People for Cattle in India And Ors vs District Collector And Ors

These applications relate to the construction of modern abattoir in Visakhapatnam by respondent No.3, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation.

Application No.93 of 2015 :

This application was originally filed by one, Mantri Shyam Prasad claiming to be the Secretary, Human Rights Council, Visakhapatnam. Later, an affidavit dated 07.09.2016 was filed by the said applicant with a prayer to dismiss the application as not pressed. Applicant in Application No.189 of 2016, who was originally got impleaded as respondent No.7 then filed M.A.No.163 of 2016 to transpose him as the applicant, as the original applicant decided not to contest the case. By order dated 04.10.2016 respondent No.7 was permitted to be transposed as the applicant. The prayer in the application is to direct the respondents to suspend the construction of slaughter house (modern abattoir) in Survey No.162, Paradesipalem Village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Andhra Pradesh which was an IRRIGATION Water Tank (YERRA CHERUVU) and to shift the slaughter house from the midst of residential colonies and adjacent to National Highway to a remote area.

The allegation of the applicant is that respondent No.6 M/s.Vizag Foods Private Limited is constructing the abattoir in 12 acres, comprised in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village by filling the Tank, violating the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also contended that adjacent to the area there is Gurukulam, a Government residential school and Junior College with hostel facilities. The layout was developed by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (in short VUDA) in 2012, by providing infrastructure facilities to land Pooling layout (Ozone Valley) to an extent of 100 acres with an estimated cost of Rs.118 Crores for residential purpose. The VUDA has not classified the land situated adjacent to the developed area, as commercial or industrial purpose either in their Master Plan or in the classification of category of land. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (in short the GVMC) authorities, under Public Participation Project (in short PPP) with respondent No.6 started construction of Slaughter House without conversion of land for the industrial purpose. The matter is pending with the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Authority Department for approval of land conversion. The Slaughter House is a threat to the life of inhabitants of surrounding residences particularly to the student community. Permission was granted by the respondents to fill an existing irrigation Tank, to an extent of approximately 10 acres, as the land is classified as Tank Poramboke in the revenue records. Respondent No.1, the District Collector transferred the land to respondent No.2, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, who in turn allotted the land to respondent No.5 for construction of the abattoir and respondent No.2 granted the permission.

The applicant would contend that the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued circular dated 20.09.2003 to all the District Collectors directing them to identify and include the lands covered by water bodies in the Prohibitory Order Book and to follow instructions scrupulously. It is contended that such water bodies include the lands covered by Tanks, Kunta, Ponds, Lakes, Vagu, Vankas, River projects and Reservoir porambokes. Permission is granted for construction of slaughter house, in contravention of the said directions. The people of the locality approached the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by instituting W.P.No.6614 of 2005 against the proposal to setup a slaughter house. By Judgement dated 24.02.2013, the Hon'ble High Court directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the proposal, give opportunity to hear the local people and decide. It is alleged that notice of public hearing was published in the newspaper on 13.06.2013 and the public hearing was conducted on 18.06.2016 in contravention of the rules and guideline for public hearing notified by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India. While granting construction of slaughter house, the respondents did not take into account the issues related to pollution and its adverse effect on the people residing nearby. It is also contended that the slaughter house would create abnormal Air Pollution like a chemical industry and it would cause adverse effect on the people residing nearby. Permission was also in contravention of various directions of the Hon'ble Supreme court. It is on these basis the applicant sought the directions from the Tribunal.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 filed a joint reply contending that the existing open slaughter of animals at Hanumanthawaka and Chinagadila villages of Visakhapatnam within the GVMC limits, has become very much unhygienic, located near residential area causing pollution due to the waste material of the animals and the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (in short APPCB) was regularly pressing the Municipal Corporation to shift the existing slaughter house, due to lack of Effluent Treatment Plant (in short ETP) and solid waste management provisions. It is the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation, being a local body, to ensure production and supply of hygienic meat to the consumers and also to control the spread of dreadful zoonatic diseases transmitted through consumption of meat, and hence construction of a modern abattoir is a necessity. Respondent No.3 the Municipal Corporation selected the site in Survey No.162, which is far away from the city about 10 Kms, for construction of modern abattoir during 1997. The District Collector was requested to hand over 16.40 Acres in Survey No.162. The first respondent directed the Mandal Revenue officer to handover advance possession of the 13.65 Acres of the land out of 16.40 Acres, and from then onwards the proposal of construction of modern abattoir is pending. Respondent No.3 constructed boundary wall all along the land and protected the same. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported that the tank is abandoned and completely silted long back and no agricultural operations are undertaken and recommended to the District Collector to de- notify the tank Poramboke for conversion for the purpose of construction of a Modern abattoir. The proforma information for conversion of tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry land was communicated in the letter dated 10.04.1998 jointly signed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam on 10.07.2004. No residential colony is there immediate to the land in Survey No.162. On the south there is a Big Hill, on the western side it is a Mango tope, and on the North there are commercial buildings and on the Eastern side the National Highway and the remaining extent of Survey No.162 was allotted for construction of a Government Residential School. The residential area of the school is 1 km. away from the modern abattoir. Respondent No.3 was allotted 11.40 Acres on PPP Mode in the year 2008-2009, by resolution dated 11.02.2010, the General Body of the Corporation approved the proposal and State of Andhra Pradesh issued orders approving the tender of respondent No.6 for construction of the modern abattoir by memo dated 06.05.2010. Possession of the land was handed over to respondent No.6 on 31.07.2013 and they started construction immediately. The tank was silted and was not in existence much earlier to 2004. Therefore there was no question of filling of the tank as alleged. The entire land was earmarked for modern abattoir in 1997 itself. As per the orders of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam during 2007, 5 Acres of land which was handed over to the Municipal Corporation, was withdrawn and handed over for construction of the school.

The contention that the surrounding area is residential area is not correct. Respondent No.3 selected Survey No.162 for construction of modern abattoir during 1997 itself. By order dated 30.07.2004, in Rc. 6623 / 96E2, respondent No.1 the District Collector changed the classification of land from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry land, subject to the finalization by the Government orders. The proposal for conversion was approved by respondent No.1 as requested by respondent No.3. As per Delivery Receipt dated 07.12.2013, possession of the land was taken. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 sent proposal to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, through the special Chief Secretary. The total extent of land in Survey No.162 is 16.40 Acres. It was classified as Tank Poramboke. It is called "Meraka Cheruvu" and not "Yerra Cheruvu" as contented by the applicant. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad issued orders to enter certain lands in Prohibitory Order Book. It was contended that generally alienation of land covered by water body is prohibited by Government order in G.O Ms No.157 Revenue dated 19.08.1987. The construction of the modern abattoir is an absolute necessity. After joint inspection on 10.07.2004, joint inspection report for conversion of Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry land was furnished. Respondent No.1 on satisfying the same, changed the classification to Assessed Waste Dry land, pending finalization of Government orders. The Commissioner was permitted to go ahead with the construction work of modern abattoir, pending ratification of de-notification proposals and regular alienation proposal by the Government. Simultaneously the proposal was submitted to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, informing the urgency with a request to de-notify from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry land.

The Hon'ble High Court while disposing the W.P No.6614 of 2005 on 24.02.2012 directed that the writ petitioner and other people in the locality shall be given an opportunity of being heard, whenever a local authority proposes to take up the activity in the land of the Government classified as Tank Poramboke and until that exercise is completed, not to construct the modern abattoir. Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court the public hearing was proposed on 18.06.2013 at 11 am in the Old Council Hall. Notice was sent to the writ petitioners and also a public notice was issued in the local newspapers including one English daily Newspaper on 13.06.2013. Respondent No.3 conducted the public hearing on 18.06.2013. No objection was raised by anybody, during the public hearing. As no objection was received on the proposed land, the land was handed over to respondent No.6 to construct the modern abattoir on PPP Mode. This matter was placed before the Council for approval and the same was approved on 26.06.2013. The cost of the project was Rs.35.74 Crore and the capacity of the modern abattoir is 500 Buffalos and 2000 Sheep per day. The APPCB granted the consent for establishment of modern abattoir to respondent No.6. The said slaughter house is having most sophisticated equipments and it will not create any pollution. The apprehension of the applicant is baseless. During joint inspection of the site, respondent No.3 appraised the District Collector that as per the letter dated 29.06.2001 addressed by the Advisor, Ministry of Non conventional Energy sources following the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 888 of 1996 which was published in the Gazette dated 25.09.2000, specifically fixed deadline for setting up of waste processing and disposal facilities by 31.12.2003. The land is not an irrigation tank as alleged. The tank was silted long back as stated earlier. The Revenue Divisional Officer and the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Visakhapatnam submitted proposal for conversion of Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry land jointly after inspection of the land on 10.07.2004 and after finding that there is no possibility of restoring the Tank as it is completely silted long back and the restoration is not economical. Therefore it is contended that the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for.

Respondent No.4, APPCB in their reply contended that in 1997 respondent No.3 sought clearance for construction of modern abattoir and in 2004 after obtaining the clarification, the Consent for Establishment (in short CFE) was granted with a validity period of 5 years. The site is surrounded by a very big hillock and small scale industries. No habitation was existing within 500 metres. Respondent No.3 could not establish the slaughter house within 5 years and applied for extension of time for 2 years in 2010. An extension of two more years was granted as per the order dated 24.09.2011. Respondent No.3 transferred the land for establishing the modern abattoir to Respondent No.6 in 2013. The new facilitator applied for CFE in 2013. As per the meeting held on 28.06.2013 on the recommendations of the CFE committee, Respondent No.4 granted permission by order dated 1.07.2013. As per the terms and conditions contained in the CFE order, Respondent No.9 M/s. Vizag Foods Pvt. Ltd, applied for the Consent for Operation (in short CFO) during October 2015. The CFO was issued on 02.11.2015 with certain conditions. The Hon'ble High Court directed Respondent No.4 to consider all aspects of the matter including the question as to whether the Tank in S.No.162 is silted for a long time or not. The officials of the Respondent No.4 had inspected the site on 23.08.2001. During inspection, the Chief Medical Officer informed that the proposed site is about 500 meters away from the residential area. The site is a totally silted Tank. It was silted since 10 years as informed by the local villagers. There is no Ayacut to this tank and no agriculture is practiced in the nearby areas of the tank. The natural drain which is present on the western side of the site is totally dry and local villagers informed that during heavy rains water flows in the drain. Respondent No.1, the District Collector transferred, 16.40 Acres of Government land to Respondent No.3 on 30.07.2004. After obtaining certain clarifications from Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4 issued the CFE to Respondent No.3 originally on 24.09.2004 with a validity period of 5 years. The Government allocated 5 Acres of land to the A.P.S.T Residential College by proceedings dated 22.03.2007 for the construction of Gurukulam residential college and the remaining area of 11.40 Acres was with the 3rd Respondent for construction of modern abattoir. The CFE was later extended upto 24.09.2011, on the request of Respondent No.3.

A writ petition in W.P No.6614 of 2005 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court against the CFE orders. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 24.02.2012 directed the GVMC to reconsider the proposal to construct the modern abattoir, keeping in view the subsequent developments like the construction of residential / commercial complexes that have come up all around the land and lack of open space on the remaining area. It was also provided that the writ petitioner and other people of the locality shall be given an opportunity of being heard whenever a local authority proposes to take up activity in the land of the Government classified as Tank Poramboke and till such exercise is completed, the slaughter house or modern abattoir shall not be constructed. Respondent No.3 issued notification for public hearing in local daily newspaper on 13.06.2013. The public hearing was conducted on 18.06.2013 at Old Council Hall, GVMC Main Office. Subsequently Writ Petition No.23477 of 2015 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court by Sri. Ch. Venkateswara Rao praying to stop further construction of slaughter house claiming the land to be a tank bed located in midst of residential area. By Judgement dated 16.09.2015, it was disposed of holding that the modern abattoir shall not come into operation, unless the Government ratifies the order of de-notification. By G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 13.05.2016 the Government of Andhra Pradesh ratified the action of the District Collector in having de-notified the land to an extent of 16.40 acres in Survey No.162 from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry land and the alienation of land to an extent of 10.55 acres in favour of GVMC for construction of modern abattoir. Adequate conditions have been imposed on respondent No.6 to prevent any pollution. The officials of the respondent No.4 would continuously monitor the activities of respondent No.6 and also the compliance status of the conditions imposed and would ensure that respondent No.6 carries on its activities in terms of the Consent Order issued to it. The application is to be dismissed.

Application No.189 of 2016:

This application is filed for the following reliefs:

" a) Grant a permanent injunction against the respondents, their men, representatives, officials and others, etc., from commissioning and operating the abattoir situated at Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Andhra Pradesh.

b) Direct the respondents to strictly comply with terms mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No214 dated 13.05.2016 not to disturb any existing water body and to allow the same to continue their natural course.

c) Direct the respondents to restore the water body in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Andhra Pradesh.

d) Direct the Respondents to relocate the modern abattoir to any other location that may be appropriate after satisfying all the rules and conditions as prescribed.

e) To pass any such order as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

The applicant claiming to be a responsible citizen, had approached the Hon'ble High Court to prevent the illegal slaughtering of animals in the city of Chennai as well as in unlicensed slaughter houses and abattoirs. It is contended that respondent No.2, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam by letter dated 30.07.2014 de-notified the water body to an extent of 16.40 acres in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village from Tank Poramboke (water body) to Assessed Waste Dry (in short AWD) land. Respondent No.2 has also alienated an extent of 10.55 acres of the said land in favour of respondent No.3, GVMC. In 2009, W.P.No.6614 of 2005 was instituted before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the selection of water body to establish a modern abattoir in Survey No.1162 of Paradesipalem village. On 24.12.2014 the Hon'ble High Court passed an order directing the GVMC and the District Collector to reconsider the proposal to construct the modern abattoir, keeping in view the subsequent developments and observing that residential/ commercial complexes have come up all around the land in Survey No.162 and there is no other open space and the revenue administration can always consider better ways of protecting the water body than constructing such abattoir. The Hon'ble High Court also directed that opportunity of being heard shall be given to the people of the locality whenever a local authority proposes to take up activity in the Government land classified as tank poramboke and till such exercise is completed, the slaughter house or modern abattoir shall not be constructed. As directed by the Hon'ble High Court, respondent Nos.2 and 3 conducted a public hearing in a hurried manner. The public hearing was attended only by the parties who would be benefited in the establishment of the modern abattoir and not the actual aggrieved parties. The alienation of the water body by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 was wrongful. Respondent No.3 thereafter allotted the land to respondent No.9 under PPP Model for the construction, commissioning and operation of a modern abattoir.

