Dismissed

News Item on India'S Sinking Islands Appeared in the Hindu 19.03.2023 vs

NGT6 Nov 2024IA No. 501/2024 in Original Application No. 249/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT disposed of an IA seeking to club cases regarding the CRZ Notification challenging before the Principal Bench with those pending before the Western Zonal Bench. The court refused the transfer prayer citing pending Supreme Court orders on the pureness of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for tagging/clubbing of OA No. 106/2022(WZ) with Principal Bench OAs was dismissed.

News Item on India'S Sinking Islands Appeared in the… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 12

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

IA No. 501/2024 In Original Application No. 249/2023

¶5

News item on India's Sinking Islands appeared in the Hindu 19.03.2023

¶6

Date of hearing: 06.11.2024

¶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

Applicant: Mr. Akash Rebello & Mr. Yogesh H. Pandey, Advs. for Applicant in OA No. 106/2022 (WZ) (Through VC) Mr. Sivagnanam K & Ms. Ira S. Mahajan, Advs. for Applicant in OA No. 09/2023 (WZ) Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, Adv. for Applicant in OA No. 10/2023 (WZ) (Through VC)

¶9

Respondents: Dr. Swati Jindal, Adv. for MoEF & CC Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee & Ms. Srija Choudhury, Advs. for the State of West Bengal (Through VC) Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Mr. Dhruv Tank & Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Advs. for the State of Goa (Through VC) Ms. Apoorv Kurup, Mr. Gurjas Narula & Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Advs. for UT of Lakshadweep (Through VC) Mr. Jogy Scaria, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Soni, Ms. M. Priya & Ms. Beena Victor, Advs. for Kerala SPCB Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mr. Keerthipriyan.E & Mr. Alim Anvar, Advs. for the State of Kerala Mr. Gigi. C. George, Adv. for Andaman & Nicobar Islands

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Learned Counsel for the parties are heard on IA No. 501/2024 filed by the MoEF&CC and National Coastal Zone Management Authority with the prayer to tag OA No. 106/2022(WZ), OA No. 9/2023(WZ) and OA No. 10/2023(WZ) pending before the Western Zonal Bench of NGT at Pune with OA No. 249/2023 and OA No. 795/2023 pending before the Principal Bench at New Delhi.

¶12

The plea of the Applicant is that all these OAs should be dealt with by the Principal Bench at New Delhi.

¶13

¶14

In the OA No. 106/2022(WZ), OA No. 9/2023(WZ) and OA No. 10/2023(WZ) pending before the Western Zonal Bench at Pune, the CRZ Notification, 2019 is under challenge.

¶15

In OA No. 249/2023, and OA No. 795/2023 pending before the Principal Bench at New Delhi, the issue of implementation of CRZ Notification 2019 is under consideration.

¶16

The stand of the Applicant in the IA is that the MoEF&CC is taking all necessary measures to expedite the CZMP updating as per the CRZ Notification, 2019 and that CRZ Notification, 2019 applies to all the coastal States/Union Territories of India. Therefore, they are also interested parties in the matter. In this background, prayer for clubbing these OAs and taking up all the OAs pending before the Western Zonal Bench at Pune, along with pending OAs before the Principal Bench at New Delhi has been made.

¶17

A reply to IA No. 501/2024 has been filed on behalf of Vanshakti, (Original Applicant in OA No. 106/2022(WZ) before NGT, WZB) opposing the prayer made in the IA and praying for its dismissal.

¶18

The applicant in substance is seeking transfer of the OA No. 106/2022(WZ), OA No. 9/2023(WZ) and OA No. 10/2023(WZ) pending before the Western Zonal Bench at Pune to the Principal Bench at New Delhi for hearing along with OA No. 249/2023 and OA No. 795/2023 pending before the Principal Bench at New Delhi.

¶19

It was pointed out to Learned Counsel for the MoEF&CC on the previous date that in view of the following interim order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 17931/2022 in

¶20

¶21

the matter of The National Green Tribunal & Anr. vs. The Goa Foundation

¶22

& Ors., such a prayer cannot be granted:

¶23

“Leave granted.

¶24

By way of ad-interim order, we stay the directions mentioned in paragraph 56 of the impugned order.

¶25

However, we clarify that since two Members (One Judicial and one Expert Member) are very much available for Western Zone Bench, all matters pertaining to Western Zone, Pune, including the matters arising out the States of Maharashtra and Goa will be heard only by Pune Bench sitting at Pune.”

¶26

The above order has subsequently been modified by the order dated

¶27

18.07.2024 to the following effect:

¶28

“ 1. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the National Green Tribunal (NGT) requests for clarification of our dated 18.10.2022.

¶29

2. Vide the said order, this Court had directed that all matters pertaining to the jurisdiction of Pune Western Zone should be heard and decided by the Pune Bench of NGT.

