The National Green Tribunal must ensure adherence to principles of natural justice by allowing parties to present their objections and arguments, particularly in matters concerning environmental protection.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first and the second respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, and the learned ASG appearing for the sixth respondent.

2. An original application was filed by the appellant before the National Green Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, “the 2010 Act”), taking objection to the construction of Tiracol Bridge which was proposed to be erected on the Querim Beach in Goa. The objection was raised on various grounds, including the ground that there is a violation of CRZ Notification which requires prior approval of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)/SEIAA. Another objection was that the construction was proposed to be carried out in a No Development Zone (NDZ) and no mitigation measures were taken. The Tribunal passed an interim order of status quo and, thereafter, sought a report from the National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai (for short, “NIOT”). By the first impugned order dated 22nd January, 2020, the Tribunal referred to the observations made in the report of the NIOT and disposed of the Original Application by directing that the work of construction of the Bridge may proceed after taking all due precautions in accordance with law and, particularly, as suggested in the report of the NIOT.

3. We may note here that after the report was submitted by NIOT, objections to the report in the form of an affidavit were filed by the appellant on 30th March, 2016. The report of the NIOT was filed on 8th February, 2016. The first impugned order dated 22nd January, 2020 does not even refer to the objections raised to the report by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent pointed out that an affidavit was filed by the third respondent dealing with the objections raised by the appellant. We find that there is no reference to the said affidavit in the first impugned order. Not giving an opportunity to the parties to make submissions on the report amounts to the breach of the principles of natural justice.

4. The second impugned order dated 17th January, 2022 has been passed on a misc. application filed by the appellant for recall of the order dated 22nd January, 2020. The Misc. Application for recall was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court vide order dated 11th March, 2021 in a writ petition filed by the appellant.

5. With the assistance of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, we have perused the second impugned order. According to us, the only course open for the Tribunal was to recall its earlier order as the appellant was not given an opportunity to argue in support of the objections raised by it to the report of NIOT. As the appellant was not heard on its objections, even the third respondent was not heard on the subject. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have recalled its first order dated 22nd January, 2020 and kept the Original Application for hearing. However, that was not done.

6. One of the main objects of the 2010 Act is to uphold and protect the right of the citizens to healthy environment which is a part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The objects and reasons of the 2010 Act indicate that the object of setting up the Tribunal was to protect the said fundamental right. In this case, it was the duty of the Tribunal to address the issues raised by the appellant on merits. The duty of the Tribunal was to decide the issues especially when the contention of the appellant was that the construction of the proposed bridge will cause harm to the environment.

7. Our attention is invited to a judgment dated 21st September, 2022 in PIL Writ Petition No. 4 of 2022 passed by the Full B