According to the applicant, two important issues involved are (1) the conversion of a water body and (2) establishment of the modern abattoir in a water body unmindful of the impact and substantial damage to the environment. It is contended that respondent No.2 has no authority to de-notify the water body to AWD land and therefore the order of the second respondent de-notifying the water body is null and void. It is also contended that de-notification of water body made through a letter, as has been done by order dated 30.07.2004 by respondent No.2, is not valid as it can be done only by Government order passed by the competent authority. Under Article 48-A of the Constitution of India, the respondents have a constitutional mandate to protect and preserve the environment and natural resources. A fundamental duty is also cast on every State and its citizen to protect and preserve natural environment including rivers and water bodes as enshrined under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.2 failed to carry out the Constitutional mandate while de-notifying the water body. Respondent No.1, the State also failed on the same grounds by passing the impugned order by ratifying the act of respondent No.2 in de-notifying the water body. Even otherwise, the State enactments in the State of Andhra Pradesh such as the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act, the Andhra Pradesh Assigned (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1971, the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act, the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 and various other Standing Orders applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh are legislations / rules which only deal with conversion of agricultural lands and other lands and does not deal with conversion of water bodies.

There is no statute that provides respondent No.2 with the authority to covert or de-notify the water body for any other purpose as both the Central and State legislations were made only for protecting and preserving natural environment and water bodies. G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment - 1) Department dated 14.09.2012 clearly reveals the policy of the State that only waste and dry lands should be proposed for alienation and wet, irrigated lands should not be normally considered for such purpose.Further, environmentally sensitive and fragile areas such as tank beds, river beds, hillocks done with afforestation etc. shall not be alienated or allotted. That policy shall also apply in respect of the establishment of modern abattoir on a water body. The actions of the respondents are in violation of the said provisions and bad in law. The impugned order reveals that the water bodies if any existing in the land, should not be disturbed and should be allowed to continue their natural course and thus it is clear that no water body should be harmed. Respondent No.4, APPCB also acted illegally by granting CFO dated 02.11.2015. Schedule B of the Consent Order so granted provides that modern abattoir shall not come into operation, unless the Government ratifies the order of de-notification and acceptance of regular alienation proposals by the Government as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and the CFO is subject to the outcome of the application No.93 of 2015 pending before the National Green Tribunal. Consent was granted without application of mind and therefore the Consent is null and void.

The abattoirs / slaughter houses are classified as Red Category Industry by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and therefore, respondent No.9 shall obtain prior CFE and also CFO. The abattoir of the size, sought to be constructed cannot be operated without adequate number of cattles to be slaughtered. Those aspects were not considered while permitting the construction of a modern abattoir. It is also contended that approximately 2000 sheep and 500 buffaloes will be slaughtered per day and once it is commissioned, as there would not be sufficient number of animals, Consent should not have been granted. About 7 lakh litres of water per day have to be used in the abattoir and it will have serious impact on the water resources in the District of Visakhapatnam and have adverse impact on the agricultural operation in the area. Due to heavy rain, if there happens to be a disaster like which happened in December 2015 in Chennai, the result would be very serious. Applicant would contend that decision to establish the abattoir in the water body is violative of Article 48-A and Article 51-A of the Constitution of India and violates Section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and therefore substantial questions relating to environment as provided Under Section 2(m)(ii) of the National Green Tribunal Act arise in the application.

Respondent No.3, GVMC filed a reply affidavit contending that as per Chapter - III (Assignment) of Board Standing Orders and Rules, a prescribed procedure is established for transfer of land from one head to another. BSO 15(33) Rule 3(i) provides that any land which is un-assessed can be assigned only after it is transferred to the head assessed. The Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to order such transfer and to fix the assessment on such lands. He may also order the transfer of land from ayan to Poramboke and make their entry as reserved as also from one description of Poramboke to another except in the village site Poramboke, in which case orders of the Collector are necessary. It also provides that the Collector is the competent authority to order transfer of land from dry to wet and vice-versa and also from Poramboke to ayan. The Collector is competent to pass an order of transfer of Poramboke from one head to another head. The Divisional Officers are competent to pass orders of transfer of Poramboke to assessed waste or ayan - un-assessed waste to assessed waste as provided under G.O.Ms.No.1187 Revenue Department dated 02.09.1975. The Tahsildars are empowered to pass orders of transfer assessed and un-assessed land to Poramboke under G.O.Ms.No.518 Revenue Department dated 28.05.1974. It was in exercise of the powers conferred, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam alienated an extent of 10.55 acres of land to GVMC, for valid consideration. The District Collector while addressing the Principal Secretary to Government dated 30.07.2004 explained the reasons for converting Tank Poramboke in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village to assessed waste dry land and also about the urgency involved in handing over the advance possession of the said land to GVMC for construction of modern abattoir. The respondents only acted following the law and rules. Hence the Government order ratifying the action of the District Collector, by G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 13.05.2016 is perfectly legal.

W.P. No 6614 of 2005 was filed challenging the decision to establish the modern abattoir in the abandoned water tank in S.No.162 of Paradesipalem Village. The Hon'ble High Court disposed the writ petition on 24.12.2012 and in obedience of the orders, a public hearing was proposed to be conducted on 18.06.2013 at 11.00 AM in the Old Council Hall of the 3rdRespondent Corporation. It was published in vernacular as well as in English Newspapers on 13.06.2013, informing the general public. On 18.06.2013 the public hearing was conducted at Old Council Hall at 11.00AM with the Joint Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board officials, Chief Engineer GVMC, Chief City Planer, GVMC, Chief Medical Officer, Health, GVMC, Chief Veterinary Officer, GVMC and Jamaluti Quresh Association Chief Members from Visakhapatnam participated. No objection was made by anybody at the time of conducting public hearing against the proposals. The contention that the public hearing was conducted in a hurried manner is not correct.

Earlier one, Sri Mantri Shyam Prasad stated to have been the Secretary of Human Rights Council had filed application No.93 of 2015 before the Tribunal, based on the same set of grounds. The existing open slaughter of animals at Hanumanthawala, Chinagadili Village of Visakhapatnam in GVMC was very much unhygienic and is located near residential area and is causing pollution. It is the responsibility of GVMC to ensure production and supply of hygienic meat to the consumers and also to control the spread of dreadful Zoonatic disease transmitted through the consumption of meat. Thus the construction of modern abattoir is needed to control large-scale unauthorised slaughter houses. Respondent No.3 selected the site in survey number 162 which is far away from the city during 1997 itself. The District Collector handed over advance possession of the site for construction of Modern abattoir. After taking possession of land, GVMC erected boundary walls. The proforma information for conversion of Tank Poramboke to Assess Dry Waste Land was jointly signed by the Executive Engineer Irrigation and Revenue Divisional Officer Visakhapatnam on 10.07.2004. There were no residential colonies immediate to the said land. The residential area is about 1 KM away from the modern abattoir.

Respondent No.9 was allotted 11.40 Acres on PPP mode during 2008 - 2009. By resolution dated 11.02.2012, the Corporation general body approved the proposal. The State Government accepted the same and by order dated 06.05.2010 granted approval for construction of modern abattoir. Respondent No.9 obtained possession of the land on 31.07.2003.

The District Collector is competent to convert / de-notify the Poramboke or abandoned water tank, since the tank was silted long back and there were neither agricultural operations nor any water storage even during the rainy season. There is no possibility of restoring the tank. Hence the question of filling of the tank as alleged, does not arise. By order dated 30.07.2004, District Collector changed the classification of land in Survey No.162 from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry land, pending finalisation of the Government orders and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to record the necessary changes. The proposal of conversion of land was approved by the Government. The land was taken possession from the Revenue Officer by GVMC on 07.12.2014. The District Collector sent proposal to the Principal Secretary to Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, informing the urgency and requesting the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation to comply with the directions. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad issued orders to enter certain lands in Prohibitory Order Book. Generally alienation of land covered by water bodies is prohibited. However, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.157 Revenue Department, dated 19.08.1987, provided that if there is a special reason for relaxation of such ban, it can be relaxed. In the light of the approval of the project by the Government of India and as no objection was received on the proposal, further action was taken to hand over the said land to the developer, Respondent No.9, to construct the modern abattoir. The matter was placed before the Council and it was approved on 26.06.2013. The cost of the project is Rs.35.74 Crore. The capacity of the modern abattoir is 500 buffaloes and 2000 sheep per day. On 01.07.2013, the APPCB granted Consent for Establishment. The grounds raised against the conversion and establishment of the modern abattoir are not sustainable. The Tank Poramboke was silted long back, much prior to 1996 and was abandoned. There was no cultivation and no agricultural operation. The construction of the modern abattoir and its operation will not cause any environmental change in the area. There is no violation of Article 48-A of the Constitution of India. As the tank was silted up long back there is no stocking of water even during rainy season. Construction of a moder abattoir will not in any way affect the environment. Therefore there is no violation of Article 51-A also. The official respondents have followed the prescribed procedure before de-notifying the Tank Poramboke as Assessed Waste Dry Land. Proper permission was obtained from the Department. When the tank itself was not in existence, the question of polluting the water body does not arise. Therefore there is no violation of Section 24 (1) (b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. There is no violation of any law or the rules. Hence there is no substantial question relating to environment raised in the application. Respondent No.3 therefore contended that there is no merit in the application and it is liable to be dismissed.

Respondent No.5 filed the reply contending that Respondent No.3 applied for CFE, for establishment of modern abattoir in the name of GVMC in 1997. The CFE was issued in 2004 after obtaining the clarification, with a validity period of 5 years. At the time of making the application in front of the land was an approach road followed by a big hillock. Back side was having open space and sick industry. On the left side was Balaji Steel Industry and on the right side was open space followed by Ice Factory. The site is surrounded by a very big hillock and small scale industries. No habitation is existing within 500 meters. The site is about 500 meters away from the national highway. The officials of the Board inspected the site on 23.08.2001. During inspection the Chief Medical Officer, Visakhapatnam was present and it was observed that the site is the totally silted Marika tank. It was silted since 10 years, as informed by the local villagers. There was no Ayakut to the tank and no agriculture was practised in the nearby areas. The natural drain which was present on the western side of the site was totally dry and the local villagers informed that only during heavy rains water flows in the area. For construction of modern abattoir the District Collector transferred the land to the 3rd respondent on 30.07.2004. Respondent No.5 Board issued CFE to Respondent No.3 on 24.09.2004 with a validity period of 5 years. Respondent No.3 could not establish the slaughter house within 5 years and therefore an application was filed in 2010 for extension of time for 2 more years. Respondent No.5 extended the period upto 24.09.2011. After issuance of the CFE, the Government allocated an area of 5 acres to the A.P.S.T Residential College by proceedings dated 22.03.2007 for construction of Gurukulam Residential College and the remaining area of 11.40 Acres was with the 3rd Respondent for construction of Modern abattoir. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P No 6614 of 2005 directed to keep the proposal for constructing the modern abattoir pending and directed to reconsider the same making clear that there should be a public hearing. Respondent No.3 issued notification for public hearing in the local daily newspapers on 13.06.2013 and the public hearing was conducted on 18.06.2013. No objection was made by anybody during the public hearing on the proposal for constructing the modern abattoir. Respondent No.3 transferred the land for establishing the modern abattoir under PPP Mode, to Respondent No.9. The new facilitator applied for the CFE in 2013. After examining the application and on the recommendations of the CFE committee, CFE was granted on 01.07.2013. After considering the request of the Respondent No.9 an amended order was issued on 28.05.2014 for Production of 90 TPD of buffalo meat, 15 TPD Mutton ( Sheep and Goat), 40 TPD of Meat and Bone Meal and 15 TPD of Mutton Tallow as by products. After establishing the modern abattoir as per the terms and conditions contained in the CFE order, Respondent No.9 applied for Consent for Operation (in short CFO) during 2015. It was granted with certain conditions on 30.08.2016 which is valid upto 31.08.2021. Respondent No.6 commenced trial run from 24.07.2016 onwards.

W.P.No.23477 of 2015 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court by one, Venkateswara Rao praying to stop further construction of modern abattoir. The Writ Petition was disposed on 16.09.2015 recording the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the order of the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam dated 30.07.2004 shall not came into operation, unless the Government ratifies the order of notification. By G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 13.05.2016 the Government of Andhra Pradesh ratified the action of the District Collector in having de-notified the land to an extent of 16.40 acres from tank poramboke to AWD and also the alienation of land to an extent of 10.55 acres to GVMC for construction of Modern abattoir. Adequate conditions have been imposed by the respondent Board for preventing any pollution due to the activities and the allegations raised in the application are mis-conceived. The Officials of the respondent Board would be continuously monitoring the activities of respondent No.9 and compliance status of the conditions imposed on them would be ensured. The apprehensions of the applicant are totally unwarranted and unsustainable. Respondent No.9 constructed full-fledged Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) for treatment of the process and wash effluents. A greenbelt of 15 metre width towards Eastern side and 3 to 10 metre width towards North, South and Western directions has been developed. It is therefore contended that there is no merit in the application and it is liable to be dismissed.

