Kashinath Jairam Shetye And Orsc vs Anil Arora And Ors

By this Appeal, action initiated under the provisions of Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the Appellants have prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 8.9.2015, issued by the Member Secretary, wherein the complaint proceedings initiated by one of the Appellants was closed by GCZMA for the reasons mentioned therein.

The Appellants have filed a complaint with GCZMA, on 13th July, 2014 regarding alleged illegal construction and violation of CRZ Notification by the Respondent No.1 herein in the property bearing Survey No.81/3 at Sonar Bhat, Verem, Reis Magos, Bardez, Goa.

The Appellants have approached this Tribunal separately under Section 14 of the NGT Act, invoking its original jurisdiction by filing Application No.87/2013, which is incidently being disposed along with this Appeal separately. The Appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 8th October, 2015 by filing this Appeal which is registered in the Tribunal on 18.4.2016. The main contention of the Appellants is that the impugned order has been issued by the Member Secretary, GCZMA without any approval of GCZMA Authority. It is contention of the Appellants that GCZMA is the Authority under the provisions of CRZ Notification, which can take a decision either to issue directions under Section 5 or not and therefore, they argued that the Member Secretary has issued this impugned order without any authority of law or without any appropriate investigations.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, argues that the Appellants are initiating simultaneous proceedings before the Tribunal one through Application No.87/2015 which was registered in the Tribunal on 29.7.2015 and the present Appeal. He brought to our notice the order dated 10th October, 2015, as well as the order dated 9th February, 2016 in the Application No.87/2015. He submits that the impugned order dated 8th October, 2015 was received by the Appellants on 10th October, 2015 and it was necessary for them to challenge this order if they want it to do so. The Tribunal has recorded the detail observations and opined that it was incumbent upon the Applicants to have taken steps to challenge the outcome of the said inquiry in the manner prescribed by law. The Tribunal was gracious to grant two (2) weeks' time to the Appellants to move an Application for amendment in order to initiate challenge to the order passed by GCZMA.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in total disregard of the said order in Application No.87/2015 the Appellant herein have indulged in multiple litigations by filing affidavit and not Application, in Application No.87/2015, while separately instituting this Appeal. The Tribunal has recorded such observations in its order dated 11th March, 2016 in Application No.87/2015, where the Tribunal had opined that the Application seeking amendment to the Application moved by the Applicant (Application No.87/2015) is not in order nor it is supported by the affidavit and therefore it is not in terms of procedure and proceedings of the Tribunal.

Faced with this difficulty, the Appellants submitted that they wanted to raise serious issue of violation of CRZ. The proceeding in Application No.87/2015, would clearly indicate that the Appellants herein were aware of the order passed by GCZMA as early on 10th October, 2015. Furthermore, they have initiated simultaneous proceeding against the impugned order by filing affidavit in application No.87/2015 for amendment of that Application into Appeal and also filing separate Appeal i.e. present case.

The provisions of Rule 14 of the NGT (Practices & Procedure) Rules, 2011, are relevant and reproduced below:

Plural Remedies.

"An Application or Appeal, as the case may be shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more relief, provided that they are consequential to one another.

In view of this provision, the Appellants cannot be allowed to institute multiple proceedings which will defeat the basic principle of judicial discipline and propriety. Furthermore, when the Applicants were aware of the impugned order as early as on 10th October, 2015, we do not find any substantial reason for considering this Appeal, as it is filed well beyond the prescribed limitation under Section 16 of the NGT Act i.e. thirty days from the knowledge of the said order, even considering sixty days period of condonation, which has to be exercised by the Tribunal based on sufficient cause/circumstances. And therefore in our considered view this Appeal is barred by limitation and also cannot be entertained in view of simultaneous proceedings initiated against the same impugned order which is the cause of action in both these proceedings. In the circumstances, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.