Item No.5 (Pune Bench)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

I.A. No.202/2024(WZ) &

I.A. No.307/2024(WZ)

IN Appeal No.141/2024(WZ)

Anurang Andrade …..Appellant Versus GCZMA & Ors. ….Respondents Date of hearing: 17.12.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER Appellant : Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate along-with Mr. Aprameya Shivade, Advocate Respondents : Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-1/GCZMA Mr. P. Sawant, Advocate for R-3

ORDER

I.A. No.202/2024(WZ)

1. This I.A. has been filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 45 days’ delay in filing the present appeal against the order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.1- GCZMA, whereby respondent No.1 has ordered demolition of one masonry structure with partly mangalore titles, partly MS steel roofing & concrete plinth (Restaurant), 1 no. temporary structure with concrete plinth & MS steel roofing, located in the property bearing Sy. No.132/5, 6 of Anjuan Village, Bardez, Goa.

2. It is submitted in this I.A. that impugned order was passed by the respondent No.1 on 29.12.2023 but the same was not communicated to the appellant, rather he has applied for a certified copy of the said order on 25.01.2024 and the same was given to the appellant on the same day. Thereafter, appellant filed a Civil Suit No.03/2024 in the Court of District Judge, North Goa, which was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on the ground that it was barred by Section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and thereafter, plaint was rejected vide order dated 23.02.2024. Thereafter, appellant approached the present Advocate on 20.03.2024 to contest this matter before this Tribunal and hence in this process, about 30 days’ period lapsed.

3. In view of above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that there is no deliberate delay on the part of appellant in filing the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that on the legal advice, wrong forum i.e. Court of District Judge was approached by the appellant. But immediately after rejecting the said Civil Suit, the present appeal has been moved with a little delay, which needs to be condoned.

5. From the side of respondent No.1- GCZMA, no reply affidavit has been filed till date against the delay condonation application. But orally, it is submitted by the learned counsel Ms. Supriya Dangare representing respondent No.1 that she has received reply from the Department, which would be e-filed today. But we asked to submit orally as to what is the main objection against this I.A., it is urged by her that the exemption period, which was spent in choosing the wrong forum, cannot be excluded for counting the limitation period. When we again enquired from her as to why the impugned order was not communicated forthwith to the party concerned, no response is given.

6. We are of the view that knowledge of the impugned order could be attributed to the appellant on 25.01.2024 when the certified copy of the same was obtained. Therefore from that date, period of 30 days and thereafter, 60 days beyond that fall in our discretion. We find that the said delay is within the prescribed period of limitation i.e. 90 days. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to allow this I.A. and condone the said delay in filing the present appeal.

I.A. No.202/2024(WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

Appeal No.141/2024(WZ)

7. We deem it appropriate to admit this appeal and accordingly admit the same.

8. Registry is directed to issue Notice to the respondents, returnable within 04(four) weeks. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3 accepts notice on their behalf. Notice be issued to respondent No.2 only.

9. Appellant is directed to take necessary steps for service to the respondents by both ways (Dasti as well as by Registered Post) and also on available e-mail/WhatsApp and submit service affidavit within one wee