Respondent No.6, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) filed the reply contending that the State Pollution Control Board is the implementing body to grant Consent to Establish and Consent to operate under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is a prior requirement for any new slaughter house to obtain Consent to establish before establishing the slaughter house. The siting criteria adopted by each State have to be followed for locating the slaughter house and necessary clearance from respective local bodies shall also be obtained. Respondent No.6 also submitted that the CPCB shall abide by any order passed by the Tribunal.

Respondent No.9 filed a reply contending that respondent No.3 invited expression of interest from private industry players for setting up the modern abattoir. On 09.02.2010, respondent No.9 was selected as a Private partner under Public Private Partnership Model (PPP Model) to set up the Modern abattoir. On 11.02.2010, respondent No.3 approved the PPP Model Project. The abattoir serves as a „Service Abattoir‟ wherein the local butchers of Visakhapatnam get their animals directly to the abattoir and the animals are slaughtered, dressed and the meat and the by-products like the hide and skin are taken back by the butchers. For this service the abattoir charges Rs.50/- per animal. Respondent No.9 additionally buys Buffalo meat at Rs.150/- per kg. from persons willing to sell to the abattoir. Sheep and Goats are also purchased by the abattoir at Rs.200/- per kg. Respondent No.9 already obtained CFE for the abattoir from APPCB dated 01.07.2013 and the amended order dated 28.05.2014. No Objection Certificate from respondent No.3 for construction of Modern abattoir, Certificate of Importer - Exporter Code (IEC) from the Director General of Foreign Trade dated 28.11.2014, Industrial Licence No.2547/SIA/IMO/202 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 14.11.2012, Registration Certificate dated 13.02.2015 issued by Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Corporation, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, Central Excise Registration Certificate dated 18.07.2014 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance were also obtained. Factory approved plans dated 16.06.2015, issued by Director of Industries, VAT Registration Certificate dated 05.06.2014 issued by Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Certificate of Registration dated 31.01.2014 issued by Labour Department were all obtained.

The abattoir is a state of art slaughter house processing wholesome and hygienic meat for human consumption. The abattoir is fully compliant with the Code of Practice for ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of meat animals. The Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh have two qualified Veterinarians as Meat Inspectors/Veterinarians. In addition, respondent No.9 employed „6‟ Veterinarian Doctors for ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of animals. The abattoir is fully compliant with the guidelines for handling storage and transport of slaughter house by-products. On the slaughtering of the animals, various by-products in the form of blood, offal that is intestine, liver, lungs, bones, etc., hides and skin, hooves and horns etc., are generated. The abattoir has a rendering plant with 40 tons per day capacity. In this rendering plant, the offal will be processed to generate Mini Bone Meal (MBM) and fallow, which are utilised by the poultry and the soap industry. The blood of the slaughtered animal will be processed into fertilisers by means of blood cocalator. The hooves and the horns are stored in cool sheds / chillers and are sold to the traders. The hides / skin are immediately treated with salt and sold off within 2 hours. All the by-products can be handled in an environmental and scientific manner within the frame work of the guidelines of the Government of India.

As far as the washed water etc., generated from the slaughter house, drainage and other processing areas, are treated in an Effluent Treatment Plant as per the norms and the standards of APPCB. The APPCB granted CFE for a period of 5 years. On 01.07.2013 the APPCB issued an amended order modifying the CFO dated 28.05.2016. On 14.09.2015 the APPCB granted CFO which was valid upto 31.08.2016. On 14.09.2015 APPCB renewed the Consent Order upto 31.08.2021. Respondent No.9 complied with the rules laid down by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Slaughter House) Rules 2001. Respondent No.9 has put in place a comprehensive Environment Management Plan (EMP) for dealing with Air and Water Pollution. Respondent No.9 has invested Rs.5 crore, out of the total capital cost of Rs.35 crore, as capital costs for environment control equipment with a recurring cost of Rs.30 lakh per annum. On 26.06.2004, there was a joint inspection carried out by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the Executive Engineer, Irrigation in Survey No.162. The report dated 10.07.2004 shows that the tank is an abandoned tank and has been fully silted long back. There is no agricultural operation and no cultivation. Conversion of the tank will not affect the groundwater. The surrounding area is built up with residential and commercial units. On 30.07.2004, the District Collector passed a detailed order converting the Tank Poramboke into AWD land subject to the de-notification and regular alienation proposal by the Government. A detailed proposal to the Revenue Department for ratification of the conversion and alienation was submitted on 30.07.2004.

By letter dated 08.10.2015, the District Collector wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration recommending de-notification of the Tank. On 21.10.2015, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration wrote to the Government of Andhra Pradesh recommending alienation of the land and conversion of the Tank Poramboke to AWD. By order dated 04.12.2015 the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration requested the Government of Andhra Pradesh for alienation of the concerned land in favour of GVMC. Section 24 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) Land Revenue Act, 1317 (The Revenue Act) confers power and jurisdiction on the Collector, subject to the rules sanctioned by the Government and contained in the order of the Board of Revenue, to dispose all public roads, tanks, ponds, etc. Section 158 (Chapter-11) of the Revenue Act provides for an appeal from the order of the Collector to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Section 166-C of the Revenue Act provides for revisional powers with the Government of Andhra Pradesh against the order of the Collector. Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975 (The Land Disposal Rules) confers the power of alienation of the land on various authorities. Section 24 of the Revenue Act read with Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the Land Disposal Rules, confer power and jurisdiction on the Collector to alienate the Government land. The Collector and the Government alienated the land under these powers following due process of law. Section 24 of the Revenue Act read with the Land Disposal Rules read with Chapter-III of the Board of Revenue Standing Orders, confer power and jurisdiction on the Collector to convert Tank Poramboke to AWD. The District Collector and the Government of Andhra Pradesh converted the Tank Poramboke to AWD under these powers following due process of law.

The application is not maintainable Under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act as a substantial question relating to environment which arises out of the implementation of the Enactments mentioned in Schedule-I to the Act does not arise. Applicant has not raised any such substantial question of environment, much less concerning the implementation of any of the Scheduled Acts. The questions raised in the application relate to proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Under Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, this is not an Act coming within the purview of the NGT. The question of de-notification of Tank Poramboke is a question relating to treatment of land in the revenue records of the State. There are appropriate forums under the concerned Acts itself and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide them. The application is barred by limitation. The cause of action first arose when in May 2009, respondent No.3 invited expression of interest for participation of private industry players. Thereafter, it is only a continuation of the said act. The successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause of action. As the cause of action first arose in 2009, the application is barred by time. In May 2009, respondent No.3 invited expression of interest from private industry for setting up an abattoir which was approved on 11.02.2010. Respondent No.3 approved the project and sent proposal to the Government for approval. On 06.05.2010, the Government of Andhra Pradesh approved the abattoir project and forwarded it to the Government of India. On 14.10.2010 respondent No.6 entered into a Public Private Partnership (PPP) agreement with respondent No.3. On 08.04.2013, the Ministry of Food Processing approved the abattoir project. On 18.06.2013, public hearing was conducted as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Ministry of Food Processing disbursed the grant for the project from September 2013 to 23rd September 2014. The construction of the abattoir started on 01.01.2014 and the project is completed. The abattoir commenced commercial production from July 2016 onwards. The present application has been filed on 16.08.2016. It is therefore barred by time. The application is barred by principles of re-judicata, constructive re-judicata or principle analogous to re-judicata, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.15261 of 2000 and W.P.No.6614 of 2005. The public hearing was conducted after due notice to the public and it was fairly conducted. Orders granting CFO on 01.07.2013, Consent Order for operation on 02.11.2015 and Consent Order for operation was granted on 14.09.2016 were not challenged. Those orders cannot be challenged in any other manner, but as provided under the Acts. Respondent No.4 applied his mind while issuing the Consent Orders. No water body is existing in Survey No.162. The Order of Consent cannot be challenged in the application and the application is therefore liable to be dismissed.

Respondent No.10, the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Food Processing Industries who was impleaded later, filed the reply contending that the Ministry of Food Processing Industries is implementing a Plan / Scheme since 2008-2009 for Setting Up/ Modernisation of Abattoirs under which grant-in-aid is given to Local Bodies / Public Sector Undertakings / Co-operatives / Boards under Government for establishment of modern abattoirs and modernisation of existing abattoirs. The main objectives of the scheme are scientific and hygienic slaughtering of animals, application of modern technology for slaughter waste management and pollution control, more humane treatment of animals / minimising transportation of animals, better by-product utilisation / value addition, providing chilling facility to prevent microbial activity in slaughtered animals, better hygiene, safety and retail cold chain management and better forward linkage facility for finished meat and meat products. One of the projects assisted by the Ministry under the scheme is at Visakhapatnam being operated in PPP mode by the GVMC. The Detailed Project Report (DPR) for establishment of a modern abattoir at Paradesipalem under the Scheme of Setting Up / Modernisation of Abattoirs, was received duly recommended by the Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 19.02.2011. The revised / updated DPR was subsequently received in September 2012 from PPP partner for the project selected by the State Government. The project is to be implemented by GVMC on PPP mode with respondent No.9. The proposal was considered by the Approval Committee of Ministry of Food Processing Industries on 08.04.2013. The committee accorded approval to the grant of financial assistance in the form of grant-in-aid of Rs.1500 lakhs for the project, subject to the standard conditions / guidelines prescribed. On 23.04.2013 approval letter was issued by the Ministry. The 1st instalment of the grant-in-aid amounting to Rs.150 lakhs was released to respondent No.3 on 20.09.2013. The 2nd instalment of the grant-in-aid amounting to Rs.450 lakhs was released on 15.10.2014 and 3rd instalment of the grant-in-aid amounting to Rs.600 lakhs was released on 01.05.2015. It was intimated by respondent No.3 that the Project was completed on 09.12.2015. The final instalment of Rs. 300 lakhs was also released to respondent No.3 on 12.05.2016. Schedule - B annexed to the Consent Order, inter-alia provides that the modern abattoir shall not come into operation, unless the Government ratify the order of de-notification. The proposal for setting up of a modern abattoir at a location selected by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was submitted to the Ministry by the State Government along with all the necessary documents as required under the scheme guidelines. Respondent No.3 has also given NOC for construction of modern abattoir complex in the site of 11.40 acres. Therefore, it is contended that the application is liable to be dismissed.

The applicant filed a rejoinder contending that in the year 2010 W.P.No.15261 of 2000 was filed by one, Venkateshwara Rao after the proposal of construction of modern abattoir was taken up. The Hon'ble High Court directed that the APPCB to take into consideration the points pleaded by the petitioner, before granting Consent. In 2003, respondent No.3 sent a letter dated 19.12.2003 to the APPCB stating that respondent No.4 has rejected the Consent for establishment and respondent No.3 had given clarification to the issues raised by the Board and APPCB was requested to issue necessary direction for reconsidering the application for consent. In the proceedings of the District Collector, it is recorded that respondent No.3 originally proposed to set up a garbage dumping yard in Survey No.162. Out of 16.40 acres only 13.65 acres could be used for the modern abattoir and the balance land is subject matter of dispute before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Bheemunipatnam. On 22.07.2004, the proposed site was jointly inspected. Respondent No.3 apprised the District Collector about the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.888 of 1996 dated 25.09.2000 specifying deadline for setting up a site on or before 31.12.2013 for disposal of municipal solid waste. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was referred to as the urgency in the matter and it was therefore decided to reclassify the land. The said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court only deals with the setting up of Municipal Solid Waste sites. The construction of modern abattoir was not dealt with therein. It is clear that the sole reason for reclassification of the water body is based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a completely unrelated matter dealing with setting up of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal sites. The applicant has denied the contentions raised by respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 and 9 respectively.

The applicant has filed an additional affidavit contending that Application No. 189 of 2016 was filed by one, Arun Prasanna in his individual capacity. The applicant has been staunch environmental activist for several years. Applicant is an aggrieved person and relied on the judgment of the Principal Bench in Jaya Prakash Dabral Vs. Union of India and others (2011 SCC Online NGT 2).

Arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the respondents were heard.

Mr.Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the fact that the land in Survey No.162 Paradesipalem Village where a modern abattoir has already been constructed, is classified as Tank Poramboke in the revenue records and it is an admitted fact and not at all disputed. It was argued that as per G.O Ms No.214 Revenue (Assignment-II) Department dated 13.05.2016, though the ratification of the action of the District Collector in having de-notified the land to an extent of 16.40 Acres in Survey No.162 from Tank Poramboke to AWD land and alienation of the land to an extent of 10.55 Acres, out the said land, to Respondent No.3 GVMC for construction of modern abattoir was granted, it was subject to the conditions. In addition to the conditions in G.O Ms.No.571, Revenue (Assignment-I ) Department dated 14.09.2012, the specific condition under (iv) is that the water bodies if any, existing in the land should not be disturbed and should be allowed to continue their natural course. The argument is that G.O.Ms. No 214 by which Respondent No.3 obtained the right and permission to utilise the land for construction of a modern abattoir which was there after allotted to Respondent No.9, is subject to the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012. Learned council argued that G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 deals with allotment of Government lands and Government Land Allotment Policy. It is pointed out that Government felt the necessity to revisit the existing policy and guidelines in regard to allotment of scarce land to various departments, organisations, institutions, individuals etc adopting the fundamental principles of judicious allotment of land and effective monitoring of its utilisation. Government land allotment policy annexed to the said G.O. Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 specifically provides that only waste and dry lands should be proposed for alienation and wet, irrigation lands should not normally be considered for such purpose and in any case environmentally sensitive and fragile areas such as tank beds, river beds, hillocks with afforestation etc shall not be alienated or allotted. Learned counsel Mr.Mohan therefore argued that as the land is a Tank Poramboke, as per G.O. Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012, it cannot be allotted for construction of modern abattoir and on that sole ground it is to be found that Respondent No.3 and 9 are not entitled to use the land for construction and commissioning of the Modern abattoir. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi and others (2001(6) SCC 496) and vehemently argued that the tanks and ponds are declared to be material resources of the community and they maintain delicate ecological balance and they need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment, which enable people, to enjoy the quality of life which is the essence of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also argued that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the attempt of the respondents should have been to develop the tank even if it has been silted and steps should have been taken to restore the tank and not to construct a modern abattoir and cause ecological disaster.

