AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned Advocate Vanita Chaudhari for the Applicant.
We have perused pleadings in the Application and prayers in the Application. The prayers in the Application are as follows:
A. This Application may kindly be allowed.
B. The Draft Revised Development Plan of Kaij Nagar Panchyat U/s. 26(1) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 published in the daily Lokmat dated February 01, 2014 and the decision of the General Body of the Respondent No.4 Nagar Panchyat dated 21.07.2014 and the proposed Revised Development Plan published in Official Gazette on 24.07.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of green policy and environmental protection policy.
C. The directions may kindly be given to the Respondent Authorities to suitably modify the proposed Revised Development Plan published in Official Gazette on 24.07.2014 considering the objections/suggestions of the Applicant on 20.02.2014 and 20.09.2014 so as to adhere to green policy and in the interest of environmental protection.
D. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Application, the Respondents may kindly be directed not to proceed with or act upon the proposed Revised Development Plan published in Official Gazette on 24.07.2014.
Considering the nature of prayers in the Application, it is manifest that the Applicant's challenge is to draft Notification regarding Town Planning (TP), as per communication dated 31st August, 2009 etc.
The nature of dispute raised in the Application has absolutely no remote concern with any of the issues connected with seven (7) enactments, named in the Schedule-I, of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and, therefore, all the prayers are outside the realm of jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
At this juncture, learned Advocate Vanita Chaudhari, seeks withdrawal of Application, which we do not permit, because she had urged persistently for adjournments, which we refused, and as reported she sought withdrawal when we pointed out that the Application falls within none of the provisions of any enactments covered by Schedule-I, of the NGT Act, 2010. Apart from above difficulty, having regard to nature of the Application, we are of firm opinion that the Application does not raise any 'substantial dispute relating to environment', which can be considered under Section 14(1) of the NGT Act, 2010. The draft Notification is also not yet finalized by the State Govt. nor there is any final order to fell/cut the trees, as alleged in the Application. We may further point out that felling of trees situated in the agricultural lands, which are not acquired by the State Govt., is the activity covered not under the Maharashtra Urban Area (Protection and Preservation of Trees) Rules, 2009, which the Applicant has referred in the Application. Mere raising of dispute in the Application generating no flavor of substantial nature, does not attract jurisdiction under Section 14 (1) of the NGT Act, 2010. The expression 'substantial' as used in Section 14(1) of the NGT Act, 2010, cannot be considered so lightly and without application of mind. What is substantial is rather well defined concept under the Law. In case of use of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, second Appeal is permissible only when 'substantial question of law' is raised and not otherwise. In such case, 'substantial question' means the question which is not decided in the earlier matter or that the facts are not akin to any other similar case, which make it so different that a new question can be culled out therefrom for the purpose of decision making and interpretation of Law. Of course, this is general interpretation, which we desire to express for the present, though it is not of much significance in the present case. We need not reproduce several Judgments of Hon'ble Principal Bench, NGT, New Delhi, wherein expression 'substantial' has been adequately elaborated.
Though we have elaborated on this aspect, yet, this is one case, in which, we want to elaborate so that unnecessarily no such Application shall be filed without studying provisions of the NGT Act, 2010, nor should the public authorities be troubled to come before the Tribunal in response to the Notices.
The Application is disposed in limine.