Jitender Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

In Appeal No. 36 of 2016 Mr. Jitender Singh the Appellant has invoked the Provision of section 16, 18(1), 14, 15 and 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to assail the Environmental Clearance granted to the respondent for running stone crusher plant and to direct the official respondent to take steps to prevent environment degradation and enforce. In fact the assessment plan keeping in view the future prospects and ecological, geographical, environmental, cultural prospects and declared gram panchayat mand Niyani as no mining zone.

We have sought consequential order to impose cost for alleged illegal mining and running of stone quarry and bind the officer to perform statutory duty.

The Respondent No. 9 - Jai Maa Chintpurni Stone Crusher is a contesting respondent against whom all allegations are levelled. Upon notice in this appeal, the Respondent No. 9 has entered contest and denied all allegations in the appeal which attributes illegality in the running of stone quarry and such other activities.

As could be seen from the detailed reply filed, the Respondent No. 9 have urged dismissal of appeal the question of limitation. Relying on the grant of environmental clearance on 1st October 2015 it is urged that the appeal presented before The Tribunal on 17th June, 2016 is beyond the period prescribed and thus not maintainable before this Tribunal.

In these circumstances, unless we decide the question of limitation it will not be proper to examine the grounds urged on the merit of the appeal against grant of such environmental clearance. Therefore, we first propose to examine the question of limitation thereupon to decide whether grounds used before the Tribunal merit acceptance.

Both sides have not disputed that as on the date of presentation of this appeal, the Respondent No. 9 was operating its stone Crusher in terms of the environmental clearance granted on 01st October 2015. As far as the appellant is concerned he would content that he was seriously affected by the illegal activities of Respondent No. 9 in running stone quarry and also for having mines in the nearby area. He thus claims to be aggrieved with such activities and he had filed an application under Section 14 of the NGT, Act to seek redressal for alleges adverse effects caused to the environment and is sufferings before the Tribunal. It is stated by the appellant that in the said application the Respondent No. 9 revealed he has valid Environment Clearance.

The application was admitted by this Tribunal and Notice issued to the Respondents, State instrumentalities other bodies and the Respondent No. 9. The Respondent No. 9 entered contests in that case and denying the allegation in the said application that the stone crusher activity is running without obtaining the Environmental Clearance, produced Environment Clearance. Thus, in the said Original Application No. 67 of 2016, Respondent No. 9 informed the Tribunal he was granted Environmental Clearance and the ground on which action under Section 14 was initiated was unsustainable as there was no cause of action.

The Appellant admits production of Environmental Clearance. He admits on his own violation withdrew the Original Application No. 67 of 2016 and decided to assail grant of Environmental Clearance to Respondent No. 9. In these circumstances the Appeal has been filed in this Tribunal while Original Application No. 67 of 2015 has being disposed of.

Therefore, consideration on the question of limitation which is raised by the Respondent No. 9 is relevant and essential.

The material that we have to examine to decide whether the appeal is in time is undoubtedly date of impugned Environmental Clearance, date of the knowledge of the Appellant and the date of presentation of the Appeal. As in this case the provision of Sub-section 5 of the Limitation Act, are not attracted and a period of appeal has to be examined from the point of provision of Section 16 of the NGT, Act, we have applied our mind to admit the facts and other circumstances.

The two relevant factors for consideration are not only date of grant of Environmental Clearance but whether it has been put on the public domain and that has been published in the areas following the procedure that is prescribed under rule. It the submission by the appellant that the Environmental Clearance was not in the public domain and the website did not reveal so. Contrary to it the Respondent No. 9 has asserted the order granting Environmental Clearance and the Environmental Clearance itself was on the website of SEIAA and in this regards they produced the print out. Again a controversy issue was raised in the circumstances we issued Notice to SEIAA whose website it appears displayed the Environmental Clearance and that could be the relevant date for reckoning the period of limitation. The SEIAA was duly represented and they have produced before this Tribunal documents to show they are operating the website in respect of which the print out is produced before us. It shows that Environment Clearance dated 01st October, 2015 was on the website. If that is so then we have to consider whether the date of knowledge which according to the appellant was month prior to the appeal could be the basis. We are compelled to discount this contention for the reason for Section 16 twice period of limitation is 30 days period and further period which shall not be more than 60 days. The discretion of this Tribunal to condone delay is therefore limited to 60 days. Consequently if we calculate the date of publication/issue on the website 01st October, 2015 and published in the newspaper on 10th December, 2015, even if we ignore the date of web hosting the date of newspaper is 10th December, 2015. If we calculate there from the period of 30 days to the present appeal it ends on 09th January, 2016 and relief to seek condonation upto the period of two months therefrom. The appellant has preferred this appeal only on 17th June, 2016 which is certainly beyond the period of 90 days. Besides, we do not find any other further declaration by the appellant that he had no knowledge of publication or that the claim of Respondent No. 9 and the SEIAA was incorrect. For the aforesaid reason we hold appeal referred in beyond the period of limitation. Under these circumstances it cannot be entertain.

The appeal is barred by time and not maintainable, and the Tribunal would be justified for entertaining it for the want of jurisdiction and consequently we do not find any reason to proceed further. In the circumstances we pass the following order.

The appeal is disposed of on technical ground of the barred by time without expressing any opinion with regard to as to any of the issue raised relating to environment, resulting from the activity of Respondent No. 9, and if such cause or basic cause of action survives and is permissible under law to be agitated as per the falling NGT Act, the right of the appellant is saved. We make no order as to cost.