AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Appeal has been filed by an NGO namely Nature Club of Rajasthan. The reliefs sought by the Appellant is for issuance of directions to Respondent No. 1 to 5 not to consider grant of EC or lease for mining activity over agriculture land. Further it has been prayed that the Environmental Clearance dated 22nd January, 2018 granted in favour of Respondent No. 6 be quashed and set aside. It has also been prayed that the mining lease dated 30th January, 2018 granted in favour of Respondent No. 6 be also quashed and set aside. The consequential relief sought by the Appellant is to direct Respondent No. 6 to restitute for the damage caused by him to the environment and ecology.
Along with the Appeal, the Appellant has filed a Misc. Application (629 of 2018) for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal vide its order dated 25th April, 2018 issued Notices to the Respondents on the Application for condonation of delay. After the Notices on the aforesaid Applications were served, replies have been filed by Respondent No. 2- the State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Mines Department, Respondent No. 3- Director of Mines and Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan and Respondent No. 4- the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Nagaur, Rajasthan. Reply to the Application for condonation of delay has also been filed by Respondent No. 6, Ujjwal Didel s/o Bhoraram.
It has been averred by the Appellant, in the Misc. Application for condonation of delay, that the Appeal has been filed within the statutory period of 30 days prescribed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as the order granting EC to Respondent No. 6 had not been communicated. He has referred to the case of Save Mon Region Federation and Anr. Vs. UOI to emphasis on the meaning of the word communicated. After referring to para 19 of the judgment of Save Mon (Supra), the Applicant has summarised the meaning of the word communicated, as when it is put in public domain. Firstly, it is said that complete order is to be uploaded on the website of MoEF/SEIAA/DEIAA permanently and the same should be downloaded without any hindrance or impediment. Secondly, the order is displayed on the public notice board of MoEF/SEIAA/DEIAA. Thirdly, it is submitted that the complete order is uploaded on the website of Project Proponent permanently and the same can be downloaded without any hindrance or impediment. Fourthly, the order is published by the Project Proponent in two newspaper of the region, in which the project is located. Fifthly, a copy of the order is submitted by the Project Proponent to the heads of Local Bodies, Panchayats, Municipal Bodies and other relevant offices of the Government, who in turn has to display the same on their notice board for 30 days, from the date of receipt. Sixthly, out of the above three points, earliest in point of time, shall be the relevant date for commencement of the limitation of 30 days under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010.
It has also been averred in the Application that the Project Proponent and MoEF/SEIAA/DEIAA must not only advertise the factum of orders but also the terms and conditions of EC within the specified time. It is said that the requirement under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 is in consistent with Clause 10 of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
On the aforesaid premise, the Appellant has submitted that the requirement of communication of order, as per Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 and EIA Notification, 2006 has not been fulfilled by the Respondent and the EC has not been communicated in any of the modes contemplated even till date. Therefore, it has been averred that the period of 30 days has not even commenced.
Further the case of the Appellant is that the limitation period shall commence only when all conditions are fulfilled by any or all stakeholders (MoEF/SEIAA/DEIAA and the Project Proponent in accordance with the case of Save Mon (Supra) and Clause 10. The limitation would then begin from the date of first compliance as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Padmabati Mahapatra Vs. UOI. The Appellant has also referred to the case of Medha Patkar & Ors. Vs. MoEF (Appeal No. 01 of 2013).
Therefore, it has been submitted by the Appellant that the EC has been granted surreptitiously without communicating the order in the requisite manner, and limitation of even 30 days has not commenced in terms of the proviso of Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010.
It has also been averred that if the delay is construed from the date of grant of EC on 22nd January, 2018, the limitation period of 30 days to file Appeal under Section 16 expired on 21st February, 2018. Appeal had been filed on 19th April, 2018, with the delay of 55 days which is within the statutory period laid down in Section 16 (30+60), within which the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay on a sufficient cause. Accordingly, it is submitted that the delay may be condoned as the Appellant has a sufficient cause.
In support of the fact of sufficient cause, the Appellant has submitted that in pursuance of the EC, the mining lease was granted on 30.01.2018 and thereafter the respondent commenced the mining operation. It is only then the Appellant is said to have come to know about grant of such lease. The Appellant then had moved an Application, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the concerned authority and sought the copies of Environmental Clearance and the mining lease from the Department of Mines and Geology, District Nagaur. The said documents were given to the Appellant under the Right to Information Act in the month of March, 2018. It is then the Appellant prepared the present Appeal. It is averred that the Appellant could not have filed an Appeal without a complete order of EC, only on the basis of information obtained by it. Therefore, the Appeal was filed after obtaining the documents.