Learned counsel also argued that the application for Consent to Establish for constructing a modern abattoir submitted on 19.12.2003 to the APPCB was rejected by Respondent No 4 finding that the location proposed is on a tank bed which has not been de-notified and as the site is existing on the foot of a hillock and establishment of the abattoir may obstruct the natural drainage system. Again by order dated 24.01.2004 the application for consent to establish was rejected by Respondent No.4. Thereafter Respondent No.3 approached the District Collector, Respondent No.2, for change in classification of land and District Collector granted the request to reclassify the land from Tank Poramboke to AWD land, solely based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 888 of 1996 dated 25.09.2000. Learned counsel argued that there is nothing in the Supreme Court order with regard to the construction of a modern abattoir in Survey No.162 and therefore it is clear that the District Collector has not applied his mind which is illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the setting up of Municipal Solid Waste sites alone in that case and not with regard to a modern abattoir in that case. Learned Counsel also argued that Government in its order dated 24.02.2012 found that there is no dispute that the land is classified as Tank Poramboke and it is situated where residential / commercial complexes have come up and in G.O Ms.No.157 dated 13.02.1987 it has been made clear that no cultivation or lease of tank bed areas shall be allowed under any circumstance and the Commissioner of land Administration by memo dated 20.09.2003 directed all the collectors to adhere to the instructions for protection of water bodies such as tanks, ponds, lakes, etc and therefore the land should not have been re-classified as AWD for construction of modern abattoir against the Government policy. It is also argued that reply of respondent No.5 reveals that the natural drain on the western side though was totally dry, local villages have informed that during heavy rains water flows in the drain and it is a clear admission on the part of the APPCB that water flows in the said drains in the natural course and the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No 6614 of 2015 directed not to alienate any water body and Respondent No.3 was not granted any exception from the same and a public hearing was conducted as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, there was no publication of the notice and so the aggrieved people of the locality did not participate in the public hearing and only those members of Butcher‟s association attended the public hearing. It is also argued that APPCB originally granted CFE dated 24.09.2004 for 10 TPD and by CFE dated 01.07.2013 it was increased to 105 TPD and no approval was obtained from the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA). It is also argued that the order of the District collector de-classifying the Tank Poramboke to AWD land was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High court held that Respondent No.3 cannot be given any exception to convert the water body to any other use and in any case de-notification of any land cannot be made through a letter of the District Collector and it could only be done by a Government order. Learned counsel therefore argued that the Respondents shall not be permitted to operate the modern abattoir in the Tank Poramboke and they shall be directed to restore the waterbody.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Aravind Pandian appearing for Respondent No.9 argued which was adopted by the other respondents also. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the total extent of land in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem village is 16.40 Acres and out of this, 10.55 Acres of land was alienated in favour of Respondent No.3 and the rest was alienated in favour of Tribal School (ITDA). The Tribal School was constructed and is functioning and it is admitted in the applications itself. The modern abattoir has already been constructed in the 10.55 Acres plot and it started commercial production from July 2016 onwards. The land is surrounded on North by a 48 feet wide road and on the South by a 100 feet wide ozone valley road. On the Eastern side of the Abattoir, the ITDA School is situated and on the West side is Survey No.160. The land was originally classified as "Tank Poramboke". According to the learned Senior Counsel, the word Poramboke is a Telugu word, meaning "Waste and Unassessed". Therefore, Tank Poramboke can be a road or a tank or a hill and in the present case it is a waste unassessed tank. The modern abattoir is constructed in PPP mode, pursuant to the agreement between Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.9. It is pointed out that as per the agreement, though Respondent No.9 could run the modern abattoir for a period of 33 years subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement, thereafter it is to be given to Respondent No.3. The necessity to construct a modern abattoir was because of the existing unhygienic slaughter house lacking the facility to treat offal as well as the products generated by the slaughtering of the animals and also because the slaughter house existed in a congested residential area. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.888 of 1996 and W.P.No.309 of 2003 has been giving directions to constantly monitor the aspect of pollution and cruelty to animals by construction and operation of slaughter houses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued various directions including the setting up of modern abattoir. The Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2001 has also set a deadline for the setting up of a modern abattoir and offal processing and disposing facilities. Therefore, the construction of modern abattoir was an urgent and immediate need.

Learned Senior Counsel argued that the applications are liable to be dismissed on the principles of res-judicata, constructive res-judicata and principles of analogous to res-judicata. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that one, Challapalli Venkateshwasra Rao had filed W.P.No.15261 of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking a Writ of Mandamus or direction declaring the proposed action of the 1st respondent in converting the Tank Bed in Survey No.162/1 in an extent of 13.45 acres for construction of a slaughter house illegal, null and void and contrary to the APPCB guidelines and for a consequential direction to drop all further proceedings including construction of slaughter house on the Tank Bed. The Hon'ble High Court disposed the Writ Petition holding that no consent has been granted for construction of an abattoir on the land and it is evident that respondent No.1 therein (Respondent No.3 GVMC) has not issued the clarification sought for by respondent No.3 therein (Respondent No.4 APPCB) and there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that unless a consent letter is issued by respondent No.4, the question of the respondent No.3 establishing or running any abattoir in the land in question would not arise. The Hon'ble High Court noted that the Writ Petitioners placed representations submitted before respondent No.2, District Collector, therein dated 03.06.2000, wherein several questions were raised and that representation has not been disposed and before passing any order on the request of the respondent No.1 therein for setting up of a modern abattoir, respondent No.4 shall consider all aspects of the matter including the questions as to whether the Tank Bed in Survey No.162 is a silted one for a long time or not.

The same Challapalli Venkateshwasra Rao thereafter filed W.P.No.6614 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the action of the respondent‟s authorities in filling up the Tank Bed and then trying to convert them into slaughter house contending that it is a water body existing adjacent to the urban area and to construct a slaughter in house tank bed cannot be permitted to be filled.

Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the Writ Petitioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.157 dated 13.02.1987 prohibiting the diversion of Tank Beds for any other purposes as a policy declaration and had contended before the High Court that unless the Hon'ble High Court intervenes, the tank will not be restored to its original position. It was also contended in the Writ Petition that CFE dated 02.09.2004 granted for setting up of slaughter house in Survey No.162, is without considering the relevant facts and permission should not have been granted to establish the abattoir in the Tank Poramboke. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department and the District Collector filed reply affidavits to the Writ Petition pointing out that the tank was silted long back and there is no ayacut (irrigating field) depending on the water in the tank and nearby lands are converted into residential and commercial sites and even though from time to time the Government had prohibited alienation of the land covered by water bed, tank bed and tank porambokes, the Government have the power for special reasons, to grant relaxation of the ban and as the land has lost the nature as a tank the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted de-notification proposal. APPCB after scrutiny of the application for consent and the reports, issued consent order for establishment of modern abattoir. The Hon'ble High Court disposed the Writ Petition holding that the Court was informed that public hearing was conducted as directed in W.P.No.6614 of 2005, the respondents decided to go ahead with the proposal to change use of land from water body to semi public use for construction of modern abattoir and the District Collector granted the permission subject to ratification orders of de-notification and acceptance of regular alienation proposal by the Government. The Hon'ble High Court had also recorded that construction of the modern abattoir is at the verge of its completion. The Hon'ble High Court therefore clarified that as the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the letter of the Collector dated 30.07.2014 de-classifying the land shall not come into operation unless the Government ratify the order of de-notification and disposed the Writ Petition. Learned Senior Counsel argued that it is thus clear that there was no case before the Hon'ble High Court either in W.P.No.15261 of 2000 or in W.P.No.6614 of 2005 or in W.P.No.23477 of 2015 that the tank poramboke in fact, physically exists as a water body, in whole or in part.

It is argued that all the contentions raised herein were in fact raised before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'ble Court did not grant the reliefs and though liberty was granted to the Writ Petitioner to take appropriate remedy available under law, the Government ratified the de-classification made by the District Collector and it was not challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and hence the applicant is not entitled to take up the same contentions which have been raised and settled in the writ petitions. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that even though the applicant in these cases was not a party before the Hon'ble High Court, the writ petitions were filed as public interest litigations on behalf of the general public and therefore, the decision is binding on the applicant herein also and in view of the explanation VI to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the principles of constructive re-judicata is squarely applicable and the applicant cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Vs. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and another (1978 (3) SCC 119)and Forward Construction Company and others Vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri and others (1986 (1) SCC 100) to support his submission. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that even otherwise, these applications filed under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act are not maintainable as the dispute raised does not arise out of implementation of any of the enactments specified in Schedule - I of the NGT Act 2010. Learned Senior Counsel argued that to get jurisdiction to invoke section 14 of the NGT Act there should be a substantial question relating to environment involved in the applications and such dispute shall arise out of implementation of the enactment specified in Schedule - I. Reliance was placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in Central India Ayus Drug Manufacturing Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2016 AIR (Bombay) 261), Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Niwas Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (2014 Law Suit (MP) 79), Delhi High Court in Society of Protection of Cultural Heritage Environment Traditions and Promotions of National Awareness Vs. UOI and others (2013 Law Suit (Delhi) 1331), Uttrakhand High Court in Mohd. Dilshad Vs. State of Uttrakhand and others (2015 Law Suit (Uttrakhand) 267), National Green Tribunal in Abhimanyu Rathod Vs. State and Others (2016 SCC On Line NGT 338) and Aditya N. Prasad and others Vs. Union of India and others (2015 SCC On Line NGT 691). It is argued that the de-classification of the land was as provided under the relevant Acts and Rules, and the challenge against such orders will does not come within the seven Scheduled Acts and the remedy if at all is not before the Tribunal but before the Authority as provided in the Acts and Rules. Learned Senior Counsel argued that in any case before exhausting the alternate efficacious statutory remedy available, applicant is not entitled to approach the NGT.

It was pointed out the Consent to establish was originally granted in September 2004 which was later amended by order dated 01.07.2013 and consent to operate was granted on 02.11.2015 and again on 14.02.2016 and all these orders are appealable orders and the applicant without preferring appeal is not entitled to approach the Tribunal Under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010. Relying on the decisions of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in Athiappa Chemicals Vs. Puducherry Pollution Control Committee, (Application No.30 of 2011) and Narender Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Jagush Saphiya and others, it is argued that when the appealable orders are not challenged in accordance with the law, the applications are not maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that in any case the applications are barred by limitation due to the delay and latches. The argument is that once the Government de-notified the Tank Bed as AWD land in 2004 the period of limitation will start to run and in any case the period of limitation would start from 16.09.2015, on which date the W.P.No.23477 of 2015 was disposed. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI and another (2011 (9) SCC 126), it is argued that the period of limitation cannot be extended canvassing that it is a recurring cause of action and the applications filed beyond the period of six months as provided under Section 14 cannot be entertained especially, when there is no application to condone the delay and in any case the delay is beyond the period which can be condoned under the NGT Act. The Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide whether the District Collector has the power and jurisdiction to convert the Tank Poramboke to AWD land. Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act and the Board of Revenue Standing Orders gives the power and jurisdiction to the Collector. It is also argued that G.O.Ms. No.157 dated 13.02.1987 read with G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 04.09.2012 read with G.O.Ms.No.65961 dated 8.02.1999 makes it clear that in cases where there is no water body at the ground then the conversion of the land can be permitted from Tank Poramboke to AWD land. The argument is that there is no possibility of restoring the water body and hence the applicant is not entitled to contend that it was only a Tank Poramboke. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Susetha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2006 (6) SCC 543), it was argued that once a Tank had fallen into disuse and consequently no water in the tank, it cannot be a water body and cannot be resurrected.

Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the facts in Hinch Lal Tiwari‟s case (supra) makes it clear that the report of the Tahsildar reveals that a pond was existing on the site and it was therefore found that the land was partly covered by a pond and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was interpreting Section 117 and Section 122-C of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which did not provide for tank being referred to as land for the purpose of allotment. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the land as defined under the said Act does not include Tank Poramboke it was held that Tank Poramboke could not be allotted. The argument is that the Revenue Act and the guidelines issued by the Board of Revenue permit allotment of the tank and its conversion into AWD land, if the tank is in disuse. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2006 (3) SCC 549), reveals that a joint committee of experts was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court who gave a report on whether the water body exists, the water body if abandoned or not in use, whether it can be restored. The decision was based on the data so collected. The reports of de-notifying the Tank Poramboke in the present case establish that there is no possibility of restoring the water body, which does not exist on the site.

The Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Intellectuals Forum's Case (supra) found that part of lake which was lost, is irreparable and cannot be restored and the said principle applies to the present case also. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that as the Consent orders were not challenged in the manner known to law, they cannot be challenged in the applications Under Section 14 of the NGT Act for non-application of mind or on the other grounds. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar (2011 (8) SCC 670), it was argued that file notings are not meant for outside exposure and as declared in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sethi Auto Service Station Vs Delhi Development Authority (2009 (1) SCC 180), the file notings are only the opinion of the officers and the letter dated 24.01.2004 is a mere opinion of the concerned officer and does not confer right on anybody for enforcement in a court of law. It is also argued that the usage of the word „subject to‟ in G.O. M.s. No.214 dated 13.05.2016 does not mean that there is non-application of mind. If the Court Proceeding is pending and some permission is granted, it will always be subject to the decision of the court and even if it is not expressly shown in the order it would be implicit in the permission granted. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.C.K. Bus Service Limited Vs Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1957 SC 489).

