various conditions, as would be explicit from the memorandum dated 1st April, 2015. In respect of water body conversion the conditions stipulated are as follows:
i. The water bodies within the project area shall be maintained in conformity with the conditions stipulated by the L & LR Department and the Fisheries Department GoWB.
ii. The total water body measuring 30 acres shall be created within the entire project area as per the condition laid down by the Fisheries Department, Govt. of West Bengal vide memo no. 2463-Fish/C-III/2M-36/2008 dated 10.12.2008 and memo no. 214-Fish/C-III/2M-36/2008 dated 30.01.2009 as well as Order dated 13.09.2006 of the Department of Land & Land Reforms, Govt. of West Bengal.
iii. As proposed, water bodies to be created in Phase I is 3.99 acres (volume 25853.16 cum). The proponent should not change the land characteristics without prior concurrence of Fisheries Department and Department of Land & Land Reforms, Govt. of West Bengal.
iv. The water bodies should not be lined and no embankments should be cemented. The water bodies are to be kept in natural conditions without disturbing the ecological habitat.
v. No water bodies to be filled up or reshaped without prior permission from the competent authority.
For the reasons discussion above, the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition are not available to the petitioners.
Welfare of the people depends largely upon the proper functioning of the natural resource system wherein wetlands are among the foremost. No wetland and water body can be filled up, degraded, drained, converted or subjected to any kind of activity which is incompatible with ecological integrity of the wetlands. Keeping in mind such proposition, the competent authority has granted environmental clearance subject to various conditions as stipulated in the memorandum dated 1st April, 2015. Thus, it would be an obligation on the part of the 17 State authorities to monitor, to main surveillance and to ensure that the said project work is conducted by the respondent no. 11 in strict consonance with the conditions subject to which the environmental clearance has been granted". In the case of All India Manufacturer Organizations & Ors. (supra) the Apex Court has categorically decided the issue that the doctrine of res judicata would apply to public interest litigations and a judgment in a previous litigation would be a judgment in rem, which binds the public at large and bars any member of the public from coming forward before the Court and raising any connected issue or an issue, which had been raised and should have been raised on an earlier occasion. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
"32. Res Judicata is a doctrine based on the larger public interest and is founded on two grounds: one being the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause) and second, public policy that there ought to be an end to the same litigation. It is well settled that Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") is not the foundation of the principle of res judicata, but merely statutory recognition thereof and hence, the section is not to be considered exhaustive of the general principle of law. The main purpose of the doctrine is that once a matter has been determined in a former proceeding, it should not be open to parties to reagitate the matter again and again. Section 11 CPC recognizes this principle and forbids a court from trying any suit or issue, which is res judicata, recognizing both "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel". There are two issues that we need to consider, one, whether the doctrine of res judicata, as a matter of principle, can be applied to public interest litigations and second, whether the issues and findings in Somashekar Reddy constitute res judicata for the present litigation.
33. Explanation VI to Section 11 states:18
"Explanation VI.- Whether persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating."
34. Explanation VI came up for consideration before this Court in Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) (hereinafter "Forward Construction Co."). This Court held that in view of Explanation VI, it could not be disputed that Section 11 applies to public interest litigation, as long as it is shown that the previous litigation was in public interest and not by way of private grievance. Further, the previous litigation has to be a bona fide litigation in respect of a right which is common and is agitated in common with others.
35. As a matter of fact, in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not agitating his individual rights but represents the public at large. As long as the litigation is bona fide, a judgment in a previous public interest litigation would be a judgment in rem. It binds the public at large and bars any member of the public from coming forward before the Court and raising any connected issue or an issue, which had been raised should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way of a public interest litigation. It cannot be doubted that the petitioner in Somashekar Reddy was acting bona fide. Further, we may note that, as a retired Chief Engineer, Somashekar Reddy had the special technical expertise to impugn the Project on the grounds that he did and so, he cannot be dismissed as a busybody. Thus, we are satisfied in principle that Somashekar Reddy, as a public interest litigation, could bar the present litigation.
36. We will presently consider whether the issues and findings in Somashekar Reddy actually constitute res judicata for the present litigation. Section 11 CPC undoubtedly provides that only those matters that were "directly and substantially in issue" in the previous proceeding will constitute res judicata in the subsequent proceeding. Explanation III to Section 11 provides that for an issue to be res judicata it should have been raised by one party and expressly denied by the other:
"Explanation III.- The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other."
37. Further, Explanation IV to Section 11, states:
"Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit 19 shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit."
38. The spirit behind Explanation IV is brought out in the pithy words of Wigram, V.C. in Henderson v. Henderson as follows: (All ER pp. 381 I-382 A) "The plea of res judicata applies, except in special case (sic), not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.""
In view of the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.766 (W) of 2016 dated December 23, 2016 we hold that writ petition no. 3 is not maintainable inasmuch as the same is barred by the principles of "estoppel of cause of action" and or "issue estoppel" which is a principle flowing from the doctrine of res judicata. The writ petition no.3 is not maintainable for the aforesaid reasons. Public interest has been adequately protected by the decision of the Coordinate Bench mentioned hereinabove whereby the State Government has been directed to monitor and maintain surveillance and to ensure that the project work of Shriram was conducted according to the conditions imposed by the department while granting environmental clearance by the Memorandum dated April 01, 2015 This writ petition is, thus dismissed accordingly as being not maintainable.20
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, Chief Justice) (Shampa Sarkar, J.) Later:-
On the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which has been deposited in the Office of the learned Registrar General of this Court, be refunded to the petitioner through the learned advocate on record appearing for the petitioner.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, Chief Justice) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)