Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye vs State Of Goa And Ors

The Applicant Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye has invoked provision of Section 18(1) read with Section 14, 15, 16, 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to seek directions to Respondent No.1 to forthwith discontinue services of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and handover to the Central Pollution Control Board till the process of appointment of new eligible Chairman and Member Secretary of the Goa Pollution Control Board is advertised and appointed as per direction in the Judgment dated 24/08/2016 in Original Application No.318/2013 (Rajendra Singh Bhandari Vs. State of Uttrakhand & Ors) within three months from the date of the Judgment.

The second relief sought is to direct to handover the charge to the Central Pollution Control Board till the process of appointment of new eligible candidate is advertised and appointed. The third direction is to reconstitute the Board and appoint atleast two members who are renowned activists and work for environment without political interference.

Several incidental reliefs are sought which include an action for contempt in not complying with the directions contained in the Judgment dated 24.08.2016.

The Application has come up for consideration before us for admission. We have heard the Applicant substantially and perused the material propositions in the Application supporting reliefs sought.

Applicant's assertion is that the Judgment in question directed its compliance within three months. The Judgment is not Judgment in rem as it confines itself to the appointment in Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board.

He submits that fresh adjudication has become necessary in view of the fact that all is not well in the Goa Pollution Control Board, therefore he has come with fresh application by relying on the Judgment of the Principal Bench referred to above.

On being questioned as to what are the grounds urged by him to non-suit the Chairman and Member Secretary of Goa Pollution Control Board, he draws our attention to Section 6 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 8 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 which are similar in its terminology.

For convenience we shall be referring to Section 6 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as the conditions stipulated in the Air Act are not different.

Section 6 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 prescribes disqualification as hereunder:

"6. Disqualifications - (1) No person shall be a member of Board, who-

(a) is, or at any time has been adjudged insolvent or has suspended payment of his debts or has compounded with his creditors, or

(b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court, or

(c) is, or has been, convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central Government or, as the case may be, of the State Government, involves moral turpitude, or

(d) is, or at any time has been, convicted of an offence under this Act, or

(e) has directly or indirectly by himself or by any partner, any share or interest in any firm or company carrying on the business of manufacture, sale or hire of machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus or fittings for the treatment of sewage or trade effluents, or

(f) is a director or a secretary, manager or other salaried officer or employee of any company or firm having any contract with the Board, or with the government constituting the Board, or with a local authority in the State, or with a company or corporation owned, controlled or managed by the government, for the carrying out of sewerage schemes or for the installation of plants for the treatment of sewage or trade effluents, or

(g) has so abused, in the opinion of the Central Government or as the case may be, of the State Government, his position as a member, as to render his continuance on the Board detrimental to the interest of the general public.

(2) No order of removal shall be made by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, under this section unless the member concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (7) of section 5, a member who has been removed under this section shall not be eligible for renomination as a member.

Which itself would mean what should be the qualification of Chairman and Member Secretary

Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye draws our attention to clause (g) of Section 6(1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 stating that his case falls in that provision but while arguing he has taken to us to a different ground that is disqualification. According to him, the present Chairman and Member Secretary do not have the requisite qualification, therefore, in terms of the Judgment the Chief Secretary of Goa State should have issued them Show Cause and removed them from office while following procedure prescribed in the Judgment for new appointment. In short, his contention is that though Judgment was passed in the month of August, 2016, the Chief Secretary of State of Goa who is responsible for such appointment is taking no action despite the complaint lodged by him which is appended to the Application.

We have perused the grounds urged in the light of the submission. First of all we find no material on record in the petition to speak to the fact as to which are the attributes of disqualification against the Chairman and Member Secretary. A general statement is made at page-21 Paragraph No.10 of the Application to which our attention is drawn. The ground so urged is vague and does not spell out the nature of disqualification to bring the case within Section 6 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 or Section 8 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The statement in Paragraph No.10 is to the fact that the Chairman of the Goa State Pollution Control Board is Chief Secretary who does not fit in the Eligible Criteria of the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board and the Member Secretary who does not fulfill the Eligible Criteria and with political contacts has been in the chair for more than three years of his tenure and in that respect also cannot stay for another tenure with political patronage. This allegation is vague and general in nature without pointing out to any of the disqualification. However, we have examined the pleadings to ascertain whether the case comes within clause (g) as initially urged by the Applicant. Again we find the Application is bereft of any material information or ground to show that the Chairman or Member Secretary has abused, in the opinion of the Central Government or as the case may be, of the State Government, his position as a member, as to render his continuance on the Board detrimental to the interest of the general public. Therefore, in absence of such material we find it not proper to entertain this Application. Hence, we are constrained to dispose of this Application with no order as to costs. Of course, the liberty is reserved to the Applicant to resort to such legal remedy, as is available.

Application No.169/2016 stands disposed of with no order as to costs.