It has also been submitted by the Appellant that the present matter raises a substantial question relating to environment (under section 14 of the NGT Act)-as to whether mining activities can be carried out on agriculture land and whether the Government authorities can grant lease and EC for the same. It is also submitted that the present Appeal/Application is referable to Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 as well the case for which the period of limitation is six months-and it is not a simplicitor challenge to the order of granting EC.
Further it is submitted that present matter is also referable to Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010 as well, to the extent that Respondent No. 6 is liable to provide for restitution of property damaged as well as for the environment in the area. Respondent No. 6 has caused tremendous damage to the environment and ecology of the agricultural areas over which he is carrying on mining activities. Respondent No. 6 is liable to compensate for the said damage under Polluter Pays Principle. The period of limitation for an Application under Section 15 is 5 years.
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed the reply to the instant application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. It has been submitted that the Appeal has been filed along with Application for condonation of delay by the Appellant challenging the EC which is already delayed by 55 days. The Respondents have been relied upon the Judgment in the case of the Appellant itself namely Nature Club of Rajasthan Vs. UOI & Ors (M.A. No. 142 of 2018 and bunch of other Applications decided on 31st May, 2018). It has been held in the said order that the Appellant has failed to file an Appeal within 30 days, as per the statutory time limit from the date when EC was issued and also failed to show the sufficient cause from filing the Appeals with so much delay. Consequently, the Tribunal had dismissed those Misc. Applications and also the Appeals.
It has been averred by the Respondents that similarly in the present matter there is already a delay of 55 days in filing the Appeal and the Appellant has further failed to show any sufficient cause for not filing the Appeals in stipulated time. Therefore, it is submitted that the afore-mentioned Judgments squarely applies to the present case and the present Appeal along with the Application deserves to be dismissed.
It has been submitted by the Respondent that DEIAA had granted Environmental Clearance to Respondent No. 6 on 21st January, 2018. It has also been stated that one of the aspect regarding communication of EC to the Appellant was also dealt with the aforesaid Judgment of 31st May, 2018. In the present matter, it has been submitted that Respondent No. 6 published the EC dated 22nd January, 2018 granted by Respondent No. 4 (DEIAA), in a local daily named Panchayat Prabhat on 25th January, 2018. Therefore, the date of publication in the local daily by Respondent No. 6 may be considered as the date of communication of EC. A copy of the said newspaper has been placed on record by the Respondent as Annexure-R/4.
Thereafter, Respondent no. 6 had applied for consent to establish from Rajasthan State PCB which was granted to him on 31st January, 2018.
Likewise, Respondent No. 6 has also filed reply to Misc. Application raising objections to maintainability of the Appeal as being barred by limitation. In view of Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, it has also been submitted that the relevant provision applicable in the present case namely Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 provide that the challenge should be filed within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an Appeal to the Tribunal. The proviso of the Section provide that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within the said period, may allow it to be filed within further period not exceeding 60 days. Therefore, a person invoking the Appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal for being aggrieved by an order, may file an Appeal within a period of 30 days on which an order or decision was communicated to him. Referring to para 64 of the Judgment in the case of Save Mon (Supra), delivered on 14th March, 2013, the Respondents has submitted that, provided clarification with respect to expression communication.
Further, it has been averred that the Project Proponent was also directed to publish the factum of Environmental Clearnace granted to the project in local newspaper of the Districts or State where the project is located. In respect of compliance of the said Judgment, it is stated that the Respondent has published in Panchayat Prabhat on 25th January, 2018.
The Respondents have submitted that if the Appellant seeks to allege non-communication then the onus is on him to inform the date for knowledge regarding issuance of Environmental Clearance. The EC granted by DEIAA to the answering Respondents is with a specific condition regarding advertisement in the local newspaper of vernacular language that the project has been accorded EC and copies of clearance letters are available with DEIAA and Rajasthan State PCB. It may also been seen òn the website of the Board and this has been duly complied with by the answering respondent. The condition imposed on the answering respondent mentioned about the website of State PCB where EC has been uploaded. The project has been granted EC under category B, hence the Application is to be dealt with by the State and not by Ministry of Environment.