Learned Senior Counsel argued that the Act governing the condition of the animals being slaughtered is not listed in Schedule - I of the NGT Act and therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power and jurisdiction to decide the said issue. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that conversion of the land use for industrial purpose is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 which is also not listed in Schedule - I of the NGT Act and the conversion of land for industrial use is not a subject matter under the definition of environment Under Section 2-C read with Section 14 of the NGT Act and therefore Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide on these issues.

Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the case of the applicant is that there was no proper hearing by the authorities. The Hon'ble High Court has recorded in W.P.No.6614 of 2005 dated 24.02.2012 that the public hearing was conducted and therefore nobody can now challenge that there was no proper public hearing. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that writ petitioners do not challenge the commissioning of the modern abattoir before the Tribunal and the original applicant in Application No.93 of 2015 had already given up and the challenge by the applicant in Application No.189 of 2016, who is residing in Chennai, is not bonafide. Learned Senior Counsel therefore argued that the applications are liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant filed additional affidavit relying on the decision of the Principal Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in Jaya Prakash Dabral Vs. Union of India and others (2011 SCC Online NGT2), wherein it is held that any person whether he is a resident of that particular area or not whether he is aggrieved and or injured or not, can approach the Tribunal. Therefore, the applicant falls under the ambit of aggrieved person and therefore the objection raised by respondent No.9 is not sustainable. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant also argued that a plain reading of the Preamble of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 shows that it is an Act provided for the prevention and control of water pollution and maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water and prayer in the applications is for maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water and therefore the applications are definitely maintainable. Learned Counsel also argued that even though the applicant did not prefer statutory appeals, at the time of filing of Application No.189 of 2016, respondent No.9 did not have a valid Consent to operate as the original consent to operate had expired on 31.08.2016 and it was renewed thereafter only on 14.09.2016. Therefore, it is argued that the applications are maintainable.

Learned counsel also argued that the decision to de-notify the land in Survey No.162 is not valid, till it was ratified by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the cause of action would start running only from the date of ratification and therefore the applications are within time. It is also argued that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.23477of 2015 dated 16.09.2015 cannot be the starting point of the cause of action as the Hon'ble High Court granted liberty as prayed for by the writ petitioner and in any case as the Hon'ble High Court granted liberty to take appropriate remedy, the period of limitation will not start to run from that date. Relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi and Another (1972 (2) SCC 890), it was argued that it is a recurring cause of action and every time the water body is interfered, a new cause of action would trigger and therefore the application is not barred by limitation. Learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in International Woollen Mills Vs Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd., (2001 (5) SCC 265) and submitted that Explanation-IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would have come into play, only if some decision had been given before the 2nd application was filed and no decision was taken by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.23477 of 2015 on the merits of the issues raised and therefore there is no bar of res-judicata as canvassed by the respondents. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Nagabhushana Vs State of Karnataka and others (2011 (3) SCC 408), the learned counsel argued that the principles of res-judicata would apply only if there is judgment after a proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction which alone could be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated. It was also argued that it is clear that respondent No.9 operated the modern abattoir from 31.08.2016 to 14.09.2016, at a time when there was no consent as the original consent had expired on 31.08.2016 and it was later renewed only on 14.09.2016. It is therefore contended that proper action is to be taken against respondent No.9 for operating the unit without necessary consent. Learned counsel finally argued that when G.O.Ms. No.214 dated 13.05.2016 itself shows that the water body if any existing in the land should not be disturbed, respondent No.9 should not be allowed to alter or destroy the nature of the land as a water body.

It is the admitted case that 16.40 acres comprised in Survey No.162 Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural was shown in the Revenue Records as Tank Poramboke. Out of the said land, 10.55 acres was transferred to respondent No.3 for the construction of a modern abattoir. The balance extent of 5.85 acres was transferred for the construction of a Tribal School. It is specifically pleaded in Application No.93 of 2015 that the Tribal School has already been constructed and is functioning. As the whole 16.40 acres in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village was originally recorded as water body, the construction of the tribal school, in a portion of the said land of 5.85 acres could only be on the water body, if Survey No.162 continues to be a water body. Strangely, we find no challenge with regard to the alienation of the 5.85 acres for construction of the tribal school. There was also no challenge on the construction of a school on the said land. The dispute is only with regard to the 10.40 acres transferred to respondent No.3 Corporation for the purpose of construction of a modern abattoir. The slaughter house which was existing at Hanumanthawaka, Chinagadila village of Visakhapatnam is an open slaughter house. It is located in a congested residential area. These facts are also not disputed. The contention of the respondents is that the said slaughter house is unhygienic and is causing pollution and therefore a modern abattoir is an absolute necessity. This contention of respondent No.3 Corporation was not challenged by the applicant at the time of arguments.

The challenge in Application No.93 of 2015 is against the construction of a modern abattoir, on the ground that it is sought to be constructed on an irrigation water tank. The pleadings show that applicant‟s case is that as the said land is close to the residential area and school, establishing a modern abattoir would cause environmental pollution, detrimental to the people who reside there and therefore it is to be prevented.

The prayer in Application No.189 of 2016 is also to restrain the commissioning and operating the modern abattoir on the ground that it is constructed on a water body and even the Government order transferring the land to respondent No.3 for construction of modern abattoir provides that the existing water body shall not be disturbed and therefore, it has to be shifted to any other site. It is thus clear that the applications are not filed on the ground that the operation of modern abattoir would cause environmental problem as such, but on the ground that it is on a water body or on a land which is a Tank Poramboke as per the revenue records and such land cannot be used for any other purpose. True, it is also contended that it is near to the residential houses and the school and therefore, it would adversely affect their residence and environment.

Though Original Application No.93 of 2015 was originally filed by Mr.Mantri Shyam Prasad, subsequently he expressed the desire not to prosecute the application and prayed to dismiss the application. The applicant in Original Application No.189 of 2016, who was later got impleaded as additional respondent in Application No.93 of 2015, opposed the prayer and got himself transposed as the applicant. Therefore, as now stands both the applicants are the same viz., People for Cattle in India, represented by its Secretary and the Secretary. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, particularly, respondent No.6 in Application No.93 of 2016, who is respondent No.9 in Application No.189 of 2015 (hereinafter referred as respondent No.6) argued that the proposal for de- notifying the land from tank poramboke to unassessed waste dry land and transfer of the land to the Corporation for construction of a modern abattoir, was originally challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh by one, Challapalli Venkateshwara Rao and 10 others in W.P.No.15261 of 2000 and the writ petition was disposed taking note of the representation filed before the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent therein dated 03.06.2000 raising several grounds against the construction of the modern abattoir in the said land including the conversion of tank poramboke to unassessed waste dry land. The Hon'ble High Court directed the 2nd respondent District Collector to consider all aspects of the matter including the questions as to whether the tank bed in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village is a silted one for a long time or not and take the decision thereafter. Subsequently, Challapalli Venkateshwara Rao the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15261 of 2000, filed W.P. No.6614 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court contending that the respondents are proceeding to construct the modern abattoir on the water body which is not permissible. The Hon'ble High Court by judgment dated 24.02.2012 directed the District Collector to reconsider the proposal keeping in view the subsequent developments. It was directed that before the Government take a decision for conversion of the tank poramboke, to be utilised for any other purpose, opportunity shall be given to the local people and therefore, the Writ Petitioner is also entitled to an opportunity to be heard. Till such exercise is completed, it was directed that no slaughter house shall be constructed. After public hearing, when the respondents decided to go ahead with the proposal to construct the modern abattoir, the same writ petitioner filed W.P.No.23477 of 2015 for a writ or direction in the nature of, Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.6 therein, in making further construction for establishing modern abattoir in Survey No.162 of Pardesipalem Village which is the tank poramboke in the midst of residential area, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 16.09.2015 disposed the writ petition as withdrawn, recording the submission of the writ petitioners that the letter of the District Collector dated 30.07.2014 shall not come into operation, unless the Government ratify the order of de-notification of the land from tank poramboke to unassessed waste dry land. It is thus clear that District Collector granted permission to change the use of the land from water body to semi public use for construction of modern abattoir, subject to ratification of the order of de-notification and acceptance of regular alienation proposals by the Government. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 argued that though the proposal of the District Collector de-notifying the land from tank poramboke to unassessed waste dry land was accepted by the Government, the order of the Government ratifying the de-notification was not challenged by any other writ petitioner and though the original applicant in Application No.93 of 2015 sought to challenge the notification, later he withdrew the case and the applicant who is a resident of Tamil Nadu who got himself transposed as the applicant, is not entitled to claim the status of an aggrieved person.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant relying on the decision of the National Green Tribunal in JayaPrakash Dabral and Another Vs. Union of India & others (2011 SCC Online NGT 2) argued that in environmental matters even, if a person is not an resident of a particular area and is not really an aggrieved / injured person in the strict sense, is entitled to file an application under Section 14 of the NGT Act and therefore that objection to the maintainability of application is not sustainable.

On the pleadings and submissions the following points arise for consideration:

(1) Whether the applications are not maintainable as the applicant is not a resident of the area and hence not an aggrieved person?

(2) Whether the applications are maintainable under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act?

(3) Whether the applications are barred by limitation of delay and latches?

(4) Whether the applications are barred by res-judicata / constructive res-judicata or the analogous principles applicable?

(5) Whether the disputed construction of modern abattoir is in violation of the environmental laws and detrimental to the cause of environment as the land in Survey No. 162 of Paradesipalem Village is a tank poramboke?

Point No.1: Though Application No.93 of 2015 was originally filed by one, Mantri Shyam Prasad, Secretary, Human Rights Council, Visakhapatnam, later on he was not willing to prosecute the application. In fact he sought its dismissal. Application No.189 of 2016 was filed by G.Arun Prasanna of T. Nagar, Chennai. When the original applicant in Application No.93 of 2015 sought its dismissal, the applicant in Application No.189 of 2016 got himself substituted to prosecute the application. The applicant is thus a resident of Chennai. He claims to be interested in protecting the environment. Section 14(1) of the NGT Act provides the jurisdiction on the Tribunal to settle the disputes, provided they are civil disputes, where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule-I. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 mandates that the Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the question referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon. Section 16 of the NGT Act deals with the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal where under any person aggrieved by an order enumerated therein is entitled to file an appeal. Section 18 of the NGT Act deals with application as well as appeal to the Tribunal. Under sub-section (1) of Section 18, an application under sections 14 and 15 or an appeal under section 16 shall be made to the Tribunal in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such documents and the prescribed fees. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 provides that an application for grant of relief or compensation or settlement of dispute may be made to the Tribunal by (a) the person, who has sustained the injury; or (b) the owner of the property to which the damage has been caused; or (c) where death has resulted from the environmental damage, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) any agent duly authorised by such person or owner of such property or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; or (e) any person aggrieved, including any representative body or organisation; or (f) the Central Government or a State Government or a Union territory Administration or the Central Pollution Control Board or a State Pollution Control Board or a Pollution Control Committee or a local authority, or any environmental authority constituted or established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, persons who are entitled to file an application under Section 14 is not clearly provided though Section 16 and Section 18 reveal who all could file an application. Under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 18, any person aggrieved including any representative body or organisation is entitled to file an application. A person aggrieved has not been defined in the Act. The National Green Tribunal in Jaya Prakash Dabral's case (supra) considered the question whether in the environmental matters a person who is really aggrieved/injured alone be permitted to approach the Tribunal. It was held that a combined reading of the above Section would indicate that any person whether he is a resident of that particular area or not, whether he is aggrieved and or injured or not, can approach this Tribunal.

True, it was also held that the only precaution to be taken is to find out the credentials of the applicant as to his true intentions and motives, apart from contending that applicant. The applicant herein is not a resident of the locality or nearby. Instead he is a resident of Chennai. But his credentials as a man who is interested in particular, environment as such is not disputed. Moreover, in the interest of environmental justice, it warrants to give a wider meaning to the term „aggrieved person‟ so as to not to restrict the person of the locality or the person really injured by the actions of the residents alleged in the application. Moreover, an environmental damage cannot be restricted to a particular area or locality and every citizen has a right to prevent any pollution or to take action to protect the environment. For the above reasons, we hold that the applications filed under Section 14 of the NGT Act by the applicant, though he is not a resident in the area but a resident of Chennai, are not bad in law and are perfectly maintainable.

Point No.2: The argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents is that the prayer in Application No.189 of 2016 is against the conversion of the Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land and its transfer, for the purpose of constructing a modern abattoir and an application under Section 14 of the NGT Act is maintainable only if the disputes to be settled relate to environment including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and in addition, such question arises out of the implementation of any of the enactments specified in Schedule-I. The argument is that the Tribunal can entertain the applications, only if the disputes to be settled arise out of the implementation of any one of the seven Acts shown in the Schedule - I of the NGT Act and the Tribunal cannot entertain a challenge made with regard to the action taken under the provisions of any other Acts or Rules, outside the seven Acts shown in Schedule - I of the Act. The Scheduled seven Acts are Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

The argument is that the challenge of the applicant against the order of conversion from the Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land will not lie before the Tribunal as such dispute does not arises out of any the Scheduled Acts and so the Tribunal is not competent to entertain such dispute. We find that the prayers in Application No.189 of 2016 are:

"(a) Grant a permanent injunction against the respondents, their men, representatives, officials and others, etc., from commissioning and operating the abattoir situated at Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Andhra Pradesh.

(b) Direct the respondents to strictly comply with terms mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No214 dated 13.05.2016 not to disturb any existing water body and to allow the same to continue their natural course.

(c) Direct the respondents to restore the water body in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village, Visakhapatnam Rural, Andhra Pradesh.

(d) Direct the Respondents to relocate the modern abattoir to any other location that may be appropriate after satisfying all the rules and conditions as prescribed.

(e) To pass any such order as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice".

