Baijnath Prajapati vs Ministry Of Environment And Forests

Baijnath Prajapati, a resident of village Guwari, district Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh, while asserting that "he is involved in issues concerning the social development as well as the environment", has filed the present Appeal assailing the order dated May 28, 2010, and the corrigendum dated 1st September 2010 and the office memorandum dated 23rd November, 2010, granting environmental clearance in favour of M/s Moser Baer Power & Infrastructure Ltd (Respondent - 3) for a coal based thermal power plant. The environmental clearance was challenged on several grounds enumerated in the Memorandum of Appeal. The Appellant has enclosed a verification with his Appeal Memorandum affirming that the contents of different paragraphs were true to his personal knowledge.

As the Appeal was barred by Limitation, by order dated September 27th, 2011 notices were issued to the Respondents. In response to the said notice, the Respondents appeared through Counsels and took part in the proceedings.

An application dated January 13th, 2012 was filed by the Appellant seeking withdrawal of the Appeal on the following ground:-

"That, the Appellant-Applicant begs this Hon'ble Tribunal for permission to withdraw this Appeal as the Appellant has come to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that this developmental project is required for development of the region and that he cannot oppose this project. It is submitted that this decision to withdraw the appeal is a personal one taken by the Appellant voluntarily without any pressure, coercion and undue influence from any person interested in this case."

Today when the matter was taken up, the Appellant was present in person along with his Counsel in court. A prayer was made on behalf of the Appellant to permit him to withdraw the case unconditionally.

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed before us. The Appeal was filed on September 15th, 2011. We fail to understand as to what transpired between then and now, which led the Appellant to realise and hold that the project was required for the development of the region. Neither is there any averment with regard to change of circumstances. Nor, is any reason being indicated that changed the mind of the Appellant.

The National Green Tribunal has been constituted for strengthening environmental protection and the conservation of forests and other natural resources. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 states that, "the rapid expansion in industrial, infrastructure and transportation sectors and increasing urbanisation in recent years have given rise to new pressures on our natural resources and environment. There is a commensurate increase in environment related litigation pending in various Courts and other authorities. The risk to human health and environment arising out of hazardous activities has also become a matter of concern."

This Tribunal is expected to ensure effective environmental management and conservation, give relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and connected matters, and at the same time ensure sustainable development. In this regard, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal should not be invoked for frivolous litigation that unnecessarily consumes the time of the Tribunal without serving the purpose for which the Tribunal was constituted.

This Tribunal has to see that it does not engage in adjudication that is motivated by frivolous considerations or reasons not connected with environmental protection and conservation. It appears that the Appellant has dragged the project proponent, the Ministry of Environment & Forests and other State Government departments into litigation in a flippant manner amounting to abuse of the Tribunal process.

We cannot stop the Appellant from withdrawing the case filed by him. At the same time, it is mentionable that we are not conferred with suo moto powers to proceed with the case. Therefore, we allow the Appellant to withdraw this Appeal. But, to avoid such frivolous cases in future we intend to award some costs. In this regard, we enquired from the Appellant who was present in Court in presence of Mr. Aagney Sail, Learned Counsel. The Appellant agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards costs.

We award the said amount, i.e., Rs. 50,000/- towards costs and direct that the same should be paid to Respondent - 4, i.e., Chief Conservator of Forests, within a period of six weeks to promote afforestation with appropriate species suitable for the area. We make it clear that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the time fixed, the same shall be treated as a Public Demand and recovered under the Public Demand Recovery Act.