It has been submitted by the Respondent that the issue with regard to the powers of the Tribunal to condone delay under Section 16 is no longer res integra. He has referred to some judgments like Nikunj Developers & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Krishna Stone Crushers & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana PCB, Sunil Kumar Samanta Vs. West Bengal PCB and Aman Sethi Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 7th May, 2016. It has also been mentioned that in the Judgment of Nikunj Developers (Supra) it has been held that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are excluded. The Respondents have referred to the case of P.K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2276 wherein it has been held that the law of limitation may harshly effect particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour that the statute so prescribed. If the party chooses to sleep over its right and permits the remedy available to it barred by time, then it can hardly be contended that it is loss of valuable right and the result is unjust.
It has been averred that there is no explanation, much less a sufficient cause, shown for condonation of delay in filing this Appeal. In this regard the Respondent has referred to the case of Vimal Bhai & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand wherein it has been held interalia that all ingredients of the proviso of Section 16 must be satisfied namely that there must exist due diligence on the part of the Applicant who must show sufficient cause for condonation of delay while the Application has to be bonafide and the Applicant must approach the Tribunal with clean hands.
The Respondents had also submitted that the Appellant has not just challenged the EC, but has also raised the issue as to whether mining activity can be carried out on agriculture land without replenishment study and whether Government authorities can grant lease and EC for the same. In this regard, it has been submitted that an issue cannot be raised for both under Section 16 and Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010. In respect of the case of Save Mon (Supra), the Respondent No. 6 has submitted that a Judgment cannot be read in dependent of its facts and circumstances and therefore he has referred to the facts which were under consideration of the said Judgment.
It has been submitted by the Respondent that the present Appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days, if calculated from the date of issuance of EC then nothing has been mentioned regarding the date on which the communication or deemed communication is said to have received and the cause of delay of the date from which the Appellant has come to know about the grant of Environmental Clearance.
After having considered the Application for condonation of delay and submissions made by the Learned Counsels for the respective parties, the issue which emerges for consideration is as to whether the present Appeal is not maintainable in view of the delay in filing the same. If the Appeal is maintainable then, whether there is sufficient cause in filing the Appeal beyond the period of limitation.
In this case, the undisputed facts are that Environmental Clearance was granted on 22nd January, 2018. The publication in respect of Environmental Clearance was done on 25th January, 2018 in the newspaper- Panchayat Prabhat, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. The mining lease was granted on 30th January, 2018. It is averred in the Application for condonation of delay that when soon after granting of mining lease, the mining operations commenced that the Appellant came to know about it. The instant Appeal has been filed on 19th April, 2018.
It would be appropriate to first consider the relevant provisions in respect of filing of an appeal before the Tribunal which reads as under:
"16 Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction. -Any person aggrieved by,-
(a) an order or decision, made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the appellate authority under section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);
(b) an order passed, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the State Government under section 29 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);
(c) directions issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by a Board, under section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);
(d) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the appellate authority under section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (36 of 1977);
(e) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the State Government or other authority under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980);
(f) an order or decision, made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the Appellate Authority under section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981);
(g) any direction issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);
(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);
(i) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, refusing to grant environmental clearance for carrying out any activity or operation or process under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);
(j) any determination of benefit sharing or order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the National Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board under the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (18 of 2003), may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
From the aforesaid provision of law under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, an Appeal, challenging an order, should be filed within a period of 30 days from the date on which an order or decision is communicated. The aforesaid proviso appended to Section 16 provides that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within a period prescribed, allow it to be filed under the said Section within a further period not exceeding 60 days. In other words, the person invoking the Appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal for being aggrieved by an order may file an Appeal within a period of 30 days on which the order or decision is communicated to him. Further, it may be mentioned that the Appellant who seeks to allege on communication has the onus to inform/satisfy the date of knowledge regarding issuance of Environmental Clearance. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Environmental Clearance in the present case has been granted to the Respondents by DEIAA, with the specific condition regarding advertisement in the local newspaper in Vernacular language that the project has been accorded EC and the copies of clearance letters are available with DEIAA, Rajasthan State PCB and that it may be seen from the website of the Board. The project had been granted Environmental Clearance under category B, hence the Application has to be dealt by the concerning authority of the State and not by Ministry of Environment and Forest.
