Dismissed

T.M.Umashankar v. Union of India

NGT7 Aug 2024Review Application No. 7/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal reviewed an order dismissing Original Application No. 196 of 2021 regarding violations by a hazardous waste facility operator. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence, and noting the review was an attempt to re-agitate settled issues, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed in view of non-existence of error apparent on the face of the record.

T.M.Umashankar vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶2

Review Application No. 07 of 2024 (SZ) In Original Application No. 196 of 2021(SZ)

¶3

IN THE MATTER OF

¶4

T.M. Umashankar

¶5

S/o Late Marulasiddappa, Aged about 65 years, R/o Somapur Dobaspet- 562111. Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

¶6

...Review Applicant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor bagh road, New Delhi- 110003.

¶9

2. State of Karnataka, Through the Chief Secretary, Department of Forest Ecology and Environment, M.S. Building, 3 Phase 4th Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, bangalore- 560 001.

¶10

3. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Through the Member Secretary, Parisara Bhawan, 1st to 5th Floor, No. 49, Church Street, Bengalurru- 560 001.

¶11

4. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Through the Chief Executive Officer, 4th and 5th Floor, Khanija Bhavana, R.C. Road, Bangalore- 560 009.

¶12

5. Karnataka Waste Management Project, Division of M/s Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd. Through its Director, No.6-3-1089/10 & 11, Ramky House, Gulmohur Avenue, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad- 500082.

¶13

And having its establishment at Survey Nos. 75 to 85 of Temrranahalli, and Survey Nos. 7 & 9 of Thimmanayakana Halli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.

¶14

6. Central Pollution Control Board, Through the Member Secretary, Parivesh Bhawan, CBD-cum-Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi- 110032.

¶15

...Respondent(s)

¶16

¶17

Date of Order: 7^th August, 2024.

¶18

CORAM :

¶19

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶20

IN CHAMBER BY CIRCULATION

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The above application is filed to review the order dated 27.02.2024 in O.A. No. 196 of 2021. The Original Application was filed challenging the violations committed by the 5^th respondent, project proponent, by running a hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facility

¶23

which is a ‘Red Category’ in Dobaspet Industrial Area, Bangalore.

¶24

Under Rule 22 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011, it is the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the matter in open court if there are materials for detailed hearing and if not the same can be decided on circulation. Since, this Tribunal felt that there is nothing to be argued in detail, the same was decided to be disposed of on circulation as provided under the Rules.

¶25

The applicant had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 19927 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka objecting to the establishment of the Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) which was disposed of on 12.08.2009. Again another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 51509 of 2016 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka alleging that TSDF is established without Environmental Clearance. The said writ petition was transferred to the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal and re-numbered as O.A. No. 654 of 2019. The Principal Bench assessed the facts based on the Joint Committee report and passed an order not to interfere with the

¶26

¶27

functioning of the TSDF and directed the project proponent to apply for the Environmental Clearance.

¶28

Aggrieved by the said order the applicant, herein, preferred Civil Appeal no. 522 of 2020 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal however permitted the applicant to take appropriate action in so far as compensation is concerned, if it is so payable in law. In the meanwhile the 5^th respondent also applied for the Environmental Clearance on 08.01.2020 wherein the SEAC found that the project proponent already had a valid Environmental Clearance.

¶29

While so, based on the strength of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which permitted the applicant only to agitate the issue of compensation had filed the Original Application alleging violations committed by the 5^th respondent by running the hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facility. The said Original Application was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 01 lakh payable to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The said order is now sought to be reviewed.

¶30

It is stated in the review application that the order had observed that there is a personal rivalry between the applicant and the 5^th respondent which is incorrect. It is admitted that even the project proponent had replied that the allegations are vexatious, frivolous and spurious however there was no personal rivalry between the applicant and the project proponent. The applicant has given the dictionary meaning of the above words. It is further stated that the said finding was only based on assumptions and same has to be reviewed.

¶31

¶32

The second ground on which the review is filed is on the imposition of the cost. It is alleged that the penalty imposed on the applicant for approaching the Tribunal not only for the present proceedings but also for all the previous occasions. When already the issue was tried by this Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also confirmed it and allowed to raise the issue of compensation only, the applicant has filed the application for the second time alleging the same grounds.

¶33

Now by filing the review application, the applicant is only seeking to re-agitate the matter and re-hear the application when it is the specific finding of the Tribunal and cost was imposed for wasting the time of the Tribunal, the same cannot questioned by way of review as it is not an error apparent on the face of the record or a discovery of a new or important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him. The grounds raised by the review applicant do not make out such an error apparent on the face of the record nor has brought out any new and important fact which was omitted to be reviewed.

¶34

It is a settled principle that a review is not a routine procedure and unless there is a material error manifest on the face of the order which itself is a miscarriage of justice, a review cannot be entertained. It is also well settled that an error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying to exercise the power of review.

¶35

¶36

Since there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the Judgment, we feel that there is no case made out for the review, hence the Review application is dismissed.

¶37

............................................................J.M.
(Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana)
.......................................E.M.
(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
R.A. No. 07/20234(SZ)in
O.A No.196/2021(SZ)
7th August, 2024. (AM)

¶38

¶39

Before the National Green
Tribunal
Southern Zone (Chennai)
R.A. No. 07 of 2024(SZ)
T.M. Umashankar
Vs.
Union of India and Ors.
R.A. No. 07/2023(SZ)in
O.A No. 196/2021(SZ)
7th August, 2024. (AM)

¶40

T.M.Umashankar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Umashankar v. Union of India

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

Mrs. Linet Nunes W/O Simon Lobo vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

G Ramalingam vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Domingos Castro vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Prem Mohan Gaur vs National Highways Authority of India

Tushar Goswami vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Sanjeev Jain vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Behru Lal Regar vs State of Rajasthan

Sarvan Kumar vs State of Telangana

Jmt Arjun and Adarsh Enterprises vs Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.

M Padmavathi vs the Honble Appellate Authority

J.Sathyan Praveen vs the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu Seiaa Tn

Akula Satish vs State of Telangana

V Ramasubbu vs Member Secretary

Jerome vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board