AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is filed challenging the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by respondent No.1 to respondent No.5 for mining dated 02.02.2016. The appeal was filed only on 09.01.2017.
The appellants in the appeal memorandum contended that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation as they received copy of the impugned order uploaded in the website only on 26.12.2016. The case of the appellants is that the respondent No.5 has not "properly published the EC in newspapers or furnished and caused to publish it in public office as well". The case of the appellants is that the EC was not able to be traced by the appellants in the website and it was not in public domain and the appellants tried to get information regarding persons who applied EC in the area during 2015- 2016 by filing an application under Right to Information Act, 2005. On 05.09.2016 the appellants received a letter from respondent No.1 informing that there were only two persons, who applied for EC and directed the appellants to pay sufficient fees to get the copy of the documents. After paying the necessary fees on 24.11.2016 appellants obtained the copy of the EC and other documents and they relate to Manoj Antony and Ashique Ali and only on 01.12.2016 the appellants came to know about the grant of EC to the 5th respondent and immediately on 02.12.2016 the 1st appellant sent an application under Right to Information Act to get a copy of the EC and other documents with regard to the 5th respondent. As the appellants have filed the appeal within 30 days from that date appeal is within time.
As the appeal appeared to be filed beyond the period of limitation, the appeal was posted for hearing on the maintainability of the appeal and whether it is barred by time.
The appellants had challenged the EC granted to Manoj Antony and Ashique Ali separately before the Tribunal in Appeal No.20 of 2017 and Appeal No.22 of 2017. But both those appeals were filed with separate applications to condone the delay in filing the appeal. They are M.A.No.7 of 2017 and M.A.No.8 of 2017. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants originally sought time to argue the maintainability of the appeal submitting that the identical matter is being heard before the Court No.1 in M.A.Nos.7 of 2017 and 8 of 2017.
When the appeal was taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly submitted that both the Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed holding that there is a delay of more than 90 days and the National Green Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days.
The impugned order was passed on 02.02.2016. The appeal was filed only on 09.01.2017. The appellants have no case that there was no publication of the EC. Instead what was contended was that there was no proper publication. The appellants themselves admitted that the impugned order was uploaded by the 2nd respondent in the website though it is claimed that the appellants came to know about it only on 02.12.2016. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the period of limitation would start run only from the date of receipt of the impugned order by the appellants, the argument is not legally sustainable. The ground taken by the appellants to contend that the appeal is not barred under and was preferred within the period of limitation are the same grounds which have been taken by the appellants in Miscellaneous Application Nos.7 of 2017 and 8 of 2017. Both the Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed by the Tribunal by common order dated 04.07.2017. In view of the said decisions, it is not necessary to discuss the facts and law again as the same was discussed and settled in the order of the Tribunal dated 04.07.2017 in M.A.Nos.7 of 2017 and 8 of 2017.
It can only be found that appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. Firstly, there is no application to condone the delay. What was contended is that there is no delay. As it is found that the appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation and the delay is more than 90 days which cannot be condoned by the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, the appeal is to be dismissed as barred by time.
As the appeal is not maintainable, it is dismissed. No order as to cost.