Mr. Jose Antonia Dominio Dias vs State of Goa And Ors

We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

The Application is taken up for final hearing in view of the short question which needs determination of dispute raised by the Applicant. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent No.5 owns land bearing Survey No.416/6 situated at Village Santa Cruz. The village locality comprises of about 7000 population. The land is flat and there is a well in the same land which is owned by the Respondent No.5. The case of the Applicant is that the Respondent No.5 runs a car washing centre in his premises which generates high pitched hissing noise and discharge of harmful effluents. The Applicant further alleges that the car washing centre of the Respondent No.5 is being run without consent of the competent authority and inspite of complaints, no tangible action is taken so far. The car washing centre is being run without the permission from the Village Panchayat or the Pollution Control Board which tramples environmental rights of the Applicant available under Article 21 of the Constitution to have healthy environment in the area where he is residing. The inaction on the part of the competent authorities, thus, gave rise to the Application.

Reply affidavit is filed by Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 who resisted the Application. They alleged that the Application is filed without any title to the plot of car washing centre. They contended that the Application is outcome of property dispute between the parties. They further point out that the permission for car washing centre was duly issued by the Village Panchayat of Santa Cruz, Tiswadi (Goa) on April 3rd, 1998 which allowed them to legally carry out the activity on the conditions which are part of the said permission. They submitted that the concerned Village Panchayat also obtained certificate from Urban Health Care Centre, Panaji and completed the formalities like obtaining NOC from the Town Planner. The Town Planner suggested that access of 1. 5mts for rear-side should be maintained and there should not be any type of pollution in the area due to the servicing undertaken by the workshop. The Goa State Pollution Board by Consent Letter dated February 19th, 2002 allowed to establish the car washing centre in favour of the contesting Respondents. Having regard to the facts, the contesting Respondents submitted that the Application is ill-intended, unfounded and deserves dismissal.

The learned Advocate for GSPCB also supported case of the contesting Respondents by filing reply affidavit dated October 8th, 2015.

Shri Padiyar, the learned Advocate for contesting Respondents invited our attention to the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.144/2013. The Division Bench of the High Court considered existing rights of the parties in so far as land Survey No.416/6 is concerned. It is observed that prayer of the preset Applicant for relief of injunction and other ancillary reliefs in respect of that land could not be considered on merits as regards the concerned license for establishing development activity which was allowed to be carried out by contesting Respondent No.5 in his own land. Thus, the interim relief was rejected though it was granted by the first Appellate Court. The latter Court's order was set aside, therefore, by the High Court.

Be that as it may, we are not much concerned with the civil litigation but the fact remains that cause of action alleged in the Civil Suit No.161/2011 has internal relationship with the present dispute filed under Section 14(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 along with the dates of license/permissions which are granted by the competent authorities. The Applicant vaguely alleged that the contesting Respondents are carrying out the car washing centre without due permission. The vague allegation in this regard cannot be considered for any relief when in the earlier litigation, the Applicant categorically alleged that the interim injunction should be granted in his favour. In as much as, the cause of action arose in 2011, the Applicant could have made it clear in the instant Application itself as to why the delay occurred in filing this Application. The averments in the earlier Civil Suit (RCS No.161/2011) filed in the Civil Court Junior Division, Panaji would show that the Counsel for contesting Respondents invited attention of the High Court that technical clearance order dated October 11th, 2011 from the Planning Authority had been obtained and considerable investment was made for the purpose of establishing the car washing centre.

So far as the question of environmental damage is concerned, the Applicant sought compensation of Rs.1.00 crores and now the amendment application is filed to condone the delay for claiming such relief purposely only because the Applicant is unwilling to deposit advalorem court fees in accordance with the provisions of relevant Court Fees Act and National Green Tribunal Act. Considering such oblique intention of the Applicant, the subsequent afterthought amendment sought by the Applicant stands rejected. Normally, the establishment of car washing centre could give rise to certain environmental issues of significance, if and only if the same has some relation with the impact on the health of general public and could affect the area and create noise pollution. There is no material on record to show that car washing is the activity carried out by the contesting Respondent without gap of time, continuously and with such noise dispersion which is likely to raise the pollution in the area. There is no monitoring data available in this behalf. The fact situation report by GSPCB is otherwise. The authority states that the monitoring of the noise level is within the limits and no noise pollution was noticed in the area due to car washing activity of the Respondent No.5. Needless to say, one of the main contentions of the Applicant would go away.

Another contention of the Applicant is that the car washing centre of the contesting Respondent gives rise to pollution due to the polluted water generated after washing of the cars which is not properly and systematically drifted but is just disposed off through a Nalla (drain) where it is thrown away. The examination by GSPCB negated the allegation. The contention of the Respondent No.5 who is running the car washing centre is that the used water is drifted to their own septic tank after the necessary treatment, as per GSPCB norms. The presence of septic tank is noticed by the Pollution Control Board. In case of any complaint about non-functioning of the septic tank, the applicant is at liberty to make due complaint to the Pollution Control Board and in case of any violation of the conditions of the consent to establish/operate, suitable directions under environmental laws may be given but that would be subject matter of separate proceeding and will require due verification on basis of fact situation.

Taking stock of the situation stated above and the discussions made so far, we find no substantial question related to environment in the Application and therefore, the Application along with related MAs for amendment as well as delay condonation stand dismissed. No costs.