As the statute gives the right to a person aggrieved of any order to file an appeal within a period of 30 days, the first and foremost question which arises for consideration is as to when the period prescribed for filing an appeal commences. According to the aforesaid provision it is the day on which the order of decision sought to be impugned, is communicated to him. Consequently, the date of communication becomes vital and requires detailed consideration as to when an order is said to have been communicated. An order is communicated when it is put in public domain so as to bring to the notice of public at large. In case an order of environmental clearance is granted by MoEF then the mode of communication would be on the day on which the environment clearance is put on its website. Similarly, communication can also be said to be complete on the project proponent on upload the environmental clearance order as well as publishing the same in the newspapers, as prescribed under regulation 10 of the Environmental Clearance regulation 2006. Communication or notice to public at large can also be said to be made when the environmental clearance order is displayed on the notice board by the local bodies such as panchayat and municipal boards. Out of the 3 methods the one which has been done earliest would be the relevant date for the purpose of communication/ notice to the public. The appellant has himself averred in the application for the condonation of delay, in para 4, that "out of the above 3 points, the earliest in point of time shall be the relevant date for commencement of limitation of 30 days under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010". However, the appellant has further stated that the requirement of communication of order as per Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act and EIA Notification 2006 is not been fulfilled by the respondents and the environment clearance has not been communicated in any of the modes contemplated even till date. Therefore, a period of 30 days has not even commenced. But in para 13 of the application it has been stated that delay of 55 days may be condoned.
It is also settled principle of law that the appellant who seeks to allege non-communication has the onus to inform the date of knowledge regarding issuance of environment clearance. The appellant has also averred in para 11 that the environment clearance was granted on 26.01.2016. Pursuant to it the mining lease was granted on 30.01.2018 and soon after the mining operations commenced. Further it is stated that it is only then that the appellant came to know about grant of such leave. The appellant immediately made application under Right to Information Act 2005 to the concerning authority and sought the environment clearance and the mining lease from the Department of Mines and Geology of District Nagaur. The aforesaid documents were given to the appellant under Right to Information Act in the month of March 2018 after which he prepared the present appeal. This clearly shows that the appellant has not discharged his onus to show as to when and on which date it came to his knowledge regarding issuance of environmental clearance.
In the instant case respondent no. 6 had published the environmental clearance dated 22.01.2018 granted by respondent no. 4 (DEIAA), in local daily named as Panchayat Prabhat on 25.01.2018. Therefore the date of publication in the local daily by respondent 6 may be considered as the date of communication of EC.
Besides the fact that the appellant has not disclosed the date on which it came to his knowledge about the issuance of EC, he has also not given any explanation, much less to say sufficient cause, showed for condonation of dealy in filing the date. The only averments made in the application are that after grant of EC on 22.01.2018 the mining lease was granted on 30.01.2018 and thereafter the respondent commenced the mining operations. It is only then that the appellant came to know about grant of such lease. He had then filed an application under Right to Information Act 2005 to the concerned authority and sought the EC. Thereafter the said document was given to the appellant in the month of March 2018 and then he prepared the present appeal. The appeal was filed on 19.04.2018. As per the case of appellant himself the filing of the appeal was after 55 days.
This tribunal in the case of Vimal Bhai and Anothers versus State of Uttarakhand and Others Appeal No. 27 of 2014 M.A. No. 279 of 2014 has held as follows:
"7. The law of limitation has to be applied with its full rigour. The law of limitation has been provided by the legislature in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for Short, Act of 2010) with a definite intention of preventing undue delay, repetitive litigation, not to unduly obstruct sustainable development and to attribute finality to the judgement declared between the parties to the lis. Furthermore, the limitation controls the rights and obligation of the parties. A party which has succeeded before the Court or the Tribunal gets a right to execute the said judgment in accordance with law and enjoy the benefit of the award or decision, as the case may be. There the litigant who is aggrieved from the judgment or order is expected to be vigilant about his rights and is obliged to file an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Condonation of delay is not a right. There must exist a sufficient cause before the applicant can claim advantage of condonation of delay in terms of proviso to Section 16 of the Act, 2010. Further, all the ingredients of the proviso to Section 16 of the Act, of 2010 must be satisfied.
