The High Court of Madras dismissed a Writ Petition challenging an order by the National Green Tribunal condoning a 55-day delay in filing an appeal. The Court held that the Tribunal did not exercise jurisdiction in a perverse manner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2014
CORAM
The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
W.P.No.27621 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 M/s.Garuda Thermal Power Private Limited (earlier known as Sindya Power Generating Co.Pvt. Ltd.), 2nd Floor, Pottipatti Plaza, 77, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. .. Petitioner vs 1.S.Ali Hussain
2.The Union of India, rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paaryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi.
3.Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Through the Member Secretary, No.76, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the fourth respondent relating to the impugned order dated 19.09.2014 passed in M.A.No.107 of 2014 (SZ) and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan, S.C. for M/s.Vinod Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Addl. Solicitor General,
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 19.09.2014 passed in M.A.No.107 of 2014 (SZ) by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, condoning the delay of 55 days in preferring the appeal by respondent no.1, against the order granting E.C. and C.R.Z. clearance.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that though the appeal had to be filed within the period of 30 days and there is a window of 60 days available thereafter, in the given facts of the case, the discretion ought not to have been exercised by the Tribunal.
3.The application for condonation of delay is predicated on a plea that E.C. and C.R.Z. clearance was granted on 11.12.2013, but was published only on 26.12.2013. This advertisement is stated to contain only the factum of clearance, without giving full and necessary particulars and on getting clarification, the respondent no.1 came to know about the same in the first week of January, 2014 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 20.03.2014, with a delay of 55 days.
4.On the other hand, the stand of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the first advertisement on 26.12.2013 itself made it clear that any person could approach the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to get the necessary particulars, which the respondent no.1 failed to obtain.
5.A perusal of the impugned order shows that taking into consideration the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal, appeal having been preferred within the window of the extra 60 days, the discretion has been exercised in favour of respondent no.1. On the first aspect, a finding has been reached that there was no communication as required under law. The mere fact that the advertisement of 26.12.2013 refers to obtain the relevant material from the authorities concerned would not imply
full compliance, which occurred only in January, 2014. While acknowledging that the delay in preferring the appeal was on the higher side, yet, since the matter involves damage to ecology and degradation to the environment, it was opined that in the given situation, sufficient cause had been disclosed to condone the delay.
6.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
7.While hearing the merits of the controversy, all the aforesaid aspects are still capable of being examined by the Tribunal, as, at present, we are only concerned with aspect of the condonation of delay and we would not like to prejudice the petitioner qua merits of any objection in the appeal. We also noticed that after condonation of delay, the appeal has also been numbered as Appeal No.71 of 2014 (SZ). The additional fact which we may note that there is already an appeal filed by respondent no.1, being Appeal No.48 of 2013, against the Environmental Clearance, which is pending consideration before the Tribunal and there is always a possibility that this matter will also be heard along with that appeal.
8.We are of the view that looking to the conspectus of the matter, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has exercised the jurisdiction in a perverse manner so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, thus, do not find merit in the petition.
9.Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. also stand dismissed.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar sra
To
1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paaryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi.110 003
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.76, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai. 600 032
3.The Registrar, National Green Tribunal (Southern Bench), Poonamallee High Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai.
W.P.No.27621 of 2014
SKV (CO)
kk 5/11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the National Green Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction in a perversity while condoning a 55-day delay in filing an appeal regarding E.C. and C.R.Z. clearance.
Whether the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Tribunal's order has merit.
M/s.Garuda Thermal Power Private Limited
S.Ali Hussain
The Union of India
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
National Green Tribunal
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
M.SATHYANARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
