Disposed

Prakash Agrawal v. Mathias Construction Private Limited through Julian Richard Mathias Jt. Managing Director

NGT10 Sept 2024IA No. 246/2024 in Original Application No. 141/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed time to file reply affidavits for multiple respondents. Additional documents were admitted without objection. A request to amend pleadings was put on notice for objections. A joint committee report was extended; a petition to add parties was withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Time granted for reply affidavits; additional documents allowed; time granted for joint committee report; leave granted to withdraw application to add parties.

Prakash Agrawal vs Mathias Construction Private… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.6

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Original Application No.141/2024(WZ) I.A. No.217/2024(WZ) , I.A. No.246/2024(WZ), I.A. No.247/2024(WZ) & I.A. No.255/2024(WZ)

¶6

Prakash Agrawal

¶7

…..Applicant Versus

¶8

Mathias Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing: 10.09.2024

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant : Mr. Tanaji Gambhire, Advocate along-with Mr. Vijay Mhaske, Advocate Respondents : Shri Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate along-with Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan and Mr. Siddharth Sardesai, Advocate for R-1 to 4/PP Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-5/MoEF&CC Mr. Manish Salkar, Advocate for R-7/GSPCB Mr. Shubham Priolkar, Advocate for R-9/Collector

¶13

ORDER

¶14

From the side of applicant, learned counsel Mr. Tanaji Gambhire has appeared before us, who has filed service affidavit, as per which service of notice upon all the respondents is found to be sufficient.

¶15

From the side of respondent No.1- Mathlas Constructions Pvt. Ltd.;, for respondent No.2- Julian Richard Mathias; for respondent No.3Joe Marcelino Mathias; and for respondent No.4- Mrs. Mariola Mathias, learned Senior Counsel Shri Nitin Sardessai along-with learned counsel Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan and learned counsel Mr. Siddharth Sardesai have appeared before us and prayed for eight weeks’ time to be allowed to file reply affidavit in this matter. We allow the said time.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

From the side of respondent No.5- MoEF&CC, learned counsel Mr. Pushkal Mishra has appeared before us, who prays for four weeks’ time to be allowed to file reply affidavit in this matter. We allow the said time.

¶18

From the side of respondent No.7- GSPCB, learned counsel Mr. Manish Salkar has appeared before us, who prays for four weeks’ time to be allowed to file reply affidavit in this matter. We allow the said time.

¶19

From the side of respondent No.9- Collector, North Goa, learned counsel Mr. Shubham Priolkar has appeared before us, who submits that he would be filing the reply affidavit after receipt of the Joint Committee Report. We allow the same.

¶20

The Joint Committee, which was constituted by us by our previous order dated 22.07.2024, was allowed six weeks’ time to submit its report before this Tribunal. But we find that the said report has not been submitted till date and no reason has been given therefor. The respondent No.7-GSPCB, which is the nodal agency of the Joint Committee, which is being represented today by the learned counsel Manish Salkar has prayed before us that further two weeks’ may be allowed to file the same. We allow the said time by way of last opportunity with a direction that a copy of the same be served upon all other parties well in advance.

¶21

I.A. No.246/2024(WZ)

¶22

This I.A. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer that he may be allowed to bring on record the additional documents in the present Original Application, which are annexed with the said I.A. from Exhibit A-68 to Exhibit A-96.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

Since this is an initial stage of the present case, we allow this I.A. without providing an opportunity to the other parties to file objection against the said application.

¶25

I.A. No.246/2024(WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

I.A. No.247/2024(WZ)

¶27

By this I.A., prayer is made by the applicant to bring an amendment in the pleadings of the present Original Application by adding para nos.3(a) to 3(f) after para no.3 and also seeking amendment in the prayer clauses to the effect that several insertions are prayed to be allowed to be made in Clause- 43(C) of the prayer clause and two further clauses as C1 and C2 are prayed to be added after para no.43(C).

¶28

Since this I.A. is said to have been served upon all other parties, we direct the learned counsel for respondents to file objections against this application, if any, within two weeks.

¶29

I.A. No.255/2024(WZ)

¶30

This I.A. has been filed by the applicant/respondent Nos.1 to 4 with the prayer to direct the original applicant to add several parties as respondents in the present Original Application, which according to him, are necessary parties.

¶31

We find that learned counsel for applicant/respondent Nos.1 to 4 has not filed this I.A. in proper manner. Therefore, learned counsel for applicant/respondent Nos.1 to 4 has prayed before us that he may be allowed to withdraw this I.A. We allow his prayer and dispose of this I.A. as withdrawn.

¶32

I.A. No.255/2024(WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

Registry is directed to list this matter for disposal of I.A. No.247/2024(WZ) on 27.09.2024.

¶35

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶36

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶37

September 10, 2024 Original Application No.141/2024(WZ) I.A. No.217/2024(WZ), I.A. No.246/2024(WZ), I.A. No.247/2024(WZ) & I.A. No.255/2024(WZ) P.Kr

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Prakash Agrawal v. Mathias Construction Private Limited through Julian Richard Mathias Jt. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Agrawal v. Mathias Construction Private Limited through Julian Richard Mathias Jt. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navendu Mishra vs Municipal Corporation of Seoni

Kaushalya Sharma vs Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority

Navendu Mishra vs Municipal Corporation of Seoni

Dr Bina Basnett vs State of Sikkim

Dr Sharad Gupta vs

Vanashakti vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Sou Motu Action on the News Paper Article Pubshed in Rajasthan Patrika Balotra Edition on 16TH March 2024 Regarding Spreding of Chemical Water Effluent Relarsed by the Industries Rajasthan vs State of Rajasthan

Kahar Samaj Panch Committee vs 1. Thdc India Ltd. (Formerly Tehari Hydro Development Corporation Ltd)

News Item Titled Four Suffocate to Death Cleaning Sewage Plant in MumbaiS Virar Appearing in the Times of India Dated 10.04.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Reagan Rodrigues Represented by His Poa Rousseau Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Dilip Tukaram Vede Patil vs Pmc through Municipal Commissioner

Mr Dilip Tukaran Vede Patil vs Diamond Rmc Plant

Navnath Andre Kankonkar (Gomes) vs Moef