It is clear from the prayers in Application No.189 of 2016, that the applicant is not seeking any order or direction with regard to the conversion of the Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land or sought any direction to cancel the same. Instead the prayers are to restrain the operation of the modern abattoir situated in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village on the ground that it is a water body and cannot be used for construction of the modern abattoir. The other directions sought for are not to disturb the existing waterbody and to allow the same to continue its natural course and also to restore the said waterbody and to relocate the modern abattoir to any other appropriate location. The prayer in Application No.93 of 2015 is also to suspend the construction of slaughter house based on the contention that it is constructed on a waterbody, which is an irrigation water tank (Yerra Cheruvu). In the light of the limited prayers, which would definitely come within the ambit of seven Scheduled Acts as provided under NGT Act, we hold that the applications are not bad in law and are maintainable.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 also argued that the applicant is not entitled to file an application under Section 14 of the NGT Act before the Tribunal, challenging the appealable orders and the remedy is to prefer appeals as provided under Section 16 of the NGT Act and the Tribunal may not allow the applicant to circumvent the statutory appeals provided under Section 16. Learned counsel also argued that as the other persons of the locality raising grievance against the establishment of modern abattoir in the disputed land had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'ble High Court directed the State Government to verify the nature of the alleged Tank Poramboke and whether it is completely silted long back, as the Tank Poramboke cannot be used for construction of modern abattoir and the State Government conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the Tank Poramboke was not in use and was completely silted long back and therefore directed to de-notify the area from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land and none of the writ petitioners challenged the order subsequently passed by the Government ratifying the order of de-notification passed by the District Collector, finding that the tank has not been in use and was permitted to proceed with the construction of modern abattoir, though the Consent Order could be challenged, but not challenged and therefore without filing appeals against the order of CFE and CFO under Section 16, the applicant is not entitled to approach the Tribunal challenging the orders, when sufficient efficacious remedy of statutory appeal is available under the Acts and Rules.

The Tribunal in M/s. Athiappa Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Puducherry Pollution Control Committee (Application No.30 of 2011), considered the effect of filing an application challenging the appealable order passed under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The Tribunal held that entertaining an application of this nature amounts to allowing the applicant to circumvent the provision for appeal which is not permissible under law and unless the forum available under the Act is exhausted, including the appeal under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the applicant cannot approach the Tribunal directly, whatever may be the merits and questions of law raised and arise for consideration. It was held that the Tribunal being statutory in nature cannot entertain such applications.

The Tribunal in Narinder Kumar Shukla and Others. Vs. Jagush Saphiya and Others (Original Application No.135 of 2015), also considered the effect of maintainability of an application challenging Environmental Clearance (EC) granted, before the Tribunal without exhausting the remedy of statutory appeal and held that when an order granting EC is an appealable order and the applicant failed to challenge the EC within the statutory period, the application under Section 14 of the NGT Act challenging such an order is not maintainable. Therefore, when the applicant has not preferred an appeal challenging the order of Consent for Establishment or Consent for Operation and its renewal granted by the appropriate authority, even though the orders are appealable orders, those orders cannot be challenged directly or indirectly in application filed under Section 14 of the NGT Act. But the applications are filed not challenging the Consent to Establish or Consent to Operate but challenging the construction of the modern abattoir based on the contention that it is constructed on Tank Poramboke. Hence we find that the applications are not bad in law to that extent and are perfectly maintainable in law. But the applicant cannot challenge the orders of Consent to Establish or Consent to Operate as statutory appeals are available in law. The point is answered accordingly.

Point No.4: The contention of respondent No.6 is that in W.P.No.15261 of 2000, the writ petitioner challenged the proposed action of converting the Tank Bed in Survey No.162/1 having an extent of 13.45 acres for construction of a slaughter house claiming it to be illegal, null and void and contrary to the guidelines issued by APPCB. A direction was also sought to drop all further proceedings including construction of the slaughter house. The argument is that the writ petition was disposed by the Hon'ble High Court taking note of the representation submitted by the writ petitioners before the authorities which has not been disposed of, directing the authorities to dispose the same and thereafter W.P.No.6614 of 2005 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court raising all the contentions raised in the present applications. The argument is that the action of the authorities in converting tank bed to assessed waste dry land to construct a slaughter house based on the contention that Survey No.162 is a Tank Poramboke and therefore it cannot be used for constructing a slaughter house. The State of Andhra Pradesh in the reply had contended that the Tank was silted long back and there is no Ayacut or agricultural operations in the nearby lands and due to urbanisation, the nearby lands of the proposed site were converted into residential and commercial complexes and the Tank silted long back, was abandoned and became unfit for usage for agricultural purpose. It is also pointed out that in the reply affidavit filed by the District Collector, Vishakhapatnam before the High Court also, it was contended that the Tank was silted long back and abandoned. Therefore, it was unfit for agricultural purpose and the Government has the power for special reasons to relax the ban of conversion of water body, tank bed or tank poramboke for other use and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, and even if Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as such is not applicable, the principles of constructive res judicata or principles analogous to it would definitely apply. After the disposal of W.P.No.6614 of 2005, W.P.No.23477 of 2015 was filed and it was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court that after the disposal of W.P.No.6614 of 2005, a public hearing was conducted and respondents decided to go ahead with the proposal to change the user of land from water body to semi public use for construction of modern abattoir and hence the writ petition was disposed recording the submissions of the writ petitioner that the writ petition is not pressed.

The argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that when the case in the earlier writ petitions and the present applications is the same, even though the applicant is not a party to the earlier writ petitions, as those writ petitions were filed as public interest litigations, as provided under Explanation VI of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner, a person interested in such right, which was alleged and denied in the earlier writ petitions, is not entitled to re-agitate the same question. The argument is that applying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the matters raised in the present applications or those matters which might and ought to have been raised in the earlier writ petitions, the present applications are to be dismissed as barred by constructive res judicata.

The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that in order to apply res judicata, there should be a decision on merits in the earlier suit on the issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent proceedings and a final decision on the same and when there is no final decision, the principles of res judicata cannot be made applicable.

W.P.No.15261 of 2000 was instituted with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proposed action of converting the Tank Bed into a slaughter house as illegal, null and void and contrary to the guidelines issued by the APPCB. The question whether the proposed construction was illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by APPCB was not decided in that writ petition. The writ petition was disposed recording that no consent has yet been given for construction of the modern abattoir on the land in question and the modern abattoir cannot be established before getting the Consent and as the writ petitioner already filed a complaint before the District Collector and no decision was taken, directing the District Collector to consider the objections on all aspects of the matter raised by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, including the question as to whether the tank bed is a silted one for a long time or not. Subsequently, after the consent for establishment of the modern abattoir was issued by the APPCB, WP No.6614 of 2005 was filed. The Prayer was to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the respondents in taking steps to establish the slaughter house in Survey No.162, which is a tank bed and in residential area is illegal and consequently to restore the tank in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village and declare that such activity cannot be permitted in the tank bed area and tank bed area cannot be diverted for such purpose. That writ petition was disposed directing the respondent, District Collector to conduct a public hearing before going ahead with the proposal to change use of land from waterbody to semi public use for construction of modern abattoir. There was no final decision on merits on the disputed points. After the District Collector conducted the public hearing and granted permission for conversion, subject to ratification orders of de-notification by the Government, W.P. No.23477 of 2015 was filed. W.P. No.23477 of 2015 was disposed recording the submission that the public hearing was completed and the District Collector decided to grant permission subject to ratification orders of de-notification by the Government and also the submissions that construction of the modern abattoir is at the verge of its completion. The writ petition was thus disposed. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submitted that the letter of the District Collector dated 30.07.2014 shall not come into operation unless the Government ratify the order of de-notification and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner did not press the writ petition.

Thus on the facts it is clear that there was no final decision on merits on the substantial question involved in the writ petitions. First Writ Petition was disposed directing the authorities to consider all the objections raised by the Writ Petitioners in their representations and whether the tank has been completely silted long back. In second Writ Petition as the decision was taken, by the District Collector without hearing the public, a public hearing was directed. In the third Writ Petition finding that the public hearing was completed and the District Collector granted permission subject to ratification, based on the submission of the Municipal Corporation that the de-notification granted by the District Collector shall not come into operation unless the Government ratify the order of de-notification, was disposed as not pressed recording the submissions. True, there is no finding in any of the Writ Petitions that the land in Survey No.162 cannot be used for construction of Modern abattoir.

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit' between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court." True, under Explanation IV: Any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in such former suit, shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Therefore even if the attack or defence taken in the subsequent proceedings were not taken in the earlier proceedings, applying the "might and ought" principle, it can only be held that the question has been raised and decided in the formal proceedings if there was a final decision on merits in the former proceedings. So also, by virtue of Explanation VI, the applicant was not a party in the former suit, if the former suit was instituted bonafide in respect of a public right, all persons interested in such right shall be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating, it would operate as Res judicata. But in order to apply Res judicata, the question should have either directly or substantially in issue in the former proceedings or might and ought to have been made a ground in the former proceedings and finally decided by such court. Therefore one of the essential aspects of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the principles of analogous to Res judicata as provided under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the matter should have been heard and finally decided by the court in the former proceedings. If there is no decision on merits, there is no question of application of either principles of Res judicata or the principles of Constructive Res judicata as provided under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure or the principles analogous to Res judicata.

Though the learned counsel appearing for the applicant relied on the decision in International Woollen Mills vs. Standard Wool (U.K) Ltd., (2001 (5) SCC 265), the facts are different. The question considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the Hon'ble High Court was right in holding that the second application was barred on principles of Constructive Res judicata. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the first application was filed on the ground that the provisions of Sections 38, 39 and 40 of Code of Civil Procedure have not been complied with and the defence was that the decree was being executed under the provision of Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before any decision was taken, the second application was filed. Both the applications were heard together and decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.03.1999. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore held that there was no question of a decision finally deciding the right or claim between the parties, when the second application was heard, as both the applications were heard together. That is not the case herein.

Though reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Isher Singh vs. Sarwan Singh and Others., (AIR 1965 SC 948), the facts are different. The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the correctness of the decision of the High Court holding that the plea regarding the title of the Respondents to the property as next heirs of Jati was barred by Res judicata. On the facts it was found that in the former suit an issue was raised with regard to the title setup by the Respondents viz., whether the defendants are collaterals of deceased Jati. Evidence was led by the parties on that point. A finding was also recorded on it by the court. Argument was that on the pleading such an issue was not necessary. It was found that on the pleadings even if the title set up based on the Will was not accepted, the declaration of possessory title set up was to be settled and hence it was necessary to decide the issue in order to properly and completely decide all the points arising in the case to grant relief to the plaintiff. It was therefore found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that every one of the conditions necessary to satisfy the test as to the applicability of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was satisfied. That is not the case in the present case. There was no final decision on the substantial question raised by the petitioners in these applications. So also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Vs. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and Another (1978 (3) SCC 119), described the principles of Res judicata as follows:-

"It is well-known that the doctrine of res judicata is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure but it is not exhaustive. Section 11 generally comes into play in relation to civil suits. But apart from the codified law the doctrine of res judicata or the principle of res judicata has been applied since long in various other kinds of proceedings and situations by courts in England, India and other countries. The rule of constructive res judicata is engrafted in Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in many other situations also principles not only of direct res judicata but of constructive res judicata are also applied. If by any judgment or order any matter in issue has been directly and explicitly decided the decision operates as res judicata and bars the trial of an identical issue in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. The principle of res judicata also comes into play when by the judgment and order a decision of a particular issue is implicit in it, that is, it must be deemed to have been necessarily decided by implication ; then also the principle of res judicata on that issue is directly applicable. When any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided.

In the instant case the award of the Tribunal, no doubt, was challenged in the special leave petition filed in this Court, on almost all grounds which were in the subsequent writ proceeding agitated in the High Court. There is no question, therefore, of applying the principles of constructive res judicata in this case. What is, however, to be seen is whether from the order dismissing the special leave petition in limine it can be inferred that all the matters agitated in the said petition were either explicitly or implicitly decided against the respondent. Indisputably nothing was expressly decided. The effect of a non-speaking order of dismissal without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to have decided that it was not a fit case where special leave should be granted. It may be due to several reasons. It may be one or more. It may also be that the merits of the award were taken into consideration and this Court felt that it did not require any interference. But since the order is not a speaking order, one finds it difficult to accept the argument put forward on behalf of the appellants that it must be deemed to have necessarily decided implicitly all the questions in relation to the merits of the award. A writ proceeding is a different proceeding. Whatever can be held to have been decided expressly, implicitly or even constructively while dismissing the special leave petition cannot be re-opened. But the technical rule of res judicata, although a wholesome rule based upon public policy, cannot be stretched too far to bar the trial of identical issues in a separate proceeding merely on an uncertain assumption that the issues must have been decided. It is not safe to extent the principle of res judicata to such an extent so as to found it on mere guesswork. To illustrate our view point, we may take an example. Suppose a writ petition is filed in a High Court for grant of a writ of certiorari to challenge some order or decision on several grounds. If the writ petition is dismissed after contest by a speaking order obviously it will operate as res judicata in any other proceeding, such as, of suit, Article 32 or Article 136 directed from the same order or decision. If the writ petition is dismissed by a speaking order either at the threshold or after contest, say, only on the ground of laches or the availability of an alternative remedy, then another remedy open in law either by way of suit or any other proceeding obviously will not be barred on the principle of res judicata. Of course, a second writ petition on the same cause of action either filed in the same High Court or in another will not be maintainable because the dismissal of one petition will operate as a bar in the entertainment of another writ petition. Similarly even if one writ petition is dismissed in limine by a non-speaking one word order „dismissed‟, another writ petition would not be maintainable because even the one-ward order, as we have indicated above, must necessarily be taken to have decided impliedly that the case is not a fit one for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Another writ petition from the same order or decision will not lie. But the position is substantially different when a writ petition is dismissed either at the threshold or after contest without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter ; then no merit can be deemed to have been necessarily and impliedly decided and any other remedy of suit or other proceeding will not be barred on the principle of res judicata".

