Dismissed

Tushar Goswami v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

NGT8 Aug 2024IA No. 154/2024 in Review Application No. 6/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application filed by the Union of India challenging an order that reduced a penalty, the National Green Tribunal dismissed the review. The Tribunal held that the review raised no 'error apparent on the face of the order' and all conditions for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC were unsatisfied.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application No. 6/2024 was dismissed as no case for review was made out under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

Tushar Goswami vs Union of India through the Secretary… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 17

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

R.A. No. 6/2024 In Original Application No. 203/2023 (IA No. 154/2024) Tushar Goswami Applicant Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s) --------------

¶5

Union of India, through The Secretary, MoEF&CC Review Applicant

¶6

Date of hearing: 08.08.2024

¶7

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

¶8

Review Applicant: Mr. Vikram Banerjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Pratap, Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Ms. Tanisha Samanta, Mr. Prashant Rawat & Ms. Rashi Mangal, Advs. for Review Applicant in R.A. No. 06/2024

¶9

ORDER

¶10

There is a delay of 10 days in filing the present review application. Hence, IA No. 154/2024 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Having regard to the reasons which have been assigned in the application and also considering the fact that the delay is only marginal, the IA is allowed and delay of 10 days in filing the review application is condoned.

¶11

This review application has been filed by the Respondent No. 1 seeking review of the order dated 06.02.2024 passed in IA No. 888/2023 in OA No. 203/2023.

¶12

The OA relates to the issue of setting up of a tent city project by the

¶13

river side of Ganga at Varanasi for commercial purposes.

¶14

¶15

When the OA was taken up on 15.12.2023, the Tribunal had observed that the Counsel for Respondent No. 1 in the OA could not render assistance and was ignorant of the facts and relevant information relating to the denotification of the Turtle Sanctuary, therefore, the Tribunal had imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

¶16

IA No. 888/2023 was filed by Respondent No. 1 in the OA for waiver of cost which was partly allowed by the order dated 06.04.2024 reducing the cost to Rs. 5,000/-.

¶17

Having heard learned Counsel for the Review Applicant, it is noted that IA No. 888/2023 was only a short IA of three paragraphs with the prayer for waiver of cost of Rs. 25,000/-. In the said IA, the only explanation was in paragraph 2 which reads as under:

¶18

“xxx …………………………………..xxx………………………………..xxx 2. It is submitted that the captioned matter was listed before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 15.12.2023 wherein, the Hon'ble Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs 25000/- on the Respondent No.1 for not providing any information qua the denotification of the turtle sanctuary. It is submitted that the Applicant/Respondent No. 1 in compliance with the direction passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal has filed the appropriate affidavit pertaining to turtle sanctuary on 22.12.2023 and therefore, by way of present Application, the Applicant is seeking kind benevolence of their Lordship's, to waive of the cost of Rs 25000/-, imposed upon the Applicant/Respondent No.1 by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its Order dated 15.12.2023.”

¶19

The only reason disclosed in the IA was that subsequently the affidavit was filed but there was no explanation furnished for not rendering the proper assistance on 15.12.2023. Yet the Tribunal in the order dated 06.02.2024 had taken lenient view and reduced the cost to a token cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

¶20

In the present review application, some further grounds have been raised which were not raised in the IA. Whatever grounds were raised in the IA No. 888/2023 were duly considered in the order dated 06.02.2024.

¶21

¶22

The order dated 06.02.2024 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the order. None of the conditions prescribed in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC for review is satisfied in the matter.

¶23

Hence, no case for review of the order dated 06.02.2024 passed in IA No. 888/2023 is made out.

¶24

The Review Application No. 6/2024 is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶26

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶27

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶28

August 08, 2024 R.A. No. 6/2024 In OA No. 203/2023 (IA No. 154/2024) DV

¶29

Tushar Goswami v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Goswami v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadiq Hussain vs State of Chattisgarh

Vipin Nayyar vs Union of India

Vipin Nayyar vs Union of India

Vipin Nayyar vs Union of India

M/S Rajal Paharia vs Union of India

Tulshidas Sridhar Naik vs State of Goa

Arun Kumar Sharma vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Ia No. 618/2023 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 69/2022 of Om Prakash vs State of Haryana

Gauri Maulekhi vs Union of India

Jan Kalyan Bhoomi Mukhti Foundation (Regd.) vs Ministry of Coal

Prem Mohan Gaur vs National Highways Authority of India

Tushar Goswami vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Rakesh Kumar vs Union of India

News Item Titled "Feeling Anxious? Toxic Air Could Be to Blame" Appearing in Times of India Dated 10.10.2023 vs