P.J. DEVASIA vs THE MOEF - 2021 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 770

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 770

Item No.8:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Appeal No. 24 of 2017 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
P.J. Devasia S/o. Joseph, Pambackal House, Charal P.O., Vaniyappara, Kannur District – 670 706.
... Appellant(s)
Versus
1) The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change Rep. by its Secretary Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
2) State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Represented by its Member Secretary Devi Kripa, Pallimukku, Pettah P.O.
Trivandrum, Kerala – 695 024.
3) District Collector, Kannur District, District Collectorate, Civil Station, Kannur, Kerala.
4) Geologist, District Office, Department of Mining and Geology, Kannur. 5) Reena Metals, MT-89-S, Highway Arcade, Thana, Kannur, Kerala – 6700 002.
Represented by its Managing Partner K.C. James.
...Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s): Mr. Harish Vasudevan.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. M. Sumathi for R1.
Mrs. Vidhyalakshmi Vipin for R2.
Mr. G. Prabhu represented Mr. E.K. Kumaresan for R3, R4.
Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan represented M/s. Taarus Associates for R5.
Date of Order: 07th December, 2021.
CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: HARISH VASUDEVAN
For the Respondent:

O R D E R

1. As per order dated 17.03.2021, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant namely, Mr. Harish Vasudevan submitted that the appellant informed him that he wanted to engage another counsel and he could not represent the appellant. So, we granted an opportunity to the appellant to engage another counsel and posted the case to 12.04.2021.

2. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time by successive notifications and again, on 06.09.2021, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent submitted that the earlier counsel appearing for the appellant informed that he was not interested in appearing before this Tribunal in this matter, as the appellant informed that he wanted to engage another counsel and the case was adjourned to

21.09.2021 for that purpose.

3. On 21.09.2021, the case was adjourned to 06.10.2021 and on 06.10.2021, it was adjourned to 28.10.2021 by notifications. Again the matter was taken up on 28.01.2021 and on that date, there was no representation for the appellant. Further, the same representation was made by the counsel for the 5th Respondent stating that the earlier counsel appearing for the appellant had relinquished the vakalath and in order to give opportunity to the appellant, the matter was adjourned to 12.11.2021. On 12.11.2021, the case was adjourned to 26.11.2021 and on 26.11.2021, it was adjourned to today by notifications.

4. Today, Mr. Harish Vasudevan who filed the appeal on behalf of the appellant submitted that long ago he had issued a notice to the appellant, relinquishing the vakalath and asking him to engage another counsel and he cannot appear for the appellant in this matter, as he had already relinquished the vakalath.

5. Though several opportunities have been given to the appellant to engage another counsel and get ready with the matter, he has not engaged any other counsel and made arrangement to get ready with the matter.

6. Under such circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter.

7. So, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

...................................J.M.

(Justice K. Ramakrishnan)

Sd/-

.....................................E.M.

(Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati)

Appeal No.24/2017 (SZ)

07^th December, 2021. Mn.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document