Firstly, there must exist due diligence on the part of the applicant, who must show sufficient cause of condonation of delay, while on the other, the application has to be bona-fide and the applicant must approach the Tribunal with clean hands.
Pertinently, laches on the part of one party results in accrual of right in favour of the other. Such right cannot be taken away on vague and uncertain grounds and a delay which is not sufficiently explained cannot be condoned. Proviso of Section 16 of the Act of 2010 empowers the Tribunal to condone the delay not exceeding 60 days, beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days and that too, only upon the applicant showing that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation."
The term sufficient cause has to be considered keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' implied by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice- that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. This view was expressed by Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anatnag and Anr. Vs. Katii and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1335.
The term 'sufficient cause' must receive a liberal meaning and has to be incorporated so as to introduce the concept of reasonableness, as it is understood in its general connotation. Certainly, the Limitation Act is a substantive law and its provisions have to be adhered to in a manner that once, a valuable right accrues in favour of one party, as a result of unexplained sufficient or reasonable cause and directly as a result of negligence, default or inaction of the other party, such a right cannot be taken away lightly and in a routine manner.
'Sufficient Cause' must necessarily be tested on the touch stone of doctrine of reasonableness. It may not be a very appropriate approach to apply principles of limitation with absolute rigidity resulting in irreparable injustice to the parties, a balanced approach may better serve the ends of justice.
"We must also notice here that equitable principles have been applied to law of limitation but with great circumspection. The Tribunal has to do justice in accordance with the provisions of the Act 2010. It is certainly expected of an appellant to give clear and certain facts which would demonstrate existence of sufficient cause before it could ask for condonation of delay.
That in the present case, the appellant on one had has given no facts, much less definite facts, constituting 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of this expression used under the Proviso to Section 16 of the Act of 2010. On the other hand, appellant has not been vigilant of his obligations under the law and his act and conduct are not worthy of grant of relief of condonation. The appellant has let the time go by, by not taking appropriate steps. Being vigilant to his rights, alive and conscious to the remedy provided under the law are twin basis for claiming a relief under the law of limitation (vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subvenient).
It is pertinent to mention here that the Environment clearance was granted to the answering Respondent by the District level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Rajasthan, which contained the specific condition regarding the advertisement in local newspaper in vernacular language that the project has been accorded environment clearance and copies of the clearance letters are available with DEIAA, District Nagaur, Rajasthan and the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and may also be seen on the website of the Board at www.rpcb.nic.in which was duly complied with by the answering respondent. The advertisement to common people about the grant of EC was published in the newspaper namely, "Panchayat Prabhat" a weekly dated 25th January, 2018.
The appellants have contended in their Application for condonation of delay that "the present appeal is within limitation as order granting EC has "not been communicated" in terms of the judgement of the NGT Principal Bench in M.A. No. 104 of 2012, Save Mon Region Federation & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors", and have tried to rely on the interpretation of the word communication in the judgement of Save Mon (supra) at para 19. It is a basic principal of law that a judgment cannot be read independent of its facts and circumstances, therefore it is essential to mention the brie facts under consideration in the said judgment, which are reiterated as follows:
" The Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short 'MOEF') accorded clearance for construction of 780 Mega Watts Naymjang Chhu Hydroelectric Project in Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh. The applicant is an organization based in Tawang, consisting of Citizens of Monpa indigenous community who advocate environmentally and culturally sensitive development in the ecologically and geologically fragile, seismically active and culturally sensitive Mon-Tawang region of the State. The applicant being aggrieved from the order dated 19th April, 2012 has preferred an appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the said order.
The appeal apparently and admittedly has been filed beyond 30 days from the date of communication of the order to the appellant. The appeal being barred by time, is accompanied by an application (M.A. No. 104 of 2012) praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the objections raised with regard to the maintainability of the appeal in as much as it is barred by time, we had to deal with the question of limitation at the first instance and before we dwell upon the merits of the case. Thus, in view of the limited controversy, we shall refer only to the necessary facts relating to the application for condonation of delay.
