National Green Tribunal
V.Ramasubbu vs Union Of India Rep By The Secretary To ... on 25 April, 2022
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No.6: Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 149 of 2016 (SZ) &
M.A. No.46 of 2017 (SZ) & I.A. No.42 of 2022 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Mr. V. Ramasubbu
...Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 25.04.2022.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. A. Thirumalai Raja.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Meyyappan represented
Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R1, R2 &R4.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R3, R5 & R8.
Mr. Sanjay Upadhayay along with
Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan for R9.
Mr. Arunchandran represented
M/s. Anithas Jacob - I.A. No.42/2022
Page 1 of 5
ORDER
I.A. No.42 of 2022 (SZ):
1. This is an application filed by a third party namely, Secretary of BBC -
SOS Association whose members are residents of the project area to come on record stating that any order that is likely to be passed will be affecting their interest. Further, their case was that the 9th Respondent had violated their contract of the project, based on which, parties have purchased the area for their purpose. There are cases pending between the developer and the home buyers before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA). So, they are necessary party to this proceeding.
2. This application was opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the 9th Respondent in the Original Application as well as the Original Applicant stating that they are coming on record after lapse of 5 years.
3. The 9th Respondent in the original application also filed a counter to this interlocutory application, opposing the application for impleadment stating that he is a defaulter and most of the residents have given an undertaking that they are not accepting the applicant as their representative.
Page 2 of 5
4. We are not going into the question regarding the contractual obligation between the 9th Respondent in the original application and the applicant in this interlocutory application. This is a matter to be decided by a separate forum. But however, the nature of project which was conceived by the 9th Respondent in the original application, based on which, parties have purchased will be relevant for the purpose of considering the question as to whether the Environmental Clearance (EC) is required for such a project or not.
5. The 9th Respondent also relied on certain undertakings given by some of the residents in the project area stating that the present applicant in this interlocutory application has no interest in the project. That is not germane for the purpose of consideration.
6. Though they need not be impleaded as party to the proceedings as respondent, they can be permitted to intervene in the matter to assist the Tribunal regarding the nature of project that has been floated by the 9th Respondent in the original application, based on which buyers have purchased the property in order to ascertain as to whether what is the extent of development for the purpose of project was anticipated by the project proponent to ascertain as to whether it requires Environmental Clearance (EC) or not.
Page 3 of 5
7. So under such circumstances, instead of impleading them, we feel that they can be permitted to intervene and assist the Tribunal in this regard.
8. So, we allow the applicant in this interlocutory application to intervene and assist the Tribunal to ascertain the nature of project that was envisaged by the project proponent at the time when the project was envisioned by them, based on which, parties have entered into contract with the project proponent.
9. With the above observations and directions, this interlocutory application [I.A. No.42 of 2022 (SZ)] is disposed of. O.A. No.149 of 2016 (SZ):
10. I.A. No.42 of 2022 (SZ) is disposed of, by permitting the interlocutory applicant to intervene the matter and assist the Tribunal to ascertain the nature of project that has been plotted by the project proponent at the time when the project was conceived by them. The office is directed to carry out the amendment in the cause title.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in part. Page 4 of 5
12. Since there is no time, as it is already 01:45 p.m. and the Hon'ble Expert Member has to attend Court No.II, the case is adjourned to tomorrow for further hearing.
13. For further hearing, post on 26.04.2022.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM O.A. No.149/2016 (SZ) M.A. No.46/2017 (SZ) I.A. No.42/2022 (SZ) 25th April 2022. Mn.
Page 5 of 5