Disposed

Deochand Damduji Karemore v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT22 Nov 2024IA No. 3/2023 in Appeal No. 55/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant sought condonation of a 10-day delay in filing an appeal regarding forest land diversion. The court held that the appellant was not a party to the original order and learned of it only via RTI, thus condoning the delay. The main appeal was remanded to the registrar for filing reply affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 10 days' delay in filing the appeal; six weeks time allowed for respondents to file reply affidavits.

Deochand Damduji Karemore vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change — NGT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.10

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

I.A. No.03/2023 (WZ) In Appeal No.55/2022(WZ)

¶6

Shri Deochand Danduji Karemore

…..Appellant

Versus

MoEF&CC & Ors.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 22.11.2024

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant Respondents

¶14

: Mr. Shailesh S. Sitani, Advocate

¶15

: Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1 & 3/MoEF&CC Mr. K.B. Ambilwade, Advocate for R-4/PP

¶16

ORDER

¶17

I.A. No.03/2023 (WZ)

¶18

This I.A. has been moved by the appellant- Shri Deochand Danduji Karemore seeking condonation of 10 days’ delay in filing the present appeal against the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.1- Integrated Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Nagpur granting diversion of 1.64 ha. of Zudpi Jungle Land under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for establishment of Transport City and Industrial Estate in Nagpur District of Maharashtra.

¶19

In this I.A., Appellant has averred the fact that he had brought to the notice of the Gram Panchayat, Tarodi (Bu)- respondent No.5 that the

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

respondent No.4-Maa Umiya Audyogik Vasahat Mydt., Nagpur through its Director has made encroachment on the forest land i.e. Khasra No.88 admeasuring 1.64 HR situated at Tarodi (Bu) Tahsil Kamptee and District Nagpur. The said Gram Panchayat, as per Section 53 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act- 1959, moved an application dated 22.12.2017 before the Collector, Nagpur for grant of permission to remove the encroachment made by the respondent No.4 over the said forest land. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the said application by passing order dated 27.02.2018 and thereby refused to grant permission to the said Gram Panchayat to remove the encroachment made by the respondent No.4. Thereafter, the said order dated 27.02.2018 was challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, who allow the appeal vide order dated 03.04.2019 and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer.

¶22

It is further mentioned in this I.A. that despite the order dated 03.04.2019, the Gram Panchayat, Tarodi (Bu) failed to remove the encroachment and hence the present appellant filed Writ Petition bearing No.5348/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur on 16.06.2022, before which respondent No.4 filed his submissions and for the first time informed that it has applied for conversion of the said land before the respondent No.1 and that respondent No.1 has passed impugned order dated 13.12.2021. Thereafter, appellant requested them for a certified copy of the said impugned order but the same was refused to be provided and accordingly, appellant filed an application dated 05.08.2022 under RTI before the said Authority to provide the same and thereafter, copy of the documents along-with impugned order dated 13.12.2021 was provided to the appellant on 06.10.2022.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

It is further mentioned in this I.A. that appellant has filed the present appeal on 06.11.2022 with a delay of 10 days, as according to the Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, an appeal against the impugned order needs to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the impugned order.

¶25

This I.A. is being vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 saying that appellant had full knowledge about the impugned order at the time when the matter was being considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Thereafter, he drew our attention to the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.5348 of 2019. We have gone through the entire order and do not find anywhere in that order any reference to have been made of the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.1-MoEF&CC. Therefore, knowledge cannot be attributed on the basis of the said order, as has been alleged by the learned counsel for respondent No.4. He has also tried to refer rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court saying that delay for each and every day needs to be explained by the appellant and in this case, the same has not done, therefore, delay should not be condoned.

¶26

We are of the view that appellant was not party before the respondent No.1- MoEF&CC, therefore, there was no chance of him coming to know about the said order, hence he came to know about the said order after getting a copy of the same under RTI and from that date onward, within 40 days, he has filed the present appeal. Therefore, looking to the said facts into consideration, we condone the said delay in filing the present appeal.

¶27

I.A. No.03/2023 (WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

Appeal No.55/2022(WZ)

¶30

As per the service affidavit, service of notice upon all the respondents is found to be sufficient.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3- MoEF&CC and respondent No.4- Maa Umiya Audyogik Vasahat Mydt., Nagpur through its Director have prayed for six weeks’ time to be allowed to file reply affidavits in this matter. We allow the said time with a direction that a copy of the same be served upon all other parties, who may file rejoinder affidavit against the same, if any, within one week thereafter.

¶32

Put up this matter for further consideration on 04.02.2025

¶33

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶34

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶35

November 22, 2024 Appeal No.55/2022(WZ) I.A. No.03/2023 (WZ) P.Kr

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Deochand Damduji Karemore v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deochand Damduji Karemore v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizamuddin West Association vs Union of India

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri vs Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri vs Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung

Akash Dubey vs Union of India

Naresh Kumar Yadav vs Union of India

Naresh Kumar Yadav vs Union of India

Ras Mohan Thakur vs State Expert Appraisal Committee (Seac) State of Biharstate Expert Appraisal Committee (Seac) State of Bihar

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Shri Raju Goyal vs State of Maharashtra through Mira Bhaindar Municipal Corporation

Shantinath Devappa Hukkeri vs Dunung Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Pritam Prafulla Dunung

Shri Suraj Kale vs K K Stone Crusher

Surti Mohmmedaaqib vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Gavhan Koliwada Matsyavyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Gavhan Koliwada through Its Chairman Shri. Hitesh Harichandra Koli vs City and Industrial Development Corporation through Its Chairperson