The MoEF granted Environmental Clearance to the project vide its order dated 19th April, 2012. According to the applicant he received no information of passing of the order till 17th May, 2012, when the applicant visited Delhi and came to know that a news item had appeared, mentioning about the environmental clearance. On 15th May, 2012, one Himanshu Thakker informed the MoEF that its website had no information of the said Environmental Clearance. He also mentioned of the non-availability of the compliance reports on the website. Even the Central Information Commissioner had passed an order on 18th January, 2012 stating that the Environmental Clearance should be uploaded on the website at the earliest and shout be available to the public. Immediate non-placing of the order dated 19th April, 2012 on the website, thus, was in violation of the order of the Central Information Commissioner dated 18th January, 2012. The MoEF uploaded the order on its website on 22nd May, 2012. However, still as per the email of the Director of MoEF dated 5th June, 2012 (Annexure R1/2) the Environmental Clearance could not be made available as on that date. In this email to Himanshu Thakker the Director (MoEF) stated that she had tried her level best to upload the Environmental Clearance but there were glitches in the synchronization of their new website with the old one. The said order could only be downloaded by the applicant from the website of MoEF on 8th June, 2012, the date on which applicant claims the completion of communication of the order. The applicant could download the copy of the Scoping (ToR) Clearance granted to the Project Proponent only on 24th June, 2012. The applicant came to Delhi on 4th July, 2012 for obtaining Form-I, which was received by him on 12th July, 2012. He filed the appeal on 17th/18th July, 2012, i.e. on the 90th day from the date of clearance, i.e. 19th April, 2012. It is further the contention of the applicant that he got copy of the Environmental Clearance only on 8th June, 2012 and could prepare the appeal on 17th July, 2012 which was received in the Registry of the NGT on 18th July, 2012. Therefore, according to the applicant, the appeal has been filed within the extended period of 60 days but beyond the prescribed limitation of 30 days and there being sufficient cause non-filing of the appeal within 30 days, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits"
From the above facts it is amply clear that even in the Save Mon (Supra) the Appellants have categorically mentioned the date of communication or deemed communication of the order to them, and the Appeal was filed within a period of 90 days of the date of the grant of the Environment Clearance, i.e., within the extended period of 60 days. Thus the question to be decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal has been recorded in para 10 of the judgment as under:
Undisputedly and admittedly, this is not a case where the appeal has been filed beyond the period of 90 days (i.e. within 30 days from the date of which the order or decision is communicated to him plus further period of 60 days, as permissible under the NGT Act). Thus, we are called upon to decide if there exists sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond 30 days but within 90 days from the date of communication of the order."
It is needless to say that the period of limitation statutorily prescribed as to be strictly adhered to and cannot be released and or departed from equitable construction. Further, in construing equitable statutory provisions, the first and foremost rule of construction is that of literal construction. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran V. State of Kerala and
Another, AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Law of limitation may harshly affect particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grants. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The Order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently that application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time no costs.
In view of the aforesaid reasons the instant appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days, if calculated from the date of EC. The appellant has not at all mentioned the date on which the communication or deemed communication is said to have taken place. Further, the appellant has not given the cause of delay and not explained as to what was the sufficient cause which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period, as given under Section 16 of the NGT Act.
It has been further submitted by the appellant that the present matter raises a substantial question relevant to environment under (Section 14 of the NGT Act) as to whether mining activities can be carried out on agricultural land of the Government and whether Government authorities can grant lease and EC for the same. Further it is submitted that the present appeal/ application is referable to Section 14 of the NGT Act 2010 as well, for which the period of limitation is 6 months. It is not a simplicitor challenge to the order of granting EC. It has also been submitted that the present matter is also referable to Section 15 of the NGT Act 2010 to the extent that respondent no. 6 is liable to restitution of property damaged as well as compensate for such damage under polluter pays principle. The period of limitation for an application under Section 15 is 5 years.
It would suffice to say that under Rule 14 of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure, Rules 2011 an application or appeal has to be based upon a single cause of action. Relief more than one may be sought only in case they are consequently to one another. The aforesaid case of the appellant of challenging the issuance of EC, under Section 14 and Section 15 are not permissible under one appeal as both are to distinct causes of action. Further the same cannot be said to be consequently to one another. An appeal for plural cause of actions is not permissible.
We are, therefore, of the considered view that the application of condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the M.A. NO.628 of 2018 and M. A. No. 629 of 2018 is disposed is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Consequently, the Appeal no. 58 of 2018 is dismissed as non-maintainable on the ground of having being filed beyond the prescribed statuary limitation. There shall be no order as to cost.