AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this Common Order, we shall dispose of the Misc. Application, whereby delay of six (6) days is sought to be condoned, which is said to have occurred in filing of the Appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. It is the case of Applicant/Appellant that time was consumed in collecting of relevant copies under provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by making suitable application and only thereafter, the information regarding decision taken by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), (Respondent No1.) could be known to them, that is why delay of six (6) days occurred in challenging the decision dated 19th June, 2015. The Application for condonation of delay was filed on July 27th, 2015. It is stated that there is no intentional delay.
We are of the opinion that the delay is marginal, unintentional and duly explained in the Application. The technical barrier of such delay which is only of six (6) days, should not hamper right of the Appellant/Applicant to prefer an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, which is a statutory right. In this view of the matter, we condone the delay by allowing the Misc. Application.
So far as the Appeal is concerned, perusal of impugned decision which is indicated in the minutes of Meeting dated 19 to 21, June, 2014 (Annexure A-9), it is amply clear that the proposal of Appellant/Applicant is neither rejected nor granted. The decision is yet not taken by SEAC. The decision may be reproduced as follows:
"Decision: DMO presented total 110 proposals. The Committee noted that the vide MoEF OM dt. 17.10.2013, the moratorium is continued in 6 Talukas of Sindhudurg District. So High Level Working Group (HLWG), has identified villages of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA) by virtue of the above mentioned moratorium. The prohibition or ban on quarrying would apply to entire 6 Talukas in absence of the clarification. Hence, the proposals from Malvan and Vengurla Taluka were considered by the Committee. PP is directed to comply with following observations for proposals from Malvan and Vengurla Taluka:
Submit surface plans for the quarries.
Submit list of abandoned/illegal quarries in the district. "
Having regard to tenor of aforesaid decision, it is manifest that the SEAC, did not reject the proposal nor granted the proposal, only on the ground of six (6) Talukas of Sindhudurg District were earlier identified by High Level Working Group (HLWG), as Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA) in respect of mining had prohibited quarrying activity. The SEAC, therefore, felt it necessary to obtain clarification as to whether moratorium was uplifted/removed or otherwise continued by any further order. The clarification was, therefore, sought in respect of juxta position from the MoEF, particularly, in the light of O.M. dated 17th October, 2013. In other words, the proposal is not yet granted nor is refused.
In our considered opinion, no such decision is appealable, under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, because, there is no final order, as such, and the proceedings are not terminated either way. Hence, under instructions of the Appellant/Applicant, learned Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, would submit that this Tribunal, may grant him liberty to file any further Appeal or Application as the case may be, permissible under the Law, as and when adverse action is taken or adverse order is passed by the Competent Authority. He also submits that the Competent Authority may be directed to take decision within a particular timeframe and the MoEF may be directed to clarify legal position within a short span.
Considering the scope of Appeal and request of learned Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant, we deem it proper to dispose the Misc. Application and the Appeal in the following way:
i) The Delay Condonation- Application is allowed and Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly.
ii) The appeal is held as untenable and, therefore, it is disposed of. However, we direct the MoEF, to clarify the issue regarding moratorium about which SEAC sought clarification, which is referred to in the impugned decision, as quoted above, within period of two (2) months hereafter.
iii) The SEAC (Respondent No.1), shall take decision on the proposal within period of three (3) months, thereafter and the matter should not be kept in limbo any further.
iv) We also make it clear that the Authority should not be influenced by order of this Tribunal and should not take it that filing of the Appeal is any adverse act of the Appellant/Applicant against the Authority.
The Misc. Application as well as Appeal are disposed of. No costs.