Though the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Forward Construction Co. and others Vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri and others (1986 (1) SCC 100), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the plea that the subsequent writ petition is barred by res judicata was negatived by the Hon'ble High Court for two reasons: (1) that in the earlier writ petition the validity of the permission granted under Rule 4(a)(i) of the Development Control Rules was not in issue and (2) that the earlier writ petition filed by Shri Thakkar was not a bona fide one inasmuch as he was put up by some disgruntled builder. Their Lordships did not agree with the findings on the first aspect holding that Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC provides that any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. It was held "An adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had it decided as incidental to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming within the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim or defence. The principle underlying Explanation IV is that where the parties have had an opportunity of controverting a matter that should be taken to be the same thing as if the matter had been actually controverted and decided. It is true that where a matter has been constructively in issue, it cannot be said to have been actually heard and decided. It could only be deemed to have been heard and decided."

On the applicability of Explanation VI, their Lordships held as follows:

"The second reason given by the High Court, however, holds good. Explanation VI to Section 11 provides:

Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.

But it is only when the conditions of Explanation VI are satisfied that a decision in the litigation will bind all persons interested in the right litigated and the onus of proving the want of bona fides in respect of the previous litigation is on the party seeking to avoid the decision. The words "public right" have been added in Explanation VI in view of the new Section 91 CPC and to prevent multiplicity of litigation in respect of public right. In view of Explanation VI it cannot be disputed that Section 11 applies to public interest litigation as well but it must be proved that the previous litigation was the public interest litigation not by way of a private grievance. It has to be a bona fide litigation in respect of a right which is common and is agitated in common with others".

It is clear that as the previous litigation was found to be not bona fide by the High Court, the subsequent Writ Petition would not be barred by res judicata and the High Court was justified in finding that the subsequent Writ Petition is not barred by Section 11 of CPC because of the second reason and not the first.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6, it is clear that the earlier Writ Petitions were all bona fide instituted and prosecuted as public interest litigation and were not instituted by way of a private grievance. Therefore if there was a decision on merits after hearing the parties on the same issue or issues which is directly and substantially in issue in these Petitions, the Principles of Res judicata would definitely apply in view of Explanation VI to Section 11 of CPC. But as stated earlier, to apply Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constructive Res judicata or the principles analogous to Section 11 of CPC, there should be a decision on merits after hearing the parties in the previous suit or Writ Proceedings, on the issue which is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or proceedings. The first Writ Petition was disposed taking note of pending representation directing to consider all the objections raised and also the question whether the tank has been silted long back. The second Writ Petition was disposed directing a public hearing before taking the decision on using the waterbody for any other purpose. When a decision was taken to de-notify the Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry land and to transfer 10.55 acres to the GVMC, after completing the public hearing, the third Writ Petition was disposed as withdrawn, based on the assurance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 that permission granted by the District Collector to use the land recorded as tank or tank poramboke, will not operate before the said decision was ratified by the State Government. Hence it can only be found that there was no decision on merits on the substantial questions which directly and substantially are to be settled in these applications in the former Writ Petitions. Therefore we find that both the applications cannot be dismissed as being barred by Res judicata, Constructive Res judicata or principles Analogous to Res judicata as canvassed by the respondents.

Point Nos.3 and 5: Normally the question of limitation plea should have been decided first. But we do not want the Applications to be disposed of on the technical plea of limitation alone, without considering the merits of the case. Hence these issues are settled together.

It is admitted by all the parties that Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village having an extent of 16.40 acres was recorded in the revenue records as tank poramboke. The case of the applicant is that as it is a waterbody, if the nature of the waterbody is changed by constructing a modern abattoir, it would cause Environmental and Ecological Problems and therefore Respondents shall not be permitted to establish or operate a modern abattoir in the waterbody. Even as per the written argument notes submitted by the applicant, Respondent No.3 the Municipal Corporation proposed to set up a modern abattoir in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village as early as 1997. It was at that stage when steps were initiated, W.P. No. 15261 of 2000 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed action of the Municipal Corporation in converting the tank bed over an extent of 13.45 acres, for construction of a slaughter house, as illegal, null and void and contrary to the guidelines issued by the APPCB and for a consequential direction to drop the proposal. By order dated 25.07.2001, the Writ Petition was disposed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court recording that no consent has yet been granted for construction of a modern abattoir and unless a consent letter is issued by the APPCB, the question of establishing or running a modern abattoir would not arise. Taking note of the representation already submitted to the District Collector, the Writ Petition was disposed directing the APPCB to consider all aspects of the matter taken up in the representation submitted by the Writ Petitioners and also whether the tank bed is a completely silted one for a long time or not. Subsequent to the disposal of the Writ Petition, the District Collector along with the Executive Engineer Irrigation Department inspected the land on 10.07.2001 and found that the tank was silted long back and was in an abandoned stage and cannot be used as a water tank. The District Collector therefore decided to proceed with the conversion of the Tank Poramboke to assessed Waste Dry Land and submitted a De-notification proposal to the Government to de-notify the tank as assessed Waste Dry Land.

On the application for Consent to Establish APPCB considering all aspects issued Consent for Establishment of the modern abattoir in September 2004. One of the Writ Petitioners in WP No. 15261 of 2000, then filed W.P. No. 6614 of 2005. The reliefs sought were to issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in taking steps to establish a slaughter in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam, which is a tank bed and amidst residential area and in tank bed, as arbitrary and unconstitutional against the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the tank in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam, after setting aside the Consent for Establishment (CFE) issued by Respondent No.3 in September 2004, declaring that no such activity can be permitted in a tank bed area and no tank bed area can be diverted for such non tank bed purposes. In the Writ Petition Respondent No. 4 the District Collector Visakhapatnam filed a counter affidavit contending that the proposed site for construction of modern abattoir though shown in the revenue records as tank poramboke, is not existing as the tank is silted long back and was in an abandoned stage and is also unfit for Agricultural purpose. It was also contended that as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 15261 of 2000, the proposed land was inspected along with the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department and found that the tank has been a silted one since long time before passing the orders on the request of the Municipal Corporation for setting up a modern abattoir therein and the APPCB granted consent for establishing the modern abattoir after considering all aspects as directed by the Hon'ble High Court.

The Principal Secretary, Respondent No.1 therein, also filed a counter affidavit reiterating the same contentions. It was also contended that the District Collector submitted the proposal to the Government through the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration for de-notification and the modern abattoir will be established only after de-notification proposals were accepted by the authorities and modern abattoir will be allowed to function only in accordance with the terms and guidelines issued by the APPCB. The Municipal Corporation also contended that the land where the modern abattoir is to be constructed, is fully silted long back and there is no cultivation and agriculture operations in the surrounding area and the surrounding area is a completely built up one and construction of the modern abattoir will not affect the groundwater.

The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court disposed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.6614 of 2005 on 24.02.2012. The Division Bench took note of the Government order in G.O. Ms. No.157 Revenue Department dated 13.02.1987 containing certain orders with regard to the grant of „Eksal‟ lease of tank bed and foreshore lands of tanks and paragraph 2 of the G.O.Ms.No.157 reads as follows: "The Government have further examined the matter and it is felt that leasing of land above full tank level (FTL), either on „Eksal‟ basis of for a longer period is also not desirable as such cultivation will lead to slitting up of the bed area at an increasing rate. Further, the possibility of the beneficiaries deliberately letting but the water or causing damage to the tank bund with the object of making the land come out of submergence cannot be ruled out. In view of the above circumstances, the Government issue following orders:

(i) No cultivation should be allowed in the tank bed area under any circumstances.

(ii) No lease of the tank bed lands including the lands lying beyond the full tank level (FTL) either on „Eksal‟ basis or for a longer period after the expiry of the subsisting leases should be allowed, and

(iii) No fresh leases of tank bed lands should be granted in future even during the drought years".

No cultivation should be allowed in the tank bed area under any circumstances and no lease of the of the tank bed lands, including lands lying beyond the Full Tank Level (FTL), either on „Eksal‟ basis or for a longer period after the expiry of the subsisting leases, should be allowed and no fresh leases of tank bed lands should be granted in future even during the drought years. It was also noted that according to the Government instructions all water bodies classified as such cannot be assigned and no lease can be granted and therefore no exception can be made in favour of a local body also. The judgment of the Division Bench also reveals that availability of an appeal against the order of consent for establishing the modern abattoir available under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was taken note of and the Writ Petition was entertained holding that in that case complainant is not only against the APPCB, but also against the Revenue Administration in proposing to alienate the land, which is admittedly classified in the Revenue records as Tank poramboke. The Writ Petition was therefore disposed directing the District Collector and the Municipal Corporation to reconsider the proposal to construct the modern abattoir keeping view the subsequent developments, holding that the petitioner and other people in the locality shall be given opportunity of being heard whenever a local authority proposes to take up the activity in the land of the Government classified as tank poramboke and till such exercise is completed, the slaughter house or modern abattoir shall not be constructed.

The State accepted the proposal of de-notifying the classification of the land from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land by G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 13.05.2016. Thus, the de-notification proposal dated 28.07.2004, forwarded by the District Collector was accepted and an extent of 10.55 acres out of 16.40 acres in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem Village was transferred to the Municipal Corporation for construction of a modern abattoir. But before G.O.Ms. No.214 dated 13.5.2015 was issued, the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.6614 of 2005 filed W.P.No.23477 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court claiming a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Municipal Corporation making further construction for establishing / slaughter house in Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem which is a tank bed and in the midst of residential area illegal, void and against the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act. That Writ Petition was disposed by judgment dated 16.09.2015. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High court recorded that it was informed before the Bench that subsequent to the order passed in W.P.No.6614 of 2005, public hearing was conducted and thereafter the respondents decided to go ahead with the proposal for change of use of the land from waterbody to semi-public use for construction of modern abattoir and the District Collector granted such permission subject to ratification orders of the de-notification and acceptance of regular alienation proposals by the Government and in the meanwhile the Corporation commenced the construction of modern abattoir which is at the verge of its completion. The Hon'ble High Court also recorded the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation that the proposal of the District Collector dated 30.07.2014 shall not come into operation unless the Government ratify the order of de-notification. In view of the said facts, the learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner sought permission to take appropriate remedy and the Writ Petition was disposed as withdrawn. The said judgment is dated 16.09.2015. It is thereafter the Government order in G.O.Ms. No.214, dated 13.05.2016 was issued. Thereafter consent was also granted by the APPCB to operate the modern abattoir but subject to the orders that may be passed in Application No.93 of 2015. That consent order is dated 29.01.2016.

From these facts, it is clear that out of 16.40 acres 10.55 acres alone was transferred to the Municipal Corporation for construction of the modern abattoir. At the same time, by order dated 22.03.2007, 5 acres of the remaining land was transferred to the A.P.S.T. Residential College for construction of a college. It is also an admitted case that Gurukulam residential college has already been constructed in the 5 acre plot and it is functioning. At the outset itself, it is to be taken note that though applications are filed projecting the anxiety and desire to preserve the Tank Poramboke, alleging that its destruction would be an environmental disaster, neither the Petitioner nor any of the Writ Petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court challenged the construction of the College / Residential College, or the transfer of the 5 acre plot allotted. The challenge raised before the Hon'ble High Court and before the Tribunal is only against the utilisation of the Tank Poramboke for construction of the modern abattoir. That itself shows that the grievance is not really against altering the nature of the Tank Poramboke or conversion of the Tank Poramboke, but the real grievance is against the establishment / construction of a modern abattoir.

Respondent No.6 has produced the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the various Writ Petitions referred to earlier as well as copies of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. The counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh all establish that it was their consistent case that the tank was completely silted long back and was not having the character of a tank poramboke much before the proposal was submitted by the Government for utilizing the land for establishing the modern abattoir. Those counter affidavits were filed in 2012. In fact, even when W.P.No.15261 of 2000 was filed, it was the case of the respondents that the tank is practically not in existence as it was completely silted. It is in view of the said contention raised before the Hon'ble High Court, in the judgment dated 25.07.2001 the Division Bench directed to consider the question whether the tank bed in Survey No.162 is a silted one for a long time or not. It is thereafter the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department, Revenue Divisional Officer and others inspected the land on 10.07.2004 and got fully satisfied that the tank as such is not existing and it is completely silted and cannot be restored as a tank and submitted the proposal based on which the District Collector passed the order dated 03.07.2004 changing the classification from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land, subject to the ratification of the de-notification by the Government. It is thereafter, W.P.N0.6614 of 2005 was filed challenging the proposals before the Hon'ble High Court and counter affidavits were filed contending that the tank is not in existence and has been completely silted long back.

The question is whether a tank poramboke which lost it‟s character and was not in existence as a tank at least from 2004 due to which the land was de-notified in accordance with the law and procedure by the District Collector, subject to the approval of the State Government which was later ratified by the Government, where the modern abattoir was constructed before the disposal of W.P.No.23477 of 2015, is directed to be restored to a tank as claimed by the applicant.

Though the learned counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently argued that de-notification of a tank poramboke to assessed waste dry land cannot be made by the District Collector by a letter and there should be a specific Government order, the order of the District Collector was subject to its ratification by the Government and by G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 13.05.2016 it has been ratified by the State and therefore, we find no merit on this contention of the applicants.