¶30

3. Mr. Datar states that out of two members at Pune, one member is suffering from medical ailment and is required to be hospitalized frequently.

¶31

4. It is submitted that on account of hospitalization of one of the members, the Bench is not in a position to function properly, thereby leading to huge pendency.

¶32

5. He submits that as only one member is available, the other member from other Benches may be permitted to join virtually so that the Bench at Pune functions.

¶33

6. We, therefore, clarify that our order dated 18.10.2022 will not come in the way of the NGT in constituting a Bench at Pune with one of the members stationed at Pune alongwith another member either at Principal Seat or another Benches, who shall join virtually.

¶34

7. In the above terms, the application is disposed of.”

¶35

Having regard to the above, till the above order is further clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as has been done in the IA No. 163051/2021 filed in Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20495/2021, permitting the transfer of pending OAs from the Western Zonal Bench at Pune for hearing along with pending OAs before the Principal Bench at New Delhi, the prayer made in the present IA cannot be granted.

¶36

¶37

That apart, we find that the Western Zonal Bench at Pune in IA No. 165/2024(WZ) in OA No. 106/2022(WZ) on 11.09.2024 has expressed as under:

¶38

7. Therefore, from the above prayers in the OA before us we find that the area covered under new clauses is a much larger area than the issue which is under consideration before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal but we find that both are interconnected to a great extent because much will depend on the preparing of CZMP Maps and based on that only permission would be required to be allowed for construction and other activities. So it would be ideal that this matter should have been considered by a larger bench of this tribunal comprising the Judicial Members and Expert Members of each bench, in particular, where jurisdiction of the coastal area is found i.e. East, West, and Southern Zone at least.

¶39

xxx ………………………………..xxx……………………………………xxx

¶40

10. However, looking to the fact that any order which is likely to be passed in this matter seeking declaration of the CRZ Notification 2019 to be ultra vires the Constitution and hence null and void, would have pan-India implications. Hence it would be better that a larger bench is constituted for which a prayer is required to be made before the Principal bench of this Tribunal by the applicant of the present I.A. For this, we grant two weeks’ time to the applicant in case they so wish.

¶41

11. In case no such larger bench is constituted, we would be duty bound to hear this matter on our own, looking to the fact that the matter is raised before us by the counsel of the State of Maharashtra and Goa which are the States covered under our jurisdiction.

¶42

12. In view of the above analysis made by us, we are not inclined to accept the prayer made by respondent No.1 (applicant in the present IA) to club the present OA with the other two OAs pending before the Principal Bench, referred to above. Hence the present application (IA 165 of 2024) is rejected.

¶43

13. We would also give liberty to the applicant to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case they so wish to obtain clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to whether order dated 30.09.2022 meant that the matter should be taken up/ decided by the Principal Bench or any of the benches of this Tribunal, particularly in view of the implication it would have on all India basis.”

¶44

Thereafter, the Western Zonal Bench has passed the common order dated 16.10.2024 in OA No. 106/2022(WZ), OA No. 9/2023(WZ) and OA

¶45

No. 10/2023(WZ) expressing that it would be appropriate that a larger bench is constituted for hearing the OAs pending before it and directing

¶46

¶47

the Registrar western zonal bench to send a request to the Principal Bench for constituting a larger bench.

¶48

Learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the constitution of the larger bench will substantially redress the grievance of the Applicant and that after the constitution of the larger bench, the Applicant will adopt appropriate remedies as are permissible in law.

¶49

Even otherwise, in view of the interim orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted above, the prayer made in the present IA cannot be granted.

¶50

Hence, the IA is accordingly disposed of.

¶51

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶52

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶53

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶54

November 06, 2024 IA No. 501/2024 In Original Application No. 249/2023 dv..

¶55

News Item on India'S Sinking Islands Appeared in the Hindu 19.03.2023 vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

News Item on India'S Sinking Islands Appeared in the Hindu 19.03.2023 vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Muralidhar Dattoba Nimankar vs Maharashtra State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd.

Jasbir Singh vs NCT of Delhi

Dimpal Kumar vs State of Punjab

Mousri Jana vs the State of West Bengal

Tejah Balantrapu vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Maruti Cottex Limited vs Telanagana State Pollution Control Board

Mr Raghuvirsinh Hathibhai Jebalia vs Dhari Solar Park Pvt. Ltd.

Manav Seva Sansthan vs Union of India

Ishhita Foundation through Its President Ms Pragya Singh Alias Vanshika Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

M C Mehta vs Union of India

Sarvan Kumar vs State of Telangana

News Item Published in the Newspaper the Hindu Dated 02.10.2022 Titled Over 6000 Trees Illegally Cut for Tiger Safari Project in Corbett Rese Rve Says Fsi Report vs

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka