Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2008
Item No.1:- Court No.1 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI (Through Video Conference)
Miscellaneous Application No.07 of 2022 (SZ) in Original Application No. 87 of 2021(SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s. Puravankara Project Limited a. No.7, LVR Center, Sheshadri Road, Chennai – 600 018 (Tamil Nadu)
b. 36/2, Gandhi Mandapam Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 085 Tamil Nadu c. 130/1, Ulsoor Road, Bangalore – 560 042 (Karnataka)
…Miscellaneous Applicant(s)
WITH
1. Arvind Kumar Agrawal Flat No.B02-302, Provident Cosmo City, Near Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam – 603 103.
2. Janarthanan Flat No. B01-302, Provident Cosmo City, Near Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam – 603 103.
3. V. Sundareswaran Flat No. B01-202, Provident Cosmo City, Near Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam – 603 103. 4. Amit Kumar Ghosh Flat No. B01-103, Provident Cosmo City, Near Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam – 603 103.
5. S. Renganathan Flat No. B01-101, Provident Cosmo City, Near Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam – 603 103.
6. Radha Krishnan Flat No. B01-003, Provident Cosmo City, Near Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam – 603 103.
7. Ravichandran K.S.
Flat No. B06-101, Provident Cosmo City, Near Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam – 603 103.
8. Santosh Sengunthar Flat No. A23-201, Provident Cosmo City, Near Pudupakkam Panchayat Office, Pudupakkam – 603 103. …Respondents No.1 to 8/
Original Applicants No.1 to 8
9. The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Govt. Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
10. Environment Secretary State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Tamil Nadu Panangal Maaligai, No.1 Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 11. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
12. District Environment Engineer Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Maraiamalai Adigalar Street, Next to Municipal Office, Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram District, Chennai 603 209.
…Respondents No.9 to 12/
Original Respondents No.1 to 4 For Applicant(s): Mr. Rahul Balaji and Mr. R. Sathish Kumar.
For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R9.
Mrs. Me. Saraswathy for R10.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R11 & R12.
Date of Order: 01st September 2022 CORAM HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
For the Petitioner: VOICE OF NATURE PARTY IN PERSON
For the Respondent:
O R D E R
1. This Miscellaneous Application was filed by the applicant who is the
5th respondent in the Original Application for modification of the Judgment dated 23.05.2022 to the extent of imposition of Environmental Compensation of Rs.5,50,00,000/- on the ground that the project cost itself is less than the amount fixed and in the violation notification issued in 2017 by the MoEF&CC which is a comprehensive notification includes the assessment of compensation for the violation and if any orders have been passed, there is an appeal provided and the Tribunal considering those aspects by itself will deny the right of the applicant in this miscellaneous application to file an appeal as well. So, on that ground, they wanted modification of the Judgment dated 23.05.2022.
2. Heard Mr. Rahul Balaji along with Mr. R. Sathish Kumar appearing for the applicant in this miscellaneous application who is the 5th respondent in the original application and other official respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant in this application reiterated the contentions raised in the application and also submitted that though it ought to have been in the form of a review, some doubt always arises as to whether a clarification or modification is required or a review application have to be filed in cases of this nature. So, on account of that, the application has been filed in the form of miscellaneous application.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the miscellaneous applicant.
5. Even going by the allegations made in this application, it is clear that this Tribunal had considered all the aspects meticulously and only thereafter, came to the conclusion that there was a violation and applied the principles laid down in by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Goel
1 Ganga’s case and fixed the compensation. Even when the Joint Committee was appointed, this Tribunal had directed them to assess the compensation and they have assessed the compensation as well and that was enhanced, by giving detailed reasons for the same.
6. Since we found that there were violations for a larger period, the amount was enhanced from the amount fixed by the Joint Committee. Modification or clarification application can be filed only if there is any clerical or arithmetical error which will have to be corrected and if it is substantial in nature or there is any error apparent on the face of the record, then the remedy of the applicant is to file a review application. So, it cannot be treated as an application for correction of any arithmetical or clerical error so as to modify the order. Even assuming that it is treated as a review application, then also since the Tribunal has considered all these aspects and then fixed the quantum of compensation and if the applicant has any grievance regarding the quantum of compensation fixed or denial of any right, then their remedy is to challenge the same before the Appellate Forum by filing an appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
7. The Office Memorandum issued by the MoEF&CC cannot be treated as a notification issued under Section 5 but it is only in the form an administrative order to regularize certain violations said to have been committed on the basis of the representation made in this regard by several stakeholders.
8. Merely because an Office Memorandum has been issued by the MoEF&CC in this regard will not prevent the Tribunal from exercising its power of imposing compensation, if there is any violation of statutory laws on the basis of the directions and guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. So under such circumstances, even if it is treated as a review application, the applicant is not entitled to get the relief claimed, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant also submitted that when the statutory authorities considering the violation application for construc
