AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Environmental Clearance granted by the Maharashtra State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority vide its letter dated July 5th, 2011, has been assailed in Appeal No. 15/2011 on various grounds. The said Appeal being one under section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the prescribed period of limitation is thirty days from the date of the order or communication thereof. Proviso to section 16 sub section (j) stipulates that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
In the case in hand, the Appeal was filed on September 5 th, 2011, i.e., after a lapse of thirty days. The Appeal is thus barred by time. This Application is filed to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. It has been submitted that the Appellants were misguided by clause 11 of the order dated July 5th, 2011, granting EC. The said clause reads as follows:-
"Any appeal against this environmental clearance shall lie with the National Green Tribunal, Van Vigyan Bhawan, Sec-5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 022, if preferred, within 60 days as prescribed under Section 35 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010."
It has been further submitted that the Appellants were expecting the National Green Tribunal to start functioning in Pune soon and that they were waiting to file the Appeal there. However, there was delay and the Appellants were constrained to come to Delhi and seek legal assistance. He was advised by Learned Counsel to present the Appeal in the Principal Bench at Delhi. Thereafter, the Appellants made arrangements and filed the Appeal on September 5th, 2011.
According to the Appellants, they were pursuing their 'cause' diligently. The delay was caused due to reasons beyond their control and that it is a fit case in which the same should be condoned.
Notices of the M.A. were duly served upon the Respondents and they have entered appearance through their Learned Counsel. No written objections or Counter Affidavit has been filed resisting condonation of delay. In the course of hearing, however, Learned Counsel for Respondents repudiated the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants and submitted that the delay was caused due to inaction of the Appellants and the same should not be condoned.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. We find sufficient force in the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants, to the effect that they were misdirected by clause 11 of the order dated July 5th, 2011, granting Environmental Clearance. According to us the Secretary, Environment Department and Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, committed an error incorporating clause 11 in the impugned order. Period of limitation is prescribed under the statute, and is thirty days. Proviso to Section 16(j), however, vests power on the Tribunal to extend the period to a further sixty days, if there are sufficient reasons.
Respondent - 2 (Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority) has no jurisdiction or authority to enhance the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute. In view of the said clear position we are satisfied that Respondent - 2 acted in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon him in incorporating clause 11 to the impugned order and thereby granting six months time to file the Appeal. We often come across such a clause in different Environment Clearances granted by the Authorities and we are constrained to observe that the same is not sanctioned by law. Therefore, we direct the authorities concerned as well as Ministry of Environment & Forests to henceforth refrain from incorporating such a clause in the order of Environmental Clearance.
After considering all the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for not filing the Appeal on time. Consequently, we condone the delay. The M.A is accordingly allowed.
A copy of the order be communicated to MoEF and Respondent No. 2 & 3.
List the Appeal on February 14th, 2012 for filing reply(s).