Mr. Sadanand Pandurang Mane vs State Level Expert Appraisal Committee And Ors

This is Execution Proceeding by the Appellant, who had filed Appeal questioning decision of State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), (Respondent No1.) dated 19th June, 2015.

After due Notice to SEAC and all concerned the Appeal was heard on merit.

During hearing, it was noticed that the Appeal No.32/2015 was preferred against the order of SEAC described it as 'decision' appealable under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

However, considering legal position and the scope and ambit of Section 16 of the Act, this Tribunal opined that the order/decision impugned in the appeal which read 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. "

was appealable. Hence, the Appeal was held to be not maintainable, but acceding to the request of learned Counsel for the Appellant the Appeal was disposed off by following order:

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.

Direction No.-III, makes it clear that by holding Appeal untenable, direction was given to MoEF to verify the issue regarding moratorium about which SEAC had sought clarification within period of two (2) months and thereafter SEAC was directed to take final decision on the proposal submitted by the Appellant within period of three (3) months there from.

The Appellant has now presented this Execution Application alleging that those directions are not complied with by MoEF as well SEC.

Mr. D.M.Gupte learned Counsel submits that MoEF has to clarify about moratorium and they have not taken final decision. However, on perusal of factual matrix of the Appeal and reason assigned by us in the order passed17.8.2015 in the Appeal, it could be seen that what had transpired was MoEF had issued a moratorium by its order dated 17th October, 2013, imposing moratorium in respect of six villages indicated therein.

The question was whether the Appellant, who had sought issuance of permission was coming within mischief of Notification dated 17th October, 2013, by which moratorium was imposed. Therefore, it was fact finding that had to be done by SEAC. Though SEAC has applied to MoEF to clarify with reference to Applications received by it.

Even if such doubts were entertained by SEAC, it was SEAC and MoEF, who are involved and the Appellant had nothing to do with it. SEAC being statutory authority has to take independent decision about grant or non-grant of permission sought by the Applicant. If SEAC who is required to take into consideration legal and factual aspects and passed order on the Appellants Application.

What this Tribunal has done by the order passed in the Appeal, is to bind SEAC and MoEF to time within which period they must, so as to avoid any injustice to the Appellants, who were awaiting final decision on their Application.

In view of this reasoning, we do not find any justification for SEAC to contend that they are awaiting for answer from MoEF. What has to be done is simply examine the moratorium issued by order dated 17th October, 2013 find out to which areas and places it is appealable. We have in this proceeding, an order passed what is decision of SEAC taken subsequent to our disposal of Appeal on 24.2.2016. Relevant portion of it in para-6 reads as follows:

NGT cases (considered in 86th meeting):-

The NGT WZ branch Pune in Application No.134/2015 pertaining to Appeal No.50/2015 and other similarly placed Appeals (21 in total) directed the SEAC to take a decision on the proposals for grant of EC within a period of 3 months from 17th August, 2015. This order was brought to the notice of Member Secretary, SEAC-I by the PP's concerned on 21.1.2016. The matter has been taken up on the Agenda immediately thereafter and kept for appraisal before the Committee. These 21 cases had earlier been considered in the 81st meeting held on 19-21 June,2014. The Committee had observed then that there was a moratorium in 6 Talukas of Sindhudurg district by virtue of which the 21 proposals were held in abeyance.

Subsequently on 11th December, 2014, the Hon'ble High Court through an interim order in PIL179/2012 lifted the moratorium from the villages falling in the non-eco-sensitive area.

However, the Committee observed that all the 21 Villages appear as ESA villages in the Draft Notification of MoEF dated 4.9.2015. Therefore the Committee decided to keep these cases in abeyance till the finalization of the Draft Notification. Kept in abeyance.

Member Secretary, SEAC-I should inform the NGT WZ Branch about this decision.

On perusal we find what SEAC has done is to create a situation more fluid than giving finding about it has again applicability to the draft Notification by MoEF dated 4.9.2015, which is said to be relating to 21 Villages declaring it as Eco Sensitive Areas. Admittedly, it is a draft.

Therefore, unless that Notification is finalized and final Notification is issued and carries force of law with it, SEAC has to take a decision based on the Notification now in force. Therefore, the act of SEAC shying away from taking decision on the Applications and keeping Applications in abeyance till draft Notification is finalized, is clearly indication of failure to perform its statutory duty.

In the circumstances, the Appellant will have a remedy available to approach this Tribunal invoking its jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 14 of the NGT Act.

It is up to the Appellant to take appropriate steps. So far as these proceedings are concerned, we are satisfied that it calls for no further order and hence, the proceedings are terminated making no order as to costs.

This Execution Petition No.22/2016 is disposed off.