Dismissed

Tulshidas Sridhar Naik v. State of Goa

NGT9 Aug 2024IA No. 238/2024 in Original Application No. 117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal admitted an application challenging a highway project lacking prior Environmental Clearance for exceeding area limits. Directions were issued for notice to respondents and listing. An initial application to correct party names was also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Notice to respondents issued; matter listed for further consideration; leave granted to amend application name.

Tulshidas Sridhar Naik vs State of Goa — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.3

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Original Application No.117/2024 (WZ) I.A. No.238/2024(WZ)

¶6

Tulshidas Sridhar Naik & Ors.

¶7

…..Applicants Versus

¶8

State of Goa & Ors.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing: 09.08.2024

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant : Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya, Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By our previous order dated 31.05.2024, we had directed the learned counsel for applicants to show the evidence/proof as to how the area of the project would exceed 1,50,000 mtrs., in this regard, an affidavit dated 12.07.2024 has been filed stating therein that the project, NH-566 is proposed along a completely new alignment from 4.320 kms. to 9.597 kms. of the NH-566, thereby constituting a length of 5.277 kms. In para no.7, the total areas have been calculated in tabular form, which come to 2,27,800 sq. mtrs., which are obviously more than 1,50,000 mtrs., which was necessary as per the Schedule- I of the EIA Notification 2006 to cover it in Category- 8 ‘B’, which provides for Townships and Area Development projects, exceeding built up area ≥1,50,000 sq. mtrs., would require prior EC. Therefore, in the case in hand, the Project Proponent ought to have obtained EC before acquisition of the land. For this, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for applicants upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Project Director, Project Implementation Unit vs. P.V. Krishnamoorthy & Ors. [(2021) 3 SCC

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

572], in which our attention is drawn to para no.95, which is quoted herein below for the sake of convenience:-

¶17

“Applying the tenet underlying this notification, it is amply clear that before the process of acquisition of land is ripe for declaration under Section 3-D of the 1956 Act, it would be open to the executing agency (NHAI) to make an application to the competent authority for environmental clearance. That process can be commenced parallelly or alongside the acquisition process after a preliminary notification under Section 3-A of the 1956 Act, for acquisition is issued.”

¶18

In view of above, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for applicants that the Notification under Section 3(A) was issued in October 2023 and the proceeding up to the Notification of 3(C) has been completed and final Notification under Section 3(D) of the said Act is left to be done. Hence, in terms of the above-mentioned Judgment, a prior EC is required to be obtained by the Project Proponent.

¶19

During argument, the learned counsel for applicants has drawn our attention to the map of the project in question, which is annexed at page no.703 of the paper book and at page nos.704 to 715 of the paper book, Survey Numbers and areas, which are covered in the New Borim Bridge, are also given in tabular form, which are 240 in number and total areas of the project in question, which are found covered within CRZ, are found to be 1,62,118 sq. mtrs.

¶20

Thereafter, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for applicants to the Minutes of the 401^st Meeting of the GCZMA held on 28.05.2024, in which at case no.2.3, the project in question has been dealt with and at page no.27 of the said Minutes, it is recorded “The total estimated land required for the project is 40.3 ha. and most of the private land under acquisition is agricultural”.

¶21

It is further argued by the learned counsel for applicants that the main prayer with respect to change in alignment of the project in question has been prayed. The respondent Nos.3 & 4- PWD Department

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

had engaged a private agency, which had considered 7 alternative alignments, details of which are given in short in tabular form at page no.864 of the paper book. The learned counsel for applicants urges before us that though there is already a bridge, which is functional and there was no need to undertake the bridge to be started/constructed, in case the same was necessary to be built, the Alternative- 1 was comparatively better than the Alternative- 7, which has been finalized in the present case, as per the opinion of the Consultant, whose recommendations are annexed at page no.865 of the paper book along-with reasons.

¶24

The learned counsel for applicants also urges before us that if any information is sought to be obtained by this Tribunal, with respect to the fact whether this project would require EC or not, the same can be given by the MoEF&CC, rather than the NHAI.

¶25

We find prima facie case adversely impacting environment is made out, therefore, we deem it appropriate to admit this application and accordingly admit the same.

¶26

Registry is directed to issue Notice to the respondents, returnable within 04(four) weeks.

¶27

Applicants are directed to take necessary steps for service to the respondents by both ways (Dasti as well as by Registered Post) and also on available e-mail/WhatsApp and submit service affidavit within one week.

¶28

Applicants are also directed to supply copy of the application and relevant documents to the respondents within a week.

¶29

Respondents are directed to submit their reply affidavits within four weeks through e-filing portal of NGT and also circulate the same to the applicants as also other respondents by available e-mail.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

Rejoinder, if any, is directed to be submitted within one week thereafter.

¶32

I.A. No.238/2024(WZ)

¶33

By our previous order dated 31.05.2024, we had noted the number of the applicants is wrong and the same needs to be corrected. For this, the learned counsel for applicants has filed I.A. No.238/2024(WZ), in which prayer is made for permission to be allowed to amend the present Original Application as per the Annexure A-1 annexed with the said I.A.

¶34

Since this Original Application is an admission stage and correction is being made in compliance with our previous order, we allow this I.A. and direct the applicants that amendments be incorporated at appropriate place within two days and thereafter, an amended memo of parties be also filed.

¶35

I.A. No.238/2024(WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Registry is directed to list this matter for further consideration on 22.10.2024

¶37

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶38

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶39

August 09, 2024 Original Application No.117/2024 (WZ) P.Kr

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Tulshidas Sridhar Naik v. State of Goa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulshidas Sridhar Naik v. State of Goa

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

Jayant Kumar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Shri Rajender Gangsari vs

E.V. Sampath vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Member Secretary

E.V. Sampath vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Member Secretary

Soban Singh Rana vs Roshan Lal Uniyal

Soban Singh Rana vs Roshan Lal Uniyal

Sohan Vir Singh vs Virender

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

Mudassar Ismail Mujahid vs 1. the Environment Secretary of Government of Maharashtra

Kheti Vikas Seva Trust vs 1. Adani Enterprises Ltd.

Rajiv Singha vs the State of Maharashtra Principal Secretary Environment

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

Shri Trimurti Nivrutti Pangare and Others vs District Collector Pune

Dayaram J Yadav vs Arnav Textile Pvt. Ltd.