Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors vs Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors

The Applicants have filed the present application under Section 19(4) (f) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 read with Rules 22 and 24 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 seeking review/recall of order dated 03.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.911/2022 titled as Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors with prayer for grant of open Court hearing to the Applicants of the present review application.

Briefly stated, the Applicants have submitted that the impugned order is liable to be reviewed as the same is gravely unjust; does not take into consideration the averments and documents relied upon by the Applicants; is in complete derogation of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 and the Guidelines bearing no. F.no.8(193)/CF/TA/07-18/Part file/18-19/8473-80 dated 01.10.2019 issued by Respondent No. 1 for pruning of trees; does not determine the important issue though argued by the Applicants and contains an error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order is bad in law as it gives the Municipal Corporation of Delhi a free hand to ask the Applicants, residents of Vansant Vihar and Respondent no. 18 to provide men-power and financial assistance.

The applicants have further submitted that this Tribunal, instead of forming a Joint Committee to examine and submit report on illegal cutting, felling and pruning of the trees, has directed the Applicant to approach the Respondent No. 3 with a complaint which direction is also completely unjust and against the record. The impugned order also suffers from error apparent on the face of record as this Tribunal has not taken into consideration documents, submissions and judgments relied upon by the Applicants and given any findings on the contradictory stand taken by Respondents No. 4 and 18 as mentioned in the application.

We have gone through the impugned order and the application for review along with the documents attached with the same.

The Applicants filed the Original Application under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, seeking inter alia issuance of directions to Respondents No. 1 to 6 to take appropriate remedial and penal action against and to impose environmental compensation on Respondents No. 12 to 17 for illegal act of cutting, felling and pruning of trees in Vasant Vihar and to prohibit Respondents No. 12 to 17 from further cutting, felling and pruning trees in Vasant Vihar. Vide order dated 20.12.2022, notices were ordered to be issued to Respondents No. 2, 3 and 18 for 21.12.2022. Vide order dated 21.12.2022, Respondents No. 2, 3 and 18 were allowed one weeks’ time for filing of their reply/response and notices were also ordered to be issued to the Respondents No. 4 to 8 for 03.01.2023 for filing of their reply/response. While adjourning the case to 03.01.2023, interim order was passed that in the meanwhile further pruning of the trees, if considered necessary, be carried out by the concerned civic authorities, MCD/DDA, as the case may be, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 and Guidelines dated 01.10.2019 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, (HQ)/Member Secretary, Tree Authority for Pruning of Trees under the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994. The Deputy Conservator of Forest, West Forest Division (Tree Officer); Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture, MCD and Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture, PWD were directed to ensure that such pruning takes place strictly in compliance with the statutory provisions and guidelines.

On 03.01.2023, replies on behalf of Respondent No. 2-MCD and Respondent No. 18-Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association were filed vide emails dated 02.01.2023 but adjournment was sought by Respondents No. 1, 3, 5 and 6 for filing of their replies/response. The Applicants also sought time to file photographs and copies of relevant documents to show pruning of trees by Respondents No. 12 to 18 in violation of the guidelines/environmental norms. The questions of facts or law involved in the case could not be decided without giving reasonable opportunity of filing reply/response and relevant documents to the concerned parties and the case was adjourned for the same. While adjourning the case on 03.01.2022, interim order dated 20.12.2022 was reiterated while mentioning that the concerned Civic Authorities i.e.MCD/DDA may associate the office bearers of the Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association and other residents of the locality including the Applicants volunteering for the purpose for providing men-power/financial resources.

It may be observed here that in the course of hearing of the original application even the applicants had not disputed that pruning of the trees is required to be carried out and, in substance, their grievance is against unscientific pruning of trees in violation of environmental laws/norms. Vide order dated 03.01.2023, this Tribunal directed the concerned Civic Authorities to carry out the pruning strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994 and Guidelines dated 01.10.2019 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, (HQ)/Member Secretary, Tree Authority for Pruning of Trees under the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994. It was also mentioned that in case of any pruning in violation of the statutory provisions and the guidelines the applicants may make complaint to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, West Forest Division (Tree Officer) who was directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law in case of making of any such complaint to him. The order in both these aspects cannot be set to be unjust or suffer from error apparent on the face of record.

Section 19 (4) (f) of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 empowers this Tribunal to review its decision. Order 47, Rule 1(1) of the C.P.C., which provides for review, reads as under:

"Any person considering himself aggrieved -

a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.”

In  Kamlesh  Verma  Vs.  Mayawati  (SC):  (2013)  8  SCC  320 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

“19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

Summary of the Principles:

Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1 When the review will be maintainable:-

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955)1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013 8 SCC 337: JT 2013(8) SC 275.

20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:-

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(v) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vi) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(vii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(viii) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

It follows from the above that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment/order and plausibility of an alternative view cannot be the ground for invoking the same.

Rule 22 (3) of the National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules,  2011  provides  that  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Tribunal sitting at the concerned place, a review application shall be disposed of by circulation and the Tribunal may either dismiss the application or direct notice to the opposite party.

On due consideration of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it appropriate/necessary to grant open hearing of the review application to the Applicants and to direct notice thereof to the opposite parties. On the other hand, we are of the considered view that the review application deserves to be disposed of by circulation.

In  the  present  case  it  is pertinent  to observe  that  order  dated 03.01.2023 is an interim order passed at the time of adjournment of the R.A. No. 01/2023 matter and the observations made therein are interim observations which did not embody even any interim, what to speak of final or conclusive findings, on questions of facts or law involved in the case. In the very nature of the proceedings, order dated 03.01.2023 is subject to further orders to be passed in the case. It is also pertinent to observe that even order dated 03.01.2023 was modified vide order dated 19.01.2023 whereby it was left to the discretion of the concerned Civic Authorities MCD/DDA to associate or not to associate office bearers of the Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association and/or other residents of the locality including the Applicants volunteering for providing the men-power/financial resources, as may be considered appropriate by the concerned Civic Authorities MCD/DDA.

Since order dated 03.01.2023 is an interim order, which is in the very nature of the thing subject to modification by further orders to be passed in the case, and does not finally/conclusively adjudicate upon any of the questions of facts or law involved in the case, the question of there being any error of fact or law apparent on the face of record or the same being unjust or improper does not arise at all.

In view of the above, the application for review is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.