Disposed

Navnath Andre Kankonkar (Gomes) v. Moef

NGT10 Sept 2024Original Application No. 118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an environmental application seeking restitution and remedial measures. It rejected a claim of premature interference, holding that deficiencies in an ongoing project must be corrected upon completion. It also dismissed a subsidiary application for impleadment as not pressed by the parties.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of as the grievances were deemed premature and a subsidiary impleadment application was dismissed as not pressed.

Navnath Andre Kankonkar (Gomes) vs Moef — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.5

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶5

Original Application No.118/2024(WZ) I.A. No.256/2024(WZ)

¶6

Navnath Andre Kankonkar

¶7

…..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 10.09.2024

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant :	Ms. Swayamprabha, Advocate
Respondents :	Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC
	Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-3/SEIAA, Goa
	Mr. Manish Salkar, Advocate for R-4/GSPCB
	Mr. Shubham Priolkar, Advocate for R-7/Collector, North Goa
	Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate along-with
	Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan and
	Mr. Siddharth Sardesai, Advocate for R-9 & 10/PP

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier order dated 28.05.2024, wherein it was made clear by the learned counsel for applicant that she is pressing only prayer no.(g) of the present Original Application, which is to the following effect:-

¶16

“(g). The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly direct the Respondents for restitution of the area by undertaking the remedial & mitigation measures by complying the terms & conditions stipulated in Environment Clearance, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate for installation and operations of environmental infrastructure at site.

¶17

Thereafter, we had made a query from the learned counsel for applicant as to what are those terms & conditions, which have been breached by the Project Proponent, she gave us the breaches, which were

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

laid down in the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 28.11.2019, in tabular form, which were reproduced by us vide our order dated 29.05.2024.

¶20

After having considered the matter at length in our earlier order dated 29.05.2024, we constituted a Joint Committee with a direction to visit the site in question and submit its report regarding noncompliances, within one month. In pursuance of that, the Joint Committee has submitted its report before this Tribunal on 09.09.2024, relevant portion of which is quoted herein below:-

“

Page 2 of 6

”

Page 3 of 6

Today, we enquired from the learned counsel for applicant as to whether any objection against the Joint Committee Report has been filed, she gave answer in the negative. Therefore, we proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

¶26

Vide order dated 29.05.2024, we had directed the Registry for issuance of notices on all the respondents in the present Original Application. As per the service affidavit dated 20.08.2024, the service of notice upon all the respondents is found to be sufficient.

¶27

Today, from the side of respondent No.1- MoEF&CC, learned counsel Mr. Pushkal Mishra has appeared before us, who submits that he does not want to file reply affidavit in this matter.

¶28

From the side of respondent No.3- SEIAA, Goa, learned counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi has appeared.

¶29

From the side of respondent No.4-Goa State Pollution Control Board (Goa SPCB), learned counsel Mr. Manish Salkar has appeared, who submits that being the nodal agency of the Joint Committee, he has submitted its report, which we have already considered above.

¶30

From the side of respondent No.7-Collector and District Magistrate, North Goa, learned counsel Mr. Shubham Priolkar has appeared before us, who submits that being one of the Members of the Joint Committee, he would rely on the Joint Committee Report.

¶31

From the side of respondent No.9-Mr. Joe Marcelinho Mathias and for respondent No.10- M/s. Mathias Construction Pvt. Ltd., learned Senior Counsel Shri Nitin Sardessai along-with learned counsel Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan and learned counsel Mr. Siddharth Sardesai

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

have appeared before us and submitted that reply affidavit has not been filed from their side.

¶34

We find that one I.A. No.256/2024(WZ) has been moved from the side of applicant/respondent Nos.9 & 10 with the prayer, which is very vague because it appears that few parties are prayed to be added as respondents in the present Original Application.

¶35

During hearing the argument of learned Senior Counsel for applicant/respondent Nos.9 & 10, it transpired that in this I.A., M/s. Paramount Buildwell Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Director has been prayed to be added as one of the respondents because the said Project Proponent is constructing its project on their behalf and with respect to respondent No.8-Mathias Ocean Park Owners Association, it is stated that the said Society is not registered one and therefore, each and every individual owner of the flat needs to be impleaded as respondents in the present Original Application and their names are given in the list annexed as Annexure- 2 with the said I.A.

¶36

We have gone through the said list and find that the procedure, which is adopted by the applicant/respondent Nos.9 & 10, is not correct because they should have mentioned serially all the names of the proposed respondents, which have not been done in accordance with law. But later on, learned Senior Counsel for applicant/respondent Nos.9 & 10 submits that he does not want to press this I.A. Therefore, we allow his prayer and dismiss this I.A. as not pressed.

¶37

I.A. No.256/2024(WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

During the argument, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.9 & 10 submits that the construction of the project in question is still

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

going on. The Joint Committee Report, which has been submitted, states that there are several provisions, such as non-setting up of Water Harvesting Plant, Solar Panel Installation, tree plantation etc. which are stated to have not been completed. In this regard, it is submitted by him that since the project is still going on, the Project Proponent will be providing all these deficiencies at the time when the project in question is finally completed. Therefore, we find that the present Original Application is premature at this stage to raise these issues.

¶41

When we confronted the argument of learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.9 & 10 to the learned counsel for applicant, no proper reply could be given. We are also of the view that at this stage, when the project is going on, whatever deficiencies have been pointed out by the applicant, need to be corrected by the time when the project is finally completed.

¶42

Even after this, if any grievance is left to the applicant, he may approach before this Tribunal at an appropriate stage.

¶43

In view of above, we dispose of this application accordingly.

¶44

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶45

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶46

September 10, 2024 Original Application No.118/2024(WZ) I.A. No.256/2024(WZ) P.Kr

¶47

Page 6 of 6

Navnath Andre Kankonkar (Gomes) v. Moef

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navnath Andre Kankonkar (Gomes) v. Moef

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

Vivek Verma vs

Khildev Singh Rawat vs

Satish Kumar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Kaushalya Sharma vs Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority

News Item Titled Authorities Fail to Prevent Dumping of Construction & Demolition Waste in Pune Rivers Appearing in the Hindustan Times Dated 04.07.2024 vs the State of Maharashtra through Pune Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner

Shri Laxman Gayanu Kalugade vs Member Secretary Mpcb

News Item Titled Explosion Kills One Injures Six in ChhattisgarhS Bemetara Factory Blast" Appearing in the Deccan Herald Dated 25.05.2024 vs Chhattisgarh Pollution Control Board

Rakesh Khandelwal vs

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