V. Sundar vs Union Of India

This appeal challenges the grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) to the 10th respondent, namely, M/s. Vicoans Infrastructure and Environmental Engineering Private Ltd., Raja Annamalipuram, Chennai by the 3rd respondent, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Chennai dated 15.07.2014 for construction of a building measuring 43,755.90 sq.m of the total built up area at D.No. 19, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai.

The brief facts of the case of the appellant is that the appellant has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing chemicals under the name of Chemicals India from the property situated at No. 15, Lattice Bridge Road for the last several years which was originally commenced by the Appellant's father Late Mr. R. Vishwanathan in 1968 on a portion of the property, taken on lease from Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson who owned the property. Pursuant to the lease, the appellant's father put up a super structure in the leased property at his own cost with the permission of Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson in 1968-1969 (later renovated in December 2006), and ever since then the appellant's father, and after his demise in 2007, the appellant herein, has been in settled possession and enjoyment of the property. The property is accessed through a 25 ft. passage from the 20 ft. common road leading to the property of Mrs. Kripa Bai situated in the vicinity. Apart from the property situated at No. 15, Lattice Bridge Road, Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson owned another property admeasuring 2.67 acres situated at No. 19, Lattice Bridge Road, on the Southern side of the 20 ft. common road.

In December 2001, Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson died abroad and no person has approached the appellant claiming derivative right or title over the property through Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson. However, the appellant and other tenants learnt that Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson died in London leaving behind a will in respect of her properties in London and that the said will had specifically excluded all the properties held by Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson in India. Since all the properties of Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson in India, including the property in which the appellant is carrying over his business, devolved on her heirs intestate, to secure and safeguard his rights and interest over the property, the appellant along with other tenants in occupation and enjoyment of the property then, formed an association under the name of M/s. Meera Bai Dawson Tenants Welfare Association (Welfare Association) and to call necessary steps including collecting/accumulating the rentals payable by the respective tenants in respect of the property in their respective occupation in a separate account opened by the Welfare Association with the State Bank of Mysore.

In the year 2003, taking advantage of the hiatus in the administration of the properties of Late Mrs.Meera Bai Dawson in India, including the property situated at No.15, Lattice Bridge Road, certain persons having no semblance of title to the property, sought to unlawfully oust the tenants and grab the property which was prevented by the Welfare Association by approaching the Hon'ble Madras High Court under Crl.O.P. No.29297 of 2003 and obtained an order dated 299.08.2003 directing the police officials to provide protection to all the tenants in occupation of the property. The Hon'ble Madras High Court directed the police to ensure that any person claiming right over the property shall evict the tenants only by taking recourse to law.

In the year 2004, the appellant and other tenants of the property learnt that the said property along with the adjacent property of Mrs. Meera Bai Dawson at No.19, Lattice Bridge Road was sought to be illegally grabbed by certain third parties through a Bank auction in enforcement of a mortgage allegedly created with Global Trust Bank, later amalgamated with Oriental Bank of Commerce. It was successfully thwarted by the Welfare Association through a Writ Petition filed in the Hon'ble Madras High Court under W.P. No.17736 of 2004, and the sale certificate issued in 2002 was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court on 21.03.2005 as illegal.

The possession and enjoyment of the property situated at No.15, Lattice Bridge Road has remained peaceful and uninterrupted thereafter. In the year 2011, the appellant learnt about certain illegal dealings with respect to the properties of Mrs.Meera Bai Dawson viz., the property admeasuring 1.40 Acres comprised in Old Survey No. 63 (part), T.S.No. 9/10, Block No.21 and bearing Door no. 15, Lattice Bridge Road in the possession of the appellant and the adjacent property admeasuring 2.27 acres comprised in Old survey No. 63, T.S.No. 11, Block No.21 bearing Door no. 19, Lattice Bridge Road by persons having no valid title or interest, by resorting to falsification and fabrication of documents of title and upon discovery of which fact, Hon'ble Madras High Court by order dated 08.12.2010 in Crl.O.P. No.19095 of 2010 directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to investigate into the matter.

After the demise of the appellant's father in the year 2007, the appellant took over the business of Chemicals India and managed the business through his uncle, Mr. R.T. Krishnamurthy, who also resides in the property situated at No. 15, Lattice Bridge Road. In June 2012, the appellant's uncle expired and his sudden demise resulted in the temporary suspension of the business of Chemicals India. Seizing the opportunity, Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 herein and their men who were carrying on some activity on the adjacent property admeasuring approximately 2.27 acres comprised in old survey No. 63, T.S. No. 11, Block No. 21 bearing Door No. 19, Lattice Bridge Road, on 03.09.2012, illegally removed the sign board of Chemicals India placed off Lattice Bridge Road adjoining of the compound wall of the property, illegally trespassed into the property and removed the sign board, bottles and raw materials stored outside the building, and destroyed/demolished the bore-well together with the hand-pump in the property. That apart, the access road in the property, which has been in use since 1968, was illegally obstructed and a detour ( temporary in nature) was created and also temporarily started using the property for their building construction work undertaken in the adjacent site bearing Door No.19,Lattice Bridge Road.

The appellant filed C.S.No.270 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, seeking perpetual injunction, restraining the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 herein from in any manner interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Door No.15, Lattice Bridge Road. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has granted partial interim relief to the appellant vide order dated 12.07.2013,injucting the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 herein from interfering with the Appellant's possession and enjoyment of part of the property situated at No.15, Lattice Bridge Road.

While the respondents have accepted the partial relief in favour of the appellant, the appellant has preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court as against the partial rejection of relief sought for by him and the same is yet to be listed. During the conduct of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the appellant has filed Appeal No.1383 of 2014 in C.S. No.720 of 2012 seeking amendment of the main relief sought for in the suit to include a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.02.2007 registered as document no.1073 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Adyar executed in favour of the 10th respondent herein pursuant thereto in respect of the property bearing Door No.15,Lattice Bridge Road to be fraudulent and null and void. The 10th respondent's claim of title over the property admeasuring 1.40 acres comprised in Old Survey No.63, T.S.No. 9/10, Block No.21 and bearing Door No. 15, Lattice Bridge Road as well as the property admeasuring 2.27 acres comprised in Old survey No. 63, T.S.No.11, Block No.21 bearing Door No.19, Lattice Bridge Road (Subject Site) is defective and are part of the same sale deed dated 22.02.2007 registered as document no.1073 of 2007, which is sought to be declared as null and void by the appellant before the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

The respondent Nos.10 and 11 have been constructing a building at the Subject Site since June 2012 and have trespassed/encroached upon the property in the possession and occupation of the appellant since then and in respect of which the appellant has instituted C.S.No.720 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Madras High Court which is currently pending. In addition, the construction of building undertaken by the respondent Nos.10 and 11 in the Subject Site is in serious violation of various environmental laws. For the purpose of constructing the building on the Subject Site, the respondent Nos.10 and 11 have been harming the environment around the property bearing Door No.15, Lattice Bridge Road which is in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant, with the aid and assistance of the respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8 herein. That apart, the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have been actively proceeding with the construction of the building comprising of about 43,755.90 sq.m of built up area on the Subject Site in brazen violation of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the 1st respondent (EIA Notification, 2006), presumably with the aid and assistance of the respondents Nos.3 and 6 herein.

The building construction undertaken by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 in the Subject Site is in serious violation of various environmental laws such as the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act) the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act), the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (E P Act, 1986) and the EIA Notification, 2006. The Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 15.07.2014 is liable to be set aside and/or struck down since there has been a complete non-application of mind on the part of the 3rd respondent and the EC has been granted in contravention of the provisions under the notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the 1st respondent and in clear ignorance of the fact that the construction had commenced without obtaining prior EC and that the respondent No. 10 has contravened various environmental laws

Under the EIA Notification 2006, building projects which are beyond 20,000 Sq.m such as the one presently being put up by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11, necessarily have to obtain prior EC from the 3rd Respondent. The respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have commenced the construction of the building project at the Subject Site in disregard and violation of the EIA Notification 2006 and have continued with the same and constructed about 14 floors without obtaining the mandated prior EC which was recorded as a categorical finding by the 3rd respondent in the EC dated 15.07.2014.

The 3rd respondent has proceeded to issue EC to the respondent No.10 after merely observing that the respondent No.10 has submitted an apology letter and that the action taken by the 4th respondent against the respondent No.10 was held to be credible action by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The 3rd respondent does not have any power to grant EC to persons/applicants who have commenced construction without obtaining prior EC and against whom prosecution has been launched under the E P Act, 1986. Previously, the 3rd respondent had been granting EC by virtue of the Office Memorandum of the MoEF bearing ref no. J-11010/41/2006-IA.II (I) dated 12.12.2012. However, in light of the order dated 21.05.2014 passed by this Tribunal staying the operation of the Office Memorandum of the MoEF bearing ref no.J-11013/41/2006-IA.II (I) dated 12.12.2012, the 3rd respondent does not have any power to grant an EC that too against whom prosecution has been launched under the E P Act, 1986. Consequently, the EC dated 15.07.2014 is liable to be cancelled and/or struck down as much as it has been granted pursuant to an Office Memorandum which has been stayed by the orders of this Tribunal. A public authority such as the 3rd respondent who has been tasked with a duty to safeguard the environment in national interest ought to apply its mind and consider the serious threat posed by the respondent No.10's project to the surrounding environment and community and further ought not act in a manner contrary to law. The respondent Nos. 10 and 11 ought to have taken effective steps and obtained the EC under the EIA Notification 2006 prior to putting up of the construction beyond 20,000 sq.m However, since they failed to do so and have thereby contravened the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006 and the E P Act, 1986, they ought not to be permitted to continue with the construction.

The Office Memorandum of the MoEF bearing ref no. J-11013/41/2006-IA.II (I) dated 12.12.2012 is completely contrary to the framework of the EIA Notification, 2006 and is as such repugnant to the provisions contained therein and is therefore liable to be struck down and it will nullify the mandate entrusted on the concerned authorities under the EIA Notification, 2006 viz., to protect the environment. It will also encourage persons to put up illegal constructions without any concern for the environment and will open the flood gates for committing violence. A perusal of it makes it abundantly clear that it enables the concerned authorities to grant ex-post facto permission in the guise of prosecution for violation and the same is as such contrary to the EIA Notification 2006 and the E P Act, 1986. The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee ("SEAC") has approved and/or recommended the grant of the EC to the project of the 10th respondent without proper appraisal and without assigning any reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under EIA Notification, 2006. The SEAC has failed to apply their mind while undertaking the appraisal of the project of the 10th respondent and their recommendation for grant of EC is in clear violation of the principles governing the administrative decision, i.e., duty to give reasons and application of mind to relevant consideration. The EIA Notification, 2006 sets out the procedure to be adopted by the SEAC before making a recommendation to the SEIAA and provides for an appraisal of the application for EC. Such an appraisal is required to be made by the SEAC in a transparent manner and after such appraisal, the SEAC is required to make a categorical recommendation to the 3rd respondent either for grant of EC on stipulated terms and conditions or rejection of the application, together with the reasons for the same.

The SEAC has recommended the 10th respondent's project for clearance during the 45th meeting held on 29-30.10.2013. However, from a perusal of the agenda and the minutes of the said meeting, it can be seen that during the said meeting the SEAC had discussed a total of 107 items of grant/refusal of EC. Thus, there has been no appraisal wherein an evaluation by detailed scrutiny of the project of the 10th respondent as per the mandatory provision of EIA Notification, 2006 and the SEAC has made the recommendation for grant of EC in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. Since there was a failure on the part of the SEAC in performing its duty of proper consideration and evaluation of the 10th respondent's application by making a detailed scrutiny, the EC grated by the 3rd respondent ought to be set aside and/or struck down.

A perusal of the Minutes of the 45th Meeting of SEAC held on 29-30.10.2013 makes it clear that the SEAC has not provided any reasons for recommending the application of the respondent No.10 to the 3rd respondent and that the SEAC decided to recommend the same to the 3rd respondent after considering certain details which are in reality certain conditions to be complied by the respondent No.10. Merely stipulating the conditions ipso facto cannot be sufficient. As per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of cases, quasi judicial as well as administrative bodies are required to disclose reasons for coming to a particular conclusion which is wholly lacking in the present case.

Under sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 4 of the EIA Notification 2006, the 3rd respondent should base its decision on the recommendations of the SEAC. Since the SEAC's recommendation was itself faulty and made in contravention of the EIA Notification 2006, the decision of the 3rd respondent in approving/granting the EC to the respondent No.10 is liable to be set aside and/or cancelled. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases that quasi judicial as well as administrative bodies should disclose reasons for to a particular conclusion. From a bare perusal of the Minutes of the 110th meeting of the 3rd respondent held on 29/30.10.2013, it is clear that the 3rd respondent too has not provided any reasons for approving the application of the respondent No. 10. All that is stated is the gist of the original application of the project and the SEAC decided to issue the EC to the respondent No.10 with the usual terms and conditions. There was no discussion on whether the permissions or conditions specified in the 45th meeting held on 29/30.10.2013 had been compiled with by the respondent No.10. Even the EC dated 15.07.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent did not disclose the reasons or application of mind for granting the same to the respondent No. 10. The 3rd respondent has granted the EC to the respondent No. 10 in a mechanical manner after merely setting forth a summary of the application and document submitted by the respondent No.10. Though the 3rd respondent has recorded in the EC dated 15.07.2014 that "the proposal was discussed in detail and resolved to issue the EC, it is not clear as to what was discussed or what were the reasons for resolving to grant the EC. The 3rd respondent has, in the EC dated 15.07.2014, observed that the respondent. No.10 had furnished additional details vide letters dated 17.04.2014 and 23.06.2014. However, the 3rd respondent has filed to consider whether the said details satisfied the conditions stipulated by the SEAC. Consequently, the EC granted to the respondent No.10 stands vitiated on this ground.

Though the SEAC has been clothed with the power to undertake site visits/inspection, the SEAC has failed to exercise the same. In fact, in the reply letter dated 20.11.2014, it has been stated by the 3rd respondent that site inspection is not mandatory for processing of the application seeking EC under the EIA Notification 2006. Such a stand taken by the 3rd respondent is totally untenable.

As per paragraph 6 of the EIA Notification 2006, the respondent No.10 is required to submit the Supplementary Form 1-A and set out the details regarding environmental impacts of the project viz., impact on land environment, water environment, vegetation, fauna, air environment, aesthetics, socio-economic aspects, building materials and energy conservation. Further, the respondent No.10 is also required to provide full information along with the proposed explanatory notes and the proposed environmental management plan (EMP) and monitoring programme. In the present case, it is not clear whether the said details have been submitted by the respondent no.10 since neither the EC nor the minutes of the meetings disclose any discussion or consideration of this aspect.

The respondents have been brazenly polluting the surrounding environment and the appellant has also sought for action in this regard from the respondents No.4, 5, 7, and 8. However, till date, the respondents, though concluding that the acts of the Respondents No.10 and 11 were in violation of the Public Health Act, have failed to take any action against the said 10th and 11th respondents. The respondent No.10 is required to allot a minimum of 15 % of the project area for developing and maintaining a green belt. However, only 3.1 % of the total area is proposed as a green belt which is much insufficient considering the fact that the total built up area of 10th respondent's project is 43,755.90 Sq.m and also the 3rd respondent has permitted the respondent No.10 to maintain such a minuscule green belt and has completely ignored the aspect of negative environmental impact on account of it. As per the condition No.(i) of the specific conditions during the construction phase, the respondent No.10 is required to obtain the "Consent for Establishment" from the 4th respondent before proceeding to take up any further construction activity. However, the respondent No. 10 has been continuing with the construction till date without obtaining the consent for establishment and has thus contravened the terms of the EC and the provisions of the Water Act. A perusal of the 4th respondent's website- www.tnpcb.gov.in and a search conducted on the said website does not reveal any consent for establishment having been granted to the respondent Nos. 10 and 11. As per specific condition Nos. (iv), (v), (vii) and (ix) of the EC dated 15.07.2014 for the construction phase, the respondent No.10 is required to provide proper infrastructure for housing the labourers and also to maintain a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) approved by an academic/research institution. Further, the respondent No.10 is also required to put in place proper sanitary measures and facilities for disposal of wastewater and solid wastes. However, the respondent Nos.10 and 11, have been letting out raw sewage of unimaginable scale into the appellant's property and is causing health hazards to the appellant and the public living in the vicinity, and is also causing injury to the health of the people living and carrying on business in the vicinity. Moreover, in the present case, the acclaimed septic tank maintained by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 is in the open land outside the premises, into which the sewage water collected by them is pumped into, is sub-standard and does not meet the industry standard. It does not conform to the specification set out in Annexure-I of the Operative Guidelines for Septage Management in Urban Local Bodies and Rural Local Bodies in Tamil Nadu. Not only that the sewage discharge into such holes is seeping into the underground soil and is posing a grave threat to the underground soil and to the underground water table but has a direct impact on the health of thousands of residents in Adyar. As per the specific condition No. (xii) of the EC dated 15.07.2014 for the construction phase, the Respondent No.10 is required to dispose of the construction debris during the construction phase in such a manner that it does not have any adverse effect on the neighbouring communities. However, in the present case, the construction debris, muck and the transportation of construction materials etc., have resulted in large quantities of dust emissions into the surrounding areas resulting in heavy air pollution. In fact, in spite of preferring a complaint dated 08.01.2014 with the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 9 for taking immediate steps to curb the pollution caused by the respondents, the said respondents have failed to take any steps for curbing the same. As per the specific condition No. (xvii) of the EC dated 15.07.2014 for the construction phase, the respondent No. 10 is required to ensure that vehicles employed by the said respondent conforms to the air and noise emission standards and that the said vehicles operated only during the non-peak hours. However, in the present case, the vehicles plying to and fro to the subject site do not conform to the air and noise emission standards and as a result the ambient air quality in and around the subject site has been gravely affected. In addition to that , the respondent No.10 is also plying the vehicles during the non-peak hours and has failed to adopt necessary measures to reduce the air and noise pollution during the construction phase thus contravening specific condition No. (xxvi) of the EC dated 15.07.2014 for the construction phase. As per general condition No. (iv) and (ix) of the EC dated 15.07.2014, respondent No. 10 is required to upload the EC and status of compliance of the stipulated EC conditions, including the results of the monitored data on his website which the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have failed to comply with and even more respondent No. 10 does not have any website of its own. Since the building presently constructed by the respondent Nos. 10 and11 on the subject site is in serious breach of the environment laws and the construction activity undertaken by the said respondent is also in serious violation of the Air Act, Water Act and the Public Health Act apart from being an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

The grant of building permission by the 6th respondent for the building presently by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 at subject site without insisting upon the mandatory prior EC from the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Even the temporary service connection given by the 9th respondent to enable the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to carry out the illegal construction is ex-facie untenable. The construction put up by the respondent No. 10 and 11 is liable to be demolished since the grant of prior EC by the 3rd respondent is a condition precedent for commencement of the building project, and any construction undertaken in violation of the said requirement under the EIA Notification 2006, such as the building partially constructed by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 at the subject site, is an illegal construction affecting the environment.

The activities of the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have resulted in damage to the property of the appellant located at Door No. 15, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 and the respondent Nos.10 and 11 are liable for restitution of the damage and injury caused by them. Moreover, the construction and allied activities of the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have resulted in damage to environment in the vicinity of the subject site and the respondent Nos.10 and 11 are liable for restitution of the environment. Furthermore, the activities of the respondent Nos.10 and 11 pose a severe threat of further environmental degradation and ought be stopped at the earliest.

Per contra, on the averments made in the appeal, the contesting respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 filed their respective replies and others are yet to file their replies. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant pressed for an interim stay of the impugned EC, Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi dated 12.12.2012 and also the grant of interim injunction restraining the 10th and 11th respondents from in any manner proceeding with the construction of the building and for other interim reliefs. The same was opposed by the learned counsel for the 10th and 11th respondents that the appeal itself is not maintainable since it is barred by Limitation apart from the ground that the appellant has asked for plural remedies on two different causes of action and thus the appeal has to be dismissed in view of the bar under rule 14 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 (NGT Rules, 2011). Hence, at that stage the following two questions were formulated for consideration by the Tribunal:

(1) Whether the appeal is barred since it is filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by the NGT Act, 2010 and (2) Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the joinder of two different causes of action seeking plural remedies.

Advancing the arguments on the question of limitation, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, the appellant has to file an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the order or decision granting the EC. In the present case, the communication was complete only on 22.11.2014 when the appellant received the letters dated 20.11.2014. It is true that the EC was granted on 15.07.2014 and the appeal was filed on 18.12.2014. But, there was no delay in filing the appeal as contended by the contesting respondents. Relying on a decision of the Principal Bench of the NGT in Save Mon Region Federation and Lobsang Choedar vs. Union of India (Manu/GT/0029/2013), the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the limitation as prescribed under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, the communication of an order in other words shall mean putting an order in public domain in complete form as per the mode required under the provisions of the NGT Act, 2010. In the instant case, the communication was complete only on 22.11.2014 and not prior to that date. The period of limitation cannot be reckoned from 17.10.2014 or any day prior to 22.11.2014 since from the perusal of the letter dated 02.09.2014 the appellant had only learnt that the 10th respondent had been granted EC but the said letter was bereft of the details regarding the EC granted to the 10th respondent. The appellant was neither aware of the grant of EC nor has been provided with the copy of the EC and was completely unaware about the terms on which the said EC had been granted by the authorities to the 10th respondent. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed within the period of limitation as set forth under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. The appellant came to know about the date of grant of EC and the terms and conditions thereto only on 22.11.2014 when the appellant received the letter dated 20.11.2014 as found under Annexure-A18 on which date the appellant downloaded the EC from the 3rd respondent's website. Thus, the information pertaining to the EC was made available only on 22.11.2014. Thereafter, the appellant immediately obtained the EC dated 15.07.2014 from the website of the 3rd respondent. It is pertinent to state that the EC having been granted to the 10th respondent as early as on 15.07.2014, the said EC was not uploaded on the website of the 3rd respondent until recently. The appellant was informed about the grant of EC to the 10th respondent only on 17.10.2014. However, as on that date the appellant was unaware of the date when the EC was granted and the EC was also not available in the website of the 3rd respondent. Thus, the appellant came to know about the date of grant of EC and the terms of conditions of the EC only on 22.11.2014 when the appellant received the letter dated 20.11.2014 and thus, the information pertaining to grant of EC was made available to the appellant only on 22.11.2014. It is pertinent to point out that the appellant took bona fide steps to ascertain the status of the EC and the appellant repeatedly wrote letters under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to the 3rd and 6th respondents and also issued reminders seeking for the details of the EC since the website of the 3rd respondent continued to state that the EC was at the stage of State Level Environment Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for appraisal as could be seen from Annexure A-13 and A-14. The 3rd respondent sent a cryptic reply to a query raised by the appellant that the EC was issued. The reply of the 3rd respondent constrained the appellant to seek details once again through a RTI letter dated 17.10.2014 as found in Annexure A-17. In so far as the contention putforth by the 10th and 11th respondents that the appellant has suppressed the proceedings and the order dated 31.03.2009 passed in W.A.No.972-974 and 1072 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras (Hon'ble High Court) and the Memorandum of Compromise entered into by the Meerabai Dawson Tenants Welfare Association, the learned counsel would submit that the appellant was not at all aware of the Writ Appeal proceedings and the purported Memorandum of Compromise entered into by the Association. Even assuming without admitting the Writ Appeal proceedings were true, the same would not be binding on the appellant since the Association had not obtained the consent from the appellant nor the appellant authorized the Association to enter into Memorandum of Compromise. It is true that the appellant has filed C.S.No. 720 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court seeking inter alia a perpetual injunction restraining the 10th and 11th respondents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property wherein a partial interim injunction was granted on 12.07.2013. It is pertinent to point out the 10th and 11th respondents have not challenged the said order by an appeal against the said order. Apart from that, the appellant has also filed an application seeking an amendment of the main relief. They include that all the transactions done by the contesting respondents are fraudulent and null and void. Thus, those contentions putforth by the 10th and 11th respondents as if the appellant has suppressed the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court is thoroughly unfounded and has nothing to do with the pending proceedings before the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal challenging the impugned order of the 3rd respondent is within the time limit prescribed by the NGT Act, 2010.

Advancing the arguments on the second question, the learned counsel would submit that it is not correct to state that the relief for setting aside the impugned EC and for stay of the 2012 Office Memorandum are not based upon a single cause of action. It is not correct to state that it constitutes a joinder of cause of action and impermissible. Pointing to rule 14 of the NGT Rules, 2011, the counsel would submit that the same provides for plural remedies in a proceeding before the Trirbunal that the words found in rule 14 'consequential to one another' ought not to be equated with 'consequential reliefs'. The consequential relief is a relief which flows directly as a natural sequence from and incidental to the main and substantive relief. It is not something that is claimed independently as a substantive relief. It is wholly connected to the main or substantive relief and therefore arises from the same cause of action which gives rise to the substantive relief. On the other hand, the words 'consequential to one another' mean that each of the reliefs may be a main and substantive relief which need not flow from the other and which may be based on different causes of action, but which are connected or linked and claiming of one necessarily involves or requires claiming of the other or vice versa.

The second part of rule 14 permits reliefs based on more than one cause of action being claimed in an application or appeal provided they are so connected that seeking of one requires seeking of the other either as of necessity or on account of a statutory mandate. It is pertinent to point out that the reliefs for striking down the 2012 Office Memorandum and setting aside the EC are intrinsically linked in the present case particularly in the light of the fact that despite the stay of 2012 Office Memorandum, the 3rd respondent continued to grant the EC on the pretext that the stay of the 2012 Office Memorandum did not prevent the 3rd respondent from giving EC to the applicant who had received the SEAC appraisal prior to the grant of EC. The appellant sought for a stay of and for striking down the 2012 Office Memorandum only out of abundant caution. The rule 14 does not in any manner restrict the joinder of causes of action. It only restricts to one or more reliefs sought for in the application or appeal filed before the NGT. In order to substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on Goa Foundation Case. Also relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Lal Nahata and another Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, 2007 (2) SCC 551 the learned counsel would submit that under CPC, it is well settled position that misjoinder of causes of action is at best a procedural objection and it is upto the Court to either permit the continuance of the suit over ruling such objection or direct the plaintiff to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or order different trials. Thus, both the objections raised by the contesting respondents have got to be rejected as legally unsustainable.

Contrary to the above contentions, the learned counsel for the 10th and 11th respondents would submit that the EC was granted by the SEIAA in favour of the 10th respondent on 15.07.2014 and proper publication was made by the respondents, namely, the Project Proponent of the said EC on 05.09.2014 in both Malai Malar in Tamil and Business Standard in English. The details of the publication are filed by the respondents. But, the appellant has filed the appeal on 18.12.2014. The time gap between the date of publication of EC and the date of filing was 74 days. The Tribunal can condone the delay of 30 days from the date of order and beyond 60 days it cannot be condoned. The date of reckoning the limitation would be from the date of publication of EC by SEIAA either by uploading and make the EC available in the website or the date of publication in the newspapers one in vernacular and another in English or the date when the EC was affixed in the local bodies and Government offices. Relying on a decision of the Principal Bench, NGT in Sudiep Shrivastava Vs. Union of India, 2014 ALL (I) NGT Reporter (3) (Delhi)-43, the counsel would submit that the publication in the newspapers is not only a simplicitor publication of information, but it is a clear notice to the general public at large on EC. The publication also had the sources from which the information and details can be received. In the instant case, the publication was made in prominent Tamil and English newspapers as early as on 05.09.2014 and that is the date for reckoning the limitation. In any given case, condonation of delay can be made as provided under section 16 proviso and the delay falling outside the said period, the Tribunal cannot condone the same. In Sunil Kumar Samanta, M/s. Samanta Engineering Works Vs. West Bengal Pollution Control Board and others, 2014 (1) NGT Reporter (2) (Delhi) 250, the Tribunal has set out the reasons as to why the said proviso under Section 16 prohibits even filing of appeal before the NGT beyond the period of 90 days. In the instant case, the EC was granted on 15.07.2014 and the appeal was filed on 19.12.2014. Thus, it was outside the time limit of the period of limitation prescribed by the NGT Act, 2010 and the contention putforth by the appellant's side that there was no communication in respect of the EC as envisaged under the provisions of the Act has to be rejected for the above said reason. The appellant cannot be allowed to plead that he came to know about the EC along with all the particulars on 22.11.2014 since there had been litigations under the writ jurisdiction and original side jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court. The appeal filed is not a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) but a private intended litigation and hence the appeal has to be dismissed as the one out of time.

Referring to the contention putforth by the appellant's side on the 2nd question, the learned counsel for the 10th and 11th respondents would submit that as per the NGT Rules, 2011 an application or appeal as the case may be shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more reliefs provided they are consequential to one another and thus there cannot be joiner causes of action. In the instant case, the appellant has sought to set aside the EC granted by the 3rd respondent dated 15.07.2014 and also asked for the relief to set aside the Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2012. Thus, it would be quite clear that the Prayer A involves the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal while the relief in Prayer B is claimed in the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The appeal and application coming on two different causes of action cannot be combined together in view of the bar under rule 14 of the NGT Rules, 2011 and therefore, the remedies are plural remedies. In order to substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Pune Bench of NGT in Vikas K. Tripathi Vs. Secretary, MOEF ALL(I)NGT Reporter (3) (Pune) 95 and hence on the grounds also the appeal has got to be dismissed.

The appellant herein has inter alia sought for the following reliefs:

(A) To set aside the EC granted by the 3rd respondent in letter No. SEIAA/TN/F.No. 474/CHN/EC-334/8(a) dated 15.07.2014;

(B) To set aside the Office Memorandum of the MoEF bearing Ref. No. J-11013/41/2006-IA II(I) dated 12.12.2012 pending disposal of the present appeal;

(C) To grant a permanent injunction restraining the 10th respondent and 11th respondent from in any manner putting up any construction in the land admeasuring 2.27 acres comprised in T.S.No. 11, Block No. 21 of Urur Village, Adyar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District situate at Door No. 19, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020, without getting the prior EC from the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the 6th respondent to demolish the building/super structure constructed in the land admeasuring 2.27 acres comprised in T.S.No.11, Block No. 21, Urur Village, Adyar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District situate Door No. 19, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 in gross violaion of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification (EIA Notification), 2006 and other consequential reliefs.

As seen above, the reliefs asked in Clause A is to set aside the EC granted by the 3rd respondent in the letter dated 15.07.2014 in favour of the 10th respondent and thus, admittedly, the impugned EC was granted on 15.07.2014 and the present appeal was filed on 19.12.2014.

Speaking on the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 reads as follows:

"16. Tribunals to have appellate jurisdiction.- Any person aggrieved by,-

(a) ***

***

***

(g) any direction issued on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Act 29 of 1986);

(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or call of industries or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986)

(i) ***

(j)***

may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:

Provided that the Tribunal, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days".

It is vehemently contended by the 10th and 11th respondents that there was a delay of 74 days and the Tribunal can condone a delay of 60 days only and beyond the said period, the same cannot be condoned. Pointing to the above provision, it is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the period of limitation has to be reckoned only from the date of communication and not before. In the instant case, it was communicated to the appellant on 22.11.2014 by a letter dated 20.11.2014. It is replied by the contesting respondents that there was proper communication as required by law. Hence, it becomes necessary to see when the impugned order, i.e, the order granting EC was communicated to the appellant. The question 'what is communication' came up for consideration before the Principal Bench of NGT in Save Mon Region Federation and Lobsang Choedar vs. Union of India, Manu/GT/0029/2013 and it was held as follows:

"18. The limitation as prescribed under Section 16 of the NGT Act shall commence from the date of order is communicated. As already noticed, communication of the order has to be by putting it in the public domain for the benefit of the public at large. The day, the MOEF shall put the complete order of Environmental Clearance on its websidte and when the same can be downloaded without any hindrance or impediments and also put the order on its public notice board, the limitation be reckoned from that date. The limitation may also trigger from the date when the Project Proponent uploads the Environmental Clearance order with its environmental conditions and safeguards upon its website as well as publishes the same in the newspapers as prescribed under Regulation 10 of the Environmental Clearance Regulations, 2006. It is made clear that such obligation of uploading the order on the website by the Project Proponent shall be complete only when it can simultaneously be downloaded without delay and impediments. The limitation could also commence when the Environmental Clearance order is displayed by the local bodies, Panchayats and Municipal Bodies along with the concerned departments of the State Government displaying the same in the manner afore-indicated. Out of the three points from which the limitation could commence and be computed, the earliest in point of time shall be the relevant date and it will have to be determined with reference to the facts of each case. The applicant must be able to download or know from the public notice the factum of the order as well as its content in regard to environmental conditions and safeguards imposed in the order of the Environmental Clearance. Mere knowledge or deemed knowledge of order cannot form the basis for reckoning the period of limitation.

***

Once we examine the provision of Section 16 of the NGT Act in the light of the above principle, it is clear that the provision is neither ambiguous nor indefinite. The expressions used by the legislature are clear and convey the legislative intent. The communication of an order granting the Environmental Clearance has to be made by the MoEF as well as the Project Proponent in adherence to law. The communication would be complete when it is undisputedly put in the public domain by the recognised modes, in accordance with the said provision. The limitation of 30 days would commence from that date. If the appeal is presented beyond the period of 30 days, in that event, it becomes obligatory upon the applicant to show sufficient cause explaining the delay. The delay must be bona fide and not a result of negligence or intentional inaction or mala fide and must not result in the abuse of process of law. Once these ingredients are satisfied the Tribunal shall adopt a balanced approach in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case".

From the above, it would be quite clear that the communication as envisaged under section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 would be complete when it is undisputedly put in the public domain by the recognized modes in accordance with the said provisions and the limitation of 30 days would commence from that date and if the appeal is presented beyond the period of 30 days, it becomes obligatory upon the applicant to show sufficient cause explaining the delay. It is pertinent to point at this juncture that it is not the case of appellant that there was any delay which is to be condoned. Apart from that, the appellant has not filed any application to condone the delay since it is his case that the appeal was filed within 30 days prescribed for making an appeal. While deciding the question of limitation it would be proper to cite the following from the judgment delivered by the Central Bench of the NGT in the matter of Raza Ahmed, Chhattisgarh vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2013

ALL (I) NGT Reporter (2) (Bhopal) 22:

"6. Advancing his further arguments, the learned counsel would submit that the environmental clearance issued by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 10 on 01.05.2008 has become absolute since under Section 11 of the NEAA Act, 1997, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days of the date of the order and the authority can entertain the appeal if filed within the said period but not after 90 days from the date, if it was satisfied that the appeal was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the appeal in time. The date of communication of order or date of knowledge of order, therefore, was not relevant at all. Thus, the language of the said provision was very clear and unambiguous. In the present case, the appeal was preferred by the appellant on the ground that the date of knowledge was 03.02.2011 and thus, the appeal was within time. The same is not only misconceived but erroneous also. The NGT Act, 2010 came into force on 18.10.2010 and any order or environmental clearance granted/refused on or after coming into force of the NGT Act could be challenged before the NGT by way of an appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 and thus, no appeal is maintainable under Section 16 of the NGT Act also. The Appellant originally filed the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur wherein the Respondent took a plea that the matter of change of environment is well within the domain of NGT. It is pertinent to point out that the respondent took the objection on the point of limitation in that Writ Petition before the High Court. Thus, the contention put forth by the appellant side that the respondents are taking inconsistent stand that the respondent contending before the High Court that the appellant had an effective and efficacious remedy by approaching the NGT for the purpose of challenging the ground for Environmental Clearance and on transfer to the NGT, the respondent has raised the objection that it was barred by time. Since the appellant has chosen to file a Writ Petition before the High Court knowing fully well that his appeal was time barred and hence, he could not prefer an appeal before the Tribunal and hence, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and got an order of transfer of the same to the NGT. Thus, it would be clear that the Environmental Clearance challenged in the present case is without jurisdiction arid also hopelessly barred by limitation.

On a scrutiny of the materials available, it is noticed that the appeal was filed not only beyond the period of 30 days but even beyond the period of 60 days thereafter as prescribed under the NGT Act, 2010 which can be condoned by Tribunal if the appellant was able to show sufficient cause for the said delay.

The case of the appellant is that he came to know about the date of grant of EC along with the terms and conditions only on 22.11.2014 when the appellant received the letter dated 20.11.2014 on which date the appellant downloaded the EC from the website. From the scrutiny of the available materials, it is quite evident that it is not a correct statement of fact. In the instant case, the respondents have placed 2 publications made one in English and another in Tamil as early as in 5/2015 which clearly indicate that it was publicly notified through the said publications that the project in question has been granted the EC. It was also further stated in the publications that the EC is available with the TNPCB and can also be seen in the website of SEIAA, Tamil Nadu in the link at http://www.seiaa.tn.gov.in. Thus there were clear notices to the public at large to the effect that the EC was granted to the project in question and complete and comprehensive information was available on the website of the TNPCB. The comments made by the counsel that the advertisement made in both the newspapers did not even contain the particulars and conditions attached to the EC in question cannot be countenanced. The size of the advertisement is immaterial but what it conveys is material. The judgment of the Principal Bench of NGT made in Save Mon Region Federation and Lobsang Choedar vs. Union of India, Manu/GT/0029/2013 lends full support to the case of respondents that if done as above then it has to be taken as a complete communication. The period of limitation has to be reckoned from 05.09.2014, i.e., date of publications made as contended by the learned counsel for the 10th and 11th respondents.

Apart from the above, the pleaded case of the appellant that before 22.11.2014 when he received the communication dated 20.11.2014, the appellant was thoroughly unaware of the date of order granting the EC to the 10th respondent was provided with the copy of the EC cannot be countenanced for more reasons than one. Long pendency of litigation on both civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court between the parties is noticed. As per Annexure-A4, Cr.O.P No 19095/2010 was filed by the appellant alleging falsification and fabrication of documents and the order came to be passed on 08.12.2010 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Police to investigate the matter about the complaint on illegal trespass into the part of the property of the appellant and also removal of the sign board, raw materials etc., by the 10th and 11th respondents and destruction of borewell with hand pump in the property. A news item was reported in 'The Hindu Business Line' on 25.06.2012 as shown in Annexure A5. A perusal of the same would indicate that the impugned constructions were shown as being carried out by the 10th and 11th respondents during that time itself whereupon the appellant filed C.S. No. 727 of 2012 before the original side of the Hon'ble High Court for a perpetual injunction against the 10th and 11th respondents from in any manner interfering with the appellant's peaceful enjoyment of the property in question. It is pertinent to point out that the Hon'ble High Court granted a partial interim relief even on 12.07.2013 as could be seen from Annexure-A6. Pending the suit, the appellant has filed Appeal No. 1383 of 2014 in C.S. No. 720 of 2012 seeking amendment of the main relief to include a relief of declaration in respect of the sale deed dated 22.02.2007 executed in favour of the 10th respondent. It is also pertinent to point out that the impugned construction is being carried on at the site covered under the sale deed according to the appellant. The averments made in paragraph 9 of this appeal would clearly indicate the fact that the appellant has initiated the above proceedings and while the same is pending the construction by the 10th and 11th respondents in the subject site is serious violation of various environmental laws besides the illegal acts of trespass and encroachment. According to the contesting respondents, an appeal filed by them in W.A.Nos. 972-974 and 1012 of 2005 in respect of the subject matter including the site in question was disposed of on a Memorandum of Compromise in the judgment dated 31.03.2009 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court. Though the appellant claims to be a member of the Meera Bai Dawson Tenants Welfare Association and a party to the proceedings in the Memorandum of Compensation also, he has pleaded that he has no knowledge about the same. The appellant who made the averments about the W.P.Nos. 39649 of 2002, 27303 of 2003, 20357 of 2004 and 17736 of 2004 cannot now contend that he did not know of any appeal proceedings which arose therefrom. It is also submitted by the appellant that the appellant seeking information through RTI letter submitted to the 3rd respondent as early as in 08/2014 and subsequently sent a reminder letter on 05.10.2014 as there was no reply from the 3rd respondent. This contention is well replied by the counsel for the respondents that the appellant is neither residing nor having any action in the property situate at D.No. 15, Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar which is evident from the communication dated 05.10.2014 addressed to the CMDA wherein the appellant has asked for the information to be sent to his administrative office at Alamelumangapuram. The 3rd respondent, SEIAA forwarded the information under the RTI to the Lattice Bridge Road address which was returned and again on request from the appellant the same was forwarded to the Alamelumangapuram address. The contentions putforth by the 10th and 11th respondents that the project construction consists of 18 floors of residential apartments and major portion of the construction is over is not disputed by the appellant. All the above would be indicative of the fact that the appellant who has filed a number of proceedings in respect of the site in question and who has witnessed the constructional activities of the respondents for years cannot now be allowed to state that he came to know about the grant of EC only on 22.11.2014 that too in the face of the publication of the grant of EC in public domain as discussed above.

Trite law it is that the special law of limitation in any given enactment will always exclude the general law of limitation. The NGT Act, 2010, a special enactment specifically provides a period of limitation under section 14 (2) and 15(3). The Principal Bench, NGT has already held in Jesurathinam and ors. Vs. MoEF, Union of India and Ors reported in 2012 (2) FLT 811 NGT that when a specific provision for limitation is provided under the special statute, the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are inapplicable. Hence, the Tribunal is afraid whether the theory of continuing cause of action can be made applicable to the present factual position of the case for which the specific period of limitation is available under the NGT Act, 2010.

Hence, without any hesitation it has to be held that the appellant has filed the appeal very much beyond the time prescribed under the NGT Act, 2010. Equally, on the question of joinder of causes of action we have to necessarily agree with the legal plea putforth by the learned counsel for the 10th and 11th respondents.

The rule 14 of the NGT, Rules 2011 reads as follows:

"14. Plural remedies. - An application or appeal, as the case may be, shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more relief provided that they are consequential to one another".

The appellant has sought for reliefs in Clauses A and B as follows:

A) To set aside the EC granted by the 3rd respondent in letter No. SEIAA/TN/F.No. 474/CHN/EC-334/8(a) dated 15.07.2014;

(B) To set aside the Office Memorandum of the MoEF bearing Ref. No. J-11013/41/2006-IA II(I) dated 12.12.2012 pending disposal of the present appeal.

The appellant has also sought for other reliefs in Clauses C to G. The very reading of the rule 14 of the NGT Rules, 2011 would make it abundantly clear that the applicant or the appellant can seek for one or more reliefs provided they are consequential to one another. But, the application or appeal shall be based upon a single cause of action. As could be seen from the relief clauses, the appellant has sought for by seeking to set aside EC granted by the 3rd respondent in letter No. SEIAA/TN/F.No. 474/CHN/EC-334/8(a) dated 15.07.2014 has invoked the appeal jurisdiction under section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 while claiming the relief by seeking to set aside the Office Memorandum of the MoEF bearing Ref. No. J-11013/41/2006-IA II(I) dated 12.12.2012, he has invoked the original jurisdiction under section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010. The cause of action for the relief clause claimed under Clause A is the EC granted by the 3rd respondent dated 15.07.2014 while the cause of action for Clause B is the issuance of an Office Memorandum of the MoEF dated 12.12.2012. Thus, it would be quite clear that reliefs sought for on two distinct and different causes of action would be repugnant to rule 14 of the NGT Rules, 2011. The words 'consequential' to one another employed in rule 14 of the NGT Rules, 2011 would make the intention of the Legislature explicit that the reliefs sought for by the applicant or appellant can be more than one if they are consequential to one another but certainly not on two different causes of action. 'Consequential relief' should flow directly as a natural sequence from the main and substantive relief and it can even be incidental also. But, it should be wholly connected to the main or the substantive relief and thus should arise from the same cause of action. In the instant case, two different and distinctive reliefs based on two separated causes of action are asked for by the appellant. The submission by the learned counsel for the appellant that the relief was for striking down the 2011 Office Memorandum and setting aside of EC are intrinsically linked is worth to be ignored. In the face of rule 14 of NGT Rules, 2011 as seen above, it would be futile to contend that the rule 14 does not restrict the jurisdiction of cause of action. The Hon'ble Western Zone Bench of the NGT at Pune had an occasion to consider the question of maintainability of the application in a composite form of application-cum-appeal filed in view of the availability of the plural remedies in accordance with rule 14 of NGT Rules, 2011 in Vikas K. Tripathi Mumbai Vs. The Secretary, MoEF reported in 2014 ALL(I) NGT Reporter (3) (Pune) 95 and has held as follows:

" 21........... We shall deal his contention in order to set right issue once for all, in as much as it is likely to be raised in many such cases on similar ground.

Rule 14 of the NGT (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 reads as follows:

"Rule14. Plural remedies. - An application or appeal, as the case may be, shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more relief provided that they are consequential to one another".

Perusal of Rule 14, without any prejudicial notions in the mind, will make it amply clear that any Application or Appeal, as the opening words imply are distinct remedies under which the particular relief may be sought on single cause of action. Thus, if properly read the rule provide as follows:

i) There may be either single Application or Appeal. In other words, it cannot be a comprehensive or hybrid type of pleadings like Appeal-cum-Application, as captioned by the Appellant-cum-Applicant (Vikas Tripathy) as in the present Application/Appeals.

ii) The Appeal or Application, whatsoever it may be must be filed on single cause of action. Thus, it cannot be filed on several causes of action. In other words, an Appeal cannot be filed with combined causes challenging different ECs or orders, nor an Application can be filed challenging different orders or different violations under the different laws.

iii) Still, however, choice given to the Appellant/Applicant is to ask for grant of more than one relief in case such reliefs are of consequential character. In other words, if a relief depends upon grant of another relief, then grant of more than one relief is permissible.

***

We cannot overlook and brush aside main provisions of the NGT Act, which do not provide for any kind of permission to allow filing of two Appeals, one against the time barred EC, coupled with another EC for revised construction plan along with an Application under Sections 14,15 and 18 of the NGT Act, 2010. In case, Vikas Tripathi is genuinely interested in the cause of environment and feels that the project in question has caused violations of EC conditions/ deterioration of the environment of the environment, then he is at liberty to file a separate Application under Section 14 (1) (2) read with Sections 15 and 18 of the NGT Act, 2010 if so advised and if it is permissible under law. He cannot, however, club all such Appeals and Applications together and explore to examine whether one cap fits on another".

Applying the principle laid down as above, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant on two distinct and independent causes of action cannot maintain the present appeal.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable on the grounds of limitation and also on joinder of causes of action.

No cost.