Disposed

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana

NGT6 May 2024IA No. 131/2024 in Review Application No. 3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowed the review application filed by Sunder Marketing Associates, condoning a 315-day delay. The Court clarified Tribunal orders stating that compensation for the applicant, as a predecessor, would be finalized by a joint committee following principles of natural justice, preserving the applicant's right to remedy.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the review application; condoned the delay of 315 days; clarified the order to ensure natural justice for the predecessor.

Kuldeep Singh vs State of Haryana — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No.12

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Review Application No.03/2024

¶5

¶6

Original Application No. 169/2020 (I.A. No.131/2024, I. A. No. 122/2024 & I.A. No.121/2024)

Kuldeep Singh

Applicant

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

Date of hearing: 06.05.2024 Date of uploading:08.05.2024

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

Applicant: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mustafa Alam, Ms. Yashim Sharma, Mr. Lakshya Kaushik, Mr. Nimish & Ms. Heeba Ansari, Advs. for Review Applicant

¶15

ORDER

¶16

By this review application, applicant, Sunder Marketing Associates is seeking review of the order dated 22.08.2022 passed in OA No.69/2020 and OA No.01/2022.

¶17

There is a delay of 315 days in filing the original application, therefore, IA No. 121/2024 has been filed under Section 19(1) of the NGT Act, 2010 seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application.

¶18

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that review applicant was not a party in the original application and he came to know about order under review when notice dated 24.08.2023 was served upon the applicant by State Mining Engineer. He further submits that M.A. No. 108/2023 and M.A. No. 109/2023 in OA No. 169/2020 seeking

¶19

¶20

opportunity of hearing and challenging the demand notices filed in the said OA were held to be non-maintainable by order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2024, therefore, MAs were withdrawn and review application has been filed on 29.02.2024.

¶21

The circumstances noted above reflect that delay on the part of the review applicant in filing the present review application is unintentional and for the bona fide reason. Hence, I. A. No. 121/2024 is allowed and delay in filing the review application is condoned.

¶22

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant with consent, on review application and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that OA No.169/2020 was filed raising a grievance against illegal and unscientific mining in violation of the conditions of EC in and outside the forest area by the project proponent therein M/s Goverdhan Mines and Minerals. In OA No.01/2022 proceedings were initiated suo moto in the light of the media report.

¶23

Tribunal vide order dated 20.08.2020 passed in OA. No. 169/2020 had sought a factual report from Forest Department and District Magistrate, Bhiwani and, thereafter, said report was considered. By order dated 20.07.2021, Tribunal had formed a eight members committee headed by Justice Pritam Pal, former Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court and second committee had submitted its report and opportunity was granted to the project proponent therein to file response to the said report and after hearing the Counsel for the concerned parties, Tribunal by order dated 26.08.2022 had held the project proponent i.e. M/s Goverdhan Mines and Minerals, accountable for illegal mining and had directed the joint committee to finalise the matter in respect of predecessor of project proponent. Limited direction of the Tribunal in the

¶24

¶25

order dated 26.08.2022 in respect of predecessor of project proponent was as under:

¶26

“18. ………….Since predecessor of the PP is not before us, the said Committee may finalise compensation in respect of the said party for damage to the environment as well as for illegal mining, along with all other pending issues in the light of the two reports. It will be open to the aggrieved parties to take remedies against decision of the Committee as per law. ”

¶27

Review applicant is stated to be a predecessor of the project proponent in the original application as review applicant had done the mining in the area for the previous period from 01.11.2015 to 22.11.2017. Since, predecessor of the project proponent was not before the Tribunal at the stage of passing the order under review, therefore, safeguard was provided in the order.

¶28

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the review applicant is that the applicant has not been heard while issuing the above direction and that by the joint committee, direction of the Tribunal to finalise the compensation, is treated as final without going into the issue of violation, if any, by the review applicant. He submits that joint committee should give full opportunity to applicant.

¶29

It is not disputed by Counsel for the review applicant that joint committee had issued show cause notice to the review applicant.

¶30

Needless to say that while deciding the issue of finalisation of compensation, joint committee is required to follow the Principles of Natural Justice and ascertain the extent of violation by review applicant, thereafter, take a decision relating to finalisation of compensation for damage to the environment as well as for illegal mining.

¶31

¶32

In terms of the observations of the Tribunal in para 18 of the order dated 26.08.2022, review applicant will have remedy against the decision of the committee as per law, if he remains aggrieved by the same.

¶33

Hence, order of the Tribunal under review is clarified to the extent

¶34

indicated above.

¶35

Review application is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

All pending IAs are also disposed of.

¶37

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶38

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶39

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶40

May 06, 2024 Review Application No.03/2024 In Original Application No. 169/2020 (I.A. No.131/2024, I. A. No. 122/2024 & I.A. No.121/2024)

¶41

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Ms Pune Municipal Corporation

Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Sou Motu Action on the News Regarding Blast in the Fire Cracker Factory in Harda District of Mp on 6TH February 2024 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sou Motu Action on the News Regarding Blast in the Fire Cracker Factory in Harda District of Mp on 6TH February 2024 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Mohan Prakash vs Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change through the Secretary

Pisati Indira Reddy vs Union of India

Brigida Fernandes through Constituted Attorney Ignes Purificacao Cardoso vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Raj Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Prem Mohan Gaur vs National Highways Authority of India

Vinod Kumar Jangra vs State of Haryana

Vinod Kumar Jangra vs State of Haryana

Vivek Mahna vs

Vivek Mahna vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 85/2023 in Original Application No. 81/2023 of Sunil Kumar Aledia vs