Though the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently argued that in view of the decision in Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs Kamala Din and others (2001 (6) SCC 496), the modern abattoir is to be removed and the tank is to be restored, the facts are different. The question considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari's case (supra) was whether the allotted land forms part of a pond (talab) and if so, can it be allotted under Section 122-C(1) of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that Section 117(vi) of the said Act deals with vesting of certain lands etc., in a Gaon Sabhas and under Section 117(vi) tanks, ponds, private ferries, water channels, pathways and abadi sites which had vested in the State under this Act shall vest in a Gaon Sabha or any other local authority established for the whole or part of the village in which the said things are situate, or partly in one such local authority and partly in another. It was also found that Section 122(C) provides allotment of land for housing site for members of Scheduled Castes, agricultural labourers etc., and under Section 122(C) (1) The Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division may earmark any of the classes of land for the provision of abadi sites for the members Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and agricultural labourers and village artisans and the term land is defined in sub-section (14) of Section 3 to mean land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming and from a combined reading of the provisions it is plain that the tanks, ponds, private ferries, water channels and pathways are not included therein. It was also found that the report of the Tahsildar shows that in that land therein is a pond and finding the land is a pond, the Additional Collector cancelled the allotment of plots and the land had the character of a pond but due to passage of time most of its part became levelled. But some portion of the land had still the character of a pond and during rainy season it is covered with water and such land could not be allotted under Section 122(C) of the Act. Holding that the tanks, forests, ponds, hillock, mountain etc., are the material resources of the community which are to be protected for a proper and healthy environment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the order of the Additional Collector and directed the Respondents to vacate the land and further directed the state to restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers.

As distinct from that case, no part of the land in Survey No. 162 of Paradesipalem Village has retained the characteristics of a pond even when the W.P. No. 6614 of 2005 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court, as is clear from the records.

The Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.6 relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006 (6) SCC 543). That case relates to a Temple Tank in Okkiam Thoraipakkam Village. It was located on both sides of the main road, connecting Chennai city with Mahabalipuram on the Old Mahabalipuram road. The Tank was admittedly lying in disuse and was an abandoned one. The Panchayat took a decision to construct a shopping complex for the purpose of user thereof, for resettlement of those persons who were displaced due to expansion of a High-way project. The State of Tamil Nadu issued orders permitting construction of a shopping complex. A Writ Petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras questioning the said decision. The Hon'ble High Court directed to inspect the site and based on the report submitted thereafter dismissed the Writ Petition which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reliance was placed in that case on the decision of the High Court of Madras in L. Krishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2005 Madras 311) where it was held that the State Government was enjoined with a duty to preserve the tank by taking all possible steps, both by way of preventive measures as well as removal of unlawful encroachments and not to use the same for commercial purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the Tank in question is admittedly the Temple Tank and not a lake. Although it was classified in the revenue records as a tank poramboke it had lost its utility a long time back and it was being used as a dumping yard. There were no inlet or outlet facilities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the matter has also been considered in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs. State of A.P. and Others (2006) (3) SCC 549 where it was opined that when the State holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts must make a distinction between the Government‟s general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources. It was then held that "the Court has not, in the aforesaid decisions, laid down a law that alienation of the property held as a public trust is necessarily prohibited. What was emphasised was a higher degree of judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of sustainable development although is not an empty slogan, it is required to be implemented taking a pragmatic view and not on ipse dixit of the court." Their Lordships held only rain water could be collected therein and "although there is no material on record to show as to since when it had fallen in disuse, indisputably the tank in question is in a dilapidated condition for a long time and has been used as a dumping yard and sewage collection pond. In our opinion, thus, it is not a case where we should direct its resurrection." On these findings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the dismissal of the applications by the Hon'ble High Court.

Similar is facts of the instant case. Though in the revenue records Survey No.162 of Paradesipalem is recorded as a Tank Poramboke, when the proposal to construct a modern abattoir in that land was initiated as long back as in 1997, the tank had already silted and was not in use. When the Writ Petition No.15261 of 2000 was filed challenging the proposal in 2000, it was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court that the Tank is completely silted long back. The Hon'ble High Court therefore though directed to consider all aspects taken by the Writ Petitioners in their representation, specifically directed to consider the question whether the Tank was silted long back. The Authorities found that the Tank has been completely silted and is in disuse since long back. It was therefore decided to de-notify the land from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land in 2004. As directed by the Hon'ble High Court, the APPCB after considering all these aspects, including the question whether the Tank has been completely silted long back, granted the consent for establishment of the Modern abattoir, in September 2004. Even though, 5 acres of the same Tank Poramboke was utilised for construction of a College, no grievance was ever expressed by the applicant or any other person among the public against the utilisation of the 5 acres of the Tank Poramboke for construction of the College. The objection is only with regard to the construction of the modern abattoir. Evidently, the objection is only because of the apprehension of the ill effects of a modern abattoir and not because of the conversion of the Tank Poramboke or its utilization for other purpose. Otherwise usage of the 5 acre plot also would have been objected to. In such circumstances, on the facts we find that it is not in the interest of justice to direct the removal of the disputed modern abattoir constructed in Survey No. 162 of Paradesipalem Village.

Though learned counsel appearing for the applicants relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union Territory of Delhi and others (ILR, 1995 (1) Delhi 49), the facts are different. The PIL was regarding the inhuman, unhygienic and horrible conditions which were prevalent at Idgah slaughter house, Delhi. Based on the report of a Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was found that animals are slaughtered in barbaric manner and there is no semblance of hygienic conditions. That does not mean that no modern abattoir can be constructed.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6, if the grievance of the applicant is with regard to the construction of the modern abattoir by filling up of the Tank Poramboke, then the said cause of action first arose atleast in 2004-2005 as the Consent for Establishment (CFE) of the modern abattoir was granted in September 2004. The construction work was started before W.P. No.6614 of 2005 was filed. In any event, when W.P. No.23477 of 2015 was disposed on 16.09.2015, it is recorded that construction of modern abattoir has been completed.

Application No. 93 of 2015 was filed on 12.05.2015. As per the application, permission for slaughter house was granted in the financial year 2013-2014 and construction work was still going on and hence the application is within the time limit.

Application No. 189 of 2016 was filed on 16.08.2016. According to the applicant, the cause of action arose on 13.05.2016, when the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Respondent No.1 passed Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 214 dated 13.05.2016 ratifying the action of the District Collector Visakhapatnam District, the Respondent No.1, de-notifying Survey No. 162 of Paradesipalem Village measuring 16.40 acres from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land and alienation of an extent of 10.55 acres to Respondent No.3, GVMC.

Section 14 of the NGT Act mandates that no application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. The Proviso enables the Tribunal, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period of sixty days. Therefore the application under Section 14 of the NGT Act would be maintainable only if it is filed within six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose and in any event within sixty days from the expiry of the said six months period.

Argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant is that the cause of action arose only when the government passed an order in G.O. Ms. No. 214 dated 13.05.2016, ratifying the action of the District Collector Visakhapatnam de-notifying the Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land.

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant also argued that the starting point of the limitation can never be the date of the judgment in W.P. No. 23477 of 2015 dated 16.09.2015 as the Hon'ble High Court recorded the submission of the Municipal Corporation that the letter of the District Collector to de-notify the Tank Poramboke will not come into effect, before its ratification by the Government and therefore the application is perfectly within time.

It is also argued that if the Government has not ratified the de-notification proposal by the District Collector, there was no reason for the applicant to approach the Tribunal and therefore the date of disposal of the said Writ Petition cannot be the starting point of the limitation. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi and Another (1972 to SCC, 890) and argued that a continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all and as the waterbody is being used for the construction of modern abattoir which is illegal, it is a continuing cause of action and therefore the applications are not barred by time. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench in the Forward Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (Original Application No.222 of 2014) and argued that the cause of action cannot be held to have arisen in 2004 or 2015 and the use of the waterbody for constructing the modern abattoir would trigger the Period of Limitation under the provisions of NGT Act and the dispute raised is essentially an Environmental Dispute which relate to one of the Scheduled Acts of the NGT Act 2010 and hence the applications are perfectly within the period of limitation.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 argued that the decision to use the disputed land recorded in the Revenue records as Tank Poramboke for Construction of modern abattoir was taken in 2004 and was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and therefore the cause of action first arose in 2004 and the applications filed in 2015 and 2016 are hopelessly barred by time. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that when the Hon'ble High Court directed to verify whether the Tank has been completely silted and to hear the Writ Petitioners and decide the matter, the District Collector after inspection and satisfying that no Tank is in existence, decided to de-notify the Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land and therefore the cause of action had arisen in 2004 itself. It is also argued in any case, when the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 6614 of 2015, directed to reconsider the matter, the de-notification and the District Collector decision to de-notify was challenged in WP No.23447 of 2016, it is recorded by the Hon'ble High Court in the Judgement dated 16.09.2015 that the construction of modern abattoir has been completed and therefore the cause of action would in any event arose on 16.09.2015 and the Application No.189 of 2016 filed thereafter is not maintainable.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (2011 (9) SCC 126) taking note of the departure made in the language enacting Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as distinct from Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 held "While enacting Article 58 of the Limitation Act 1963, the legislature has designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The word "first" has been used between the words "sue" and accrued". This would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued."

The Tribunal (Principal Bench) in Forward Foundations case Original Application No.222 of 2014 elaborately discussed the entire case law and distinguished the differences between "continuing cause of action" and "recurring cause of action" as follows:

"The Continuing cause of action would refer to the same act or transaction or series of such acts or transactions. The recurring cause of action would have an element of fresh cause which by itself would provide the applicant the right to sue. It may have even be de hors the first cause of action or the first wrong by which the right to sue accrues. Commission of breach or infringement may give recurring and fresh cause of action with each of such infringement like infringement of a trademark. Every rejection of a right in law could be termed as a recurring cause of action. [Ref: Ex. Sep. Roop Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2006 (91) DRJ 324, M/s, Bengal Waterproof Limited v. M/s. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Another, (1997) 1 SCC 99].

The Principle that emerges from the above discussion is that the „cause of action‟ satisfying the ingredients for an action which might arise subsequently to an earlier event give result in accrual of fresh right to sue and hence reckoning of fresh period of limitation. A recurring or continuous cause of action may give rise to a fresh cause of action resulting in fresh accrual of right to sue. In such cases, a subsequent wrong or injury would be independent of the first wrong or injury and a subsequent, composite and complete cause of action would not be hit by the expression „cause of action first arose‟ as it is independent accrual of right to sue. In other words, a recurring cause of action is a distinct and completed occurrence made of a fact or blend of composite facts giving rise to a fresh legal injury, fresh right to sue and triggering a fresh lease of limitation. It would not materially alter the character of the preposition that it has a reference to an event which had occurred earlier and was a complete cause of action in itself. In that sense, recurring cause of action which is complete in itself and satisfies the requisite ingredients would trigger a fresh period of limitation. To such composite and complete cause of action that has arisen subsequently, the phraseology of the „cause of action first arose‟ would not effect in computing the period of limitation. The concept of cause of action first arose must essentially relate to the same event or series of events which have a direct linkage and arise from the same event. To put it simply, it would be act or series of acts which arise from the same event, may be at different stages. This expression would not de bar a composite and complete cause of action that has arisen subsequently. To illustratively demonstrate, we may refer to the challenge to the grant of Environmental Clearance. When an appellant challenges the grant of Environmental Clearance, it cannot challenge its legality at one stage and its impacts at a subsequent stage. But, if the order granting Environmental Clearance is amended at a subsequent stage, then the appellant can challenge the subsequent amendments at a later stage, it being a complete and composite cause of action that has subsequently arisen and would not be hit by the concept of cause of action first arose".

The objection raised in both the applications is with regard to the decision to establish a modern abattoir in Survey No. 162, Paradesipalem Village, as it is recorded in the Revenue Records as Tank Poramboke contending that a waterbody cannot be used for construction of a Modern abattoir. The entire edifice of the case is thus built on the ground that the land which is a Tank Poramboke is to be preserved as a waterbody.

We are conscious of the fact that waterbodies play an important ecological role and their destruction causes irretrievable damage to ecology and environment but in this case we have already found that the waterbody was not in existence atleast since 2004 and residential and commercial complexes have come up in the surroundings. Materials produced establish that no part of Survey No.162 Paradesipalem Village was having the characteristic of a waterbody even in 2004. The decision to establish a modern abattoir in that land, even according to the applicant was taken in 1997. Even if it is taken that the cause of action has not started to run then, it is established that when the said proposal was there, WP No.15261 of 2000 was filed and the Hon'ble High Court directed to consider all aspects including the question whether the Tank has been completely silted. The District Collector thereafter inspected the site on 10.07.2004 and passed an order to change the classification from Tank Poramboke to Assessed Waste Dry Land, subject to its ratification by the State Government and the Land was delivered to the Municipal Corporation on 07.12.2014. Even the consent for establishment of the modern abattoir was granted in September 2004. Therefore if the challenge is with regard to the decision to establish the modern abattoir the cause of action first arose in any case in September 2004. The application No. 93 of 2015 was filed only on 14.05.2015, much after the expiry of six months. Hence that application is barred by time. Even if it is contended that the de-notification was subject to its final ratification, the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 15261 of 2000 establish that construction of the modern abattoir was completed before 16.09.2015. Therefore it cannot be disputed that the cause of action in any case had arisen atleast on 16.09.2015. It is also clear from the records that the consent to operate was originally granted on 02.11.2015 and thereafter on 14.02.2016, though the latter was subject to the orders that may be passed in Application No.93 of 2015. Application No.189 of 2015 was filed only on 16.08.2016. Therefore it is clear that Application No.189 of 2016 was also filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 14 NGT Act. Therefore on the facts we hold that the applications are barred by time.

Even though, the apprehension of the applicant is with regard to the establishment of a modern abattoir in the midst of a residential area, no material is placed before us to hold that the operation of the modern abattoir is causing any pollution. Though the order of consent to establish is an appealable order, it was not challenged. Though the order of consent to operate is also an appealable order, no appeal is filed. There is no case that the conditions provided in the order of consent to operate are insufficient. There is also no case that those conditions is violated. If the conditions of the consent order is violated or due to the operation of the modern abattoir any pollution is being caused the applicant or any aggrieved person is definitely entitled to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law. The dismissal of the applications will not bar the said remedy. The points are answered accordingly.

In the light of the above findings, the applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.