Suppression of Facts Leads to Dismissal and Costs: NGT Kolkata Emphasizes Transparency in Environmental Litigation

```markdown

NGT Kolkata Dismisses Environmental Plea, Imposes Costs for Concealing Prior High Court Rejection

Kolkata, April 7, 2025 – The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench in Kolkata, has dismissed an environmental plea and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the applicant for suppressing the fact that a similar petition had already been rejected by the Calcutta High Court. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Amit Sthalekar (Judicial Member) and Hon’ble Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member), delivered the order on April 2, 2025, emphasizing the importance of transparency and full disclosure in legal proceedings.

Case Overview: Allegations of Illegal Construction

The case, Biswajit Dutta Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors. , Original Application No.32/2025/EZ, was filed by Biswajit Dutta Chowdhury , Secretary of Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri , an environmental organization. The application alleged that private respondents, Ashoke Jindal and M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer, were illegally constructing a boundary wall and planning a residential complex on approximately 8 acres of land, including a water body purportedly part of the Karala River in Jalpaiguri .

The applicant sought directives to halt the alleged illegal construction, restore the land to its original state, and initiate legal proceedings against the developers. They claimed the construction was blocking a sluice gate and impacting a water body, causing potential environmental damage and drainage congestion.

Arguments and Tribunal's Scrutiny

The applicant argued that the construction was taking place on a water body without necessary permissions, violating environmental laws. They presented representations and a letter from the Irrigation Department highlighting potential blockage of a sluice gate.

However, the respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the applicant had suppressed material facts. They pointed out that Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri , under its President Jyoti Prosad Roy, had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.A (P) No.426 of 2024) in the Calcutta High Court seeking similar reliefs concerning the same construction. This writ petition had been dismissed by the High Court on January 2, 2025, based on the fact that land conversion had been approved under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

A Joint Committee Inspection Report, submitted by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri , revealed that while some areas were low-lying and waterlogged, the land records classified the plots primarily as 'Dahala' (agricultural land), 'Patit' (fallow land), 'Rasta' (road), or 'Bastu' (homestead), not definitively as a water body in revenue records. The report also noted that construction by M/s Maa Kamakkha Developer was within land recorded in their favor, and certain plots mentioned by the applicant were outside their boundary.

NGT Rulings: Suppression of Facts and Maintainability

The NGT bench noted the applicant's contention that water accumulates on the land during the rainy season, but emphasized that this alone does not classify it as a water body in the absence of revenue record evidence. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant, Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri , through its Secretary, Biswajit Dutta Chowdhury , had indeed suppressed the material fact of filing and dismissal of the prior writ petition by the High Court.

The Tribunal observed,

> “The contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant is totally misconceived since we are of the affirm view that the petitioner/Applicant in the Original Application as well as in the W.P.A.(P) is Paribesh O Aamra except that the Original Application No.32/2025/EZ has been filed by the Secretary of the Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri whereas the W.P.A.(P)/426/2024 has been filed by the President of the Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri . It is also borne out from perusal of the Original Application that the filing of the W.P.A. in the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta and the dismissal of the said writ petition by the Hon’ble High Court on 02.01.2025 has not been disclosed by the Applicant of the Original Application in the Original Application No.32/2025/EZ…”

The NGT further highlighted the High Court's observation that the "question of issuing a direction as sought for in the writ petition does not arise" as long as the land conversion order remained valid. The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the validity of the land conversion order under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act within the present environmental proceedings, citing the limited jurisdiction under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Referencing Supreme Court precedents concerning concealment and suppression of material facts, including Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others and K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others , the NGT concluded that the Original Application was not maintainable due to the deliberate concealment.

Final Order: Dismissal and Costs

Ultimately, the NGT dismissed the Original Application and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the applicant, Biswajit Dutta Chowdhury , Secretary of Paribesh O Aamra Jalpaiguri , for suppression of material facts. The cost is to be deposited with the NGT Registrar within one week, failing which it will be recovered by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jalpaiguri .

This judgment serves as a strong reminder of the paramount importance of honesty and full disclosure in legal proceedings, particularly in environmental matters brought before the NGT. The Tribunal underscored that applicants must present all relevant facts, including prior litigation history, to maintain the integrity of the legal process and ensure fair adjudication. ```