1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as intervener Shri Amit Maru in person. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties and also the intervener who appears in person, this appeal is being finally disposed of on following terms:-
(i) Since it appears that Rule 4(3-a) of The Environment Protection Rules, 1986 has not been followed in stricto sensu, the Secretary, Environment Department of the State will restore the proceedings to the stage of issuance of the proposed direction as required under the Rule. The Authority shall issue a set of proposed directions to the appellant and shall give time of fifteen (15) days from the date of service of the Notice and thereafter to take final decision.
(ii) The intervener shall be permitted to file representation, in as much as the grievance of the intervener is that the buildings were already demolished by the appellants before the passing of even commencement certificate and that was in total disregard to directions of the Bombay High Court. The representation of the intervener may be considered while issuing the proposed directions and taking of the final decision by the State Authority.
(iii) The impugned order and communication dated 09.03.2012 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Competent Authority for afresh decision which shall be taken in due compliance of the relevant Rules.
(iv) We make it clear that we have not touched the merits of the matter and have decided this appeal only on the ground that there appears non-compliance of the relevant Rule and on basis of consent given by the learned Counsels and the intervener.
(v) The Competent Authority to take afresh decision within a period of four (04) months. The intervener shall file the representation within the period of one (01) month hereinafter before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority shall be free to take final decision after including the directions of the Bombay High Court; the fact that the buildings were demolished even before obtaining of necessary Environmental Clearance and permission of the Competent Authority; and the relevant circumstances. The appellants may be allowed to adduce any fresh material, in support of their contentions regarding so called "bonafide intention" of the alleged commencement of the work at the construction site. The intervener also shall be permitted to adduce any material in order to demonstrate malafides of the appellants.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No orders as to cost.
Kshitija Infrastructure Private Limited A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act v. Union Of India
Kshitija Infrastructure Private Limited A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act v. Union Of India
(National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench)
Appeal No. 16/2012 | 03-10-2012
Advocate List
- For Petitioner : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate
- For Respondent : Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate
Bench
- SHRI V.R. KINGAONKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
- SHRI DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, EXPERT MEMBER
Eq Citations
- LQ/NGT/2012/73
Head Note
ENVIRONMENT LAW — Air Pollution — Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 — S. 5 — Issuance of direction under S. 5(3) of the Act — Non-compliance with Rules — Effect — Since it appears that R. 4(3-a) of The Environment Protection Rules, 1986 had not been followed in stricto sensu, proceedings restored to the stage of issuance of proposed direction as required under the Rule — Authority to issue a set of proposed directions to the appellant and to give time of 15 days from the date of service of the Notice and thereafter to take final decision — Impugned order and communication dt. 09.03.2012 set aside and matter remitted to Competent Authority for afresh decision which shall be taken in due compliance of the relevant Rules — Environment Protection Rules, 1986 — R. 4(3-a) (Paras 1(i) to (iii) and Para 2)
