National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 22 – Wetlands (Conservation of Management) Rules, 2010 – Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Applicants filed application before National Green Tribunal (NGT) contending that ecologically sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) to respondents nos.9 & 10 for setting up of Software Technology Park, Commercial and Residential Complex, hotel and Multi-level Car Parks – It was further contended that the Revenue Map in respect of properties referred in the Land Lease Agreements had multiple Rajakaluves (Storm Water Drains) – It was alleged that the said Project was encroaching on two Rajakaluves – It was also alleged that respondents had obtained NOC by concealing material facts and commenced construction over the ecologically sensitive area of the lake catchment area and valley, with utter disregard to the statutory compliances – Tribunal constituted the committee to inspect the projects in question and submit the report – Further, Tribunal directed Respondent No.9 to pay penalty of Rs.117.35 crores and Respondent No. 10 to pay penalty of Rs. 22.5 crores for environmental and ecological restoration – In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellants contended that original application was not maintainable as it did not satisfy requirements of s.14(1) and 14(3) of the Act and it was barred by limitation as it was not filed within six months from date on which cause of action arose – Held: The Jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided u/ss. 14, 15 and 16 of the Act – s.14 provides the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved – However, such question should arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I – Also, s.15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and jurisdiction r/w. s.20 of the Act – Whenever the environment and ecology are being compromised and jeopardized, the tribunal can apply s.20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of the environment – The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly – An interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be given a broader reading – Further, an interpretation that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction to the Tribunal should be preferred rather than one taking away jurisdiction – Insofar as limitation is concerned, the original application filed was not an application u/s. 14 of the Act, it was a petition u/s. 15 of the Act and thus it could be filed within 5 years from the date on which the cause for such compensation on relief first arose – Also, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not only based on the documents that were available on record but also on the pleadings that were made by the parties buttressed by the Committee’s report and the inspection note of the Expert Members – Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty imposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents valid and sustainable.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.22 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Held:s. 22 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds specified in s.100 of the CPC – U/s.100 CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case involves a substantial question of law as may be framed by the Appellate Court – The scope of appeal u/s. 22, therefore, is restricted to substantial question of law arising from the judgment of the Tribunal.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.22 – Appellants sought a factual review through the methodology of re-appreciation of factual matrix by Supreme Court u/s.22 of the NGT Act – Held: It is settled that merely because the remedy of appeal is provided against the decision of the Tribunal on a substantial question of law alone, that does not ipso facto permit the appellants to agitate their appeal to seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix of the entire matter – The appellants cannot seek to re-argue their entire case to seek wholesale re-appreciation of evidence and the factual matrix that has been considered by the Tribunal is ex facie impermissible u/s.
22 – There cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of facts and evidence in a statutory appeal under this provision. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14 and 15 – Held: s.15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction, independent of s.14 thereof – Further, s.14(3) juxtaposed with s.15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. s. 14 and s.15 of the Act) independently – The limitation provided in s.14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and whereas in s.15 it is 5 years – Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep s.14 and s.15 as self-contained jurisdictions. Dismissing C.A.No.5016 of 2016 and C.A.No.8002-8003 of 2016, the Court
HELD: 1. The first question raised by the appellants is in relation to the maintainability of the application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been established under a constitutional mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13 of the Constitution of India, to implement the decision taken at the United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development. The Tribunal is a specialized judicial body for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment. The right to healthy environment has been construed as a part of the right to life under Article 21 by way of judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights. [Paras 39 and 40] [1025-D-F]
2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Section 14 provides the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved. However, such question should arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. [Para 41] [1025-F-G]
3. The Tribunal has also jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in Schedule I. Further, under Section 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) the Tribunal can provide for restitution of property damaged and for restitution of the environment for such area or areas as the Tribunal may think fit. It is noteworthy that Section 15(1)(b) & (c) have not been made relatable to Schedule I enactments of the Act. Rightly so, this grants a glimpse into the wide range of powers that the Tribunal has been cloaked with respect to restoration of the environment. [Para 42] [1025-H; 1026-A-B]
4. Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and jurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act. The principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter pays, propounded by this Court by way of multiple judicial pronouncements, have now been embedded as a bedrock of environmