Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 244

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Mantri Techzone Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Forward Foundation and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5016, 8002-8003, 9227, 10992, 10993, 10994, 10995, 12152, 12156, 12157, 12158, 12159, 12160, 12326 of 2016, 1343, 4923-4924, 14966 of 2017, 2246 of 2018
Decided On : 05-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, Mr. Savyasachi Sahai, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Mr. Gaurav Goel, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, M/s. Devasa, Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Mr. Justine George, Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Kanika, Mr. Ravi Bharuka, Ms. Sarushree, Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Anurag Gharote, Mr. A.S. Bhasme, Mr. Abid Ali Beeran, Mr. Dharuv Mehta, Mr. Nishanth Patil, Mr. Rohit Prasad, Mr. Ananth Suresh.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Mr. Bhuvanendra K.V., Mr. S. Mahesh, Mr. Manish Tiwari, Mr. Luv Kumar, Mr. Praveen Vignesh, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Mr. Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Mr. Saransh Jain, Mr. Meka V. Ramakrishna, Mr. Madhavam Sharma, Ms. Sriparna Dutta Choudhury, Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Mr. Mahesh Agrwal, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Mr. Sarans Jain, Ms. Tanvi Manchanda, Mr. Nithin P., Ms. Priyanka M.P., Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Kiran Suri, Mr. S.J. Amith, Ms. Rithika Gambir, Mr. A. Shwarya Kumar, Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Mr. Udaya Holla, Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Mr. Geet Ahuja, Mr. Parikshit Angadi, Mr. Anup Kumar, Mr. O.P. Bhadani, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Mr. Dharm Singh, Mr. Sandeep Grover, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Mr. Pai Amit.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Substantial question of law being sine qua non of section 22 does not ipso facto permit the appellants to seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix of the entire matter.
In cases of compromising and jeopardizing environment, Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of the environment.
Interpretation furthering interests of environment must be given a broader reading.
Non-mention of or erroneous mention of the provision of law is a mere irregularity not vitiating the application or the judicial order and is of no relevance.
When issues in two proceedings are directly and substantially not the same, parties are not common, prayers and the geneses of respective proceedings are entirely distinct and different in their scope and relief; application of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata will not be attracted.

Headnote:(a) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 22 – Appeal to Supreme Court – On grounds mentioned in section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Substantial question of law sine qua non of section 22 – This condition does not ipso facto permit the appellants to seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix of the entire matter – Appellants cannot seek to re-argue their entire case to seek wholesale re-appreciation of evidence and the factual matrix. (Para 37, 38, 55)
       1962 Supp. (3) SCR 549 – Relied upon
       (b) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 15, 16 and 20 – In cases of compromising and jeopardizing environment – Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of the environment. (Para 43)
       (c) Interpretation of statute – NGT Act beneficial legislation – Power bestowed on Tribunal – Should not be read narrowly – Interpretation furthering interests of environment must be given a broader reading. (Para 44, 46)
       (2007) 4 SCC 579 – Relied upon
       (d) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14 and 15 – Instant application not an application simpliciter under Section 14 – Application making specific prayer for restoration of ecologically sensitive land – Application, held, an application u/s 15 with limitation period of 5 years – Application filed in 2014 on basis of Monitoring Committee Report dated 14.08.2013 – Held, within limitation. (Para 49)
       (e) Administration of justice – Non-mention of or erroneous mention of the provision of law – A mere irregularity not vitiating the application or the judicial order – Of no relevance. (Para 50)
       (f) Code of Civil procedure, 1908 – Section 11 – Issues in two proceedings directly and substantially not the same – Parties not common – Prayers and the geneses of respective proceedings entirely distinct and different in their scope and relief – Held, application of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata not attracted. (Para 57, 59)
       Facts of the case:
       These appeals are filed challenging order of the Green Tribunal in an application filed against encroachment of water bodies in Bangalore.
       The Tribunal had stayed construction of any kind by the respondents and had ordered demolition of constructions already made.
       Finding of the Court:
       The directions passed and the penalty imposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents are valid and sustainable and do not suffer from any perversity.
       Only that portion of the order which does not pertain to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 needs to be quashed.
       Result: Civil Appeal No. 5016 of 2016 and Civil Appeal Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016 filed by the appellants/respondent nos. 9 and 10 dismissed. All the other appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S. ABDUL NAZEER. J.

1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for brevity 'NGT Act') challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015 and 04.05.2016 respectively passed by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5016 of 2016 and 8002-8003 of 2016 are respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the Original Application No. 222 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Nos. 9 and 10'). The said Application was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicants'). Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in these appeals are the State of Karnataka and other authorities. They were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the application. Respondent Nos. 12 and 13 herein were subsequently impleaded in the application (for short 'the impleaded respondents').

3. The State of Karnataka has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4923-4924 of 2017, challenging the general condition and direction No. (1) contained in the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016. The other appeals have been filed by different entities, who were not parties before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016 insofar as it directs a buffer/green zone of 75 meters in respect of lakes, 50 meters in respect of primary Rajakaluves, 35 meters in case of secondary Rajakaluves and 25 meters in case of tertiary Rajakaluves with retrospective effect. According to them, they are adversely affected by the aforesaid condition in the impugned order.

4. The applicants filed O.A. No. 222 of 2014 by contending that ecologically sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short 'the KIADB') to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 vide Notifications dated 23.04.2004 and 07.05.2004 respectively for setting up of Software Technology Park, Commercial and Residential complex, hotel and Multi Level Car Parks. The Master Plan formulated by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short the 'BDA'), identifies the allotted land as 'Residential Sensitive' though the same land was identified in the Draft Master Plan as 'Protected Zone'. It was further contended that the Revenue Map in respect of properties as referred in the Land Lease Agreements has multiple Rajakaluves (Storm Water Drains). The development projects in question sit right on the catchment and wetland area which feeds the Rajakaluves, which in turn drains rain water into Bellandur Lake. The project will thus encroach two Rajakaluves of 1.38 acres and 1.23 acres each.

5. The Satellite Digital Images of the area from the year 2000 to 2012 show encroachment upon these Rajakaluves, as well as the manner in which they are covered by the construction. The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (for short 'SEAC'), which was to assist the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short 'SEIAA'), held its meetings on various dates to examine the project. It had required the appellant No. 9 to submit a revised NOC from the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short 'BWSSB') for the project in question. It was also observed that the project lies between the Bellandur Lake and the Agara Lake. Respondent No. 9 was also directed to take protective measures to spare the buffer zone around Rajakaluves and also to commit that no construction would be carried out in the buffer zone. In the meeting of 11.11.2011, it was recorded that the project proposes car parking facility for 14,438 cars in that environmentally sensitive area.

6. It was alleged that NOC was issued covering an area of 17,404 sq. mtrs. whereas the built up area, as noted by SEAC, is 13,50,454.98 sq. mtrs. Respondent No. 9 obtained NOC from BWSSB by concealing material facts and by misrepresenting that NOC is required only for residential units which form a very minuscule part of the total project. Respondent No. 9 had approached the Karnataka State Pollution Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 244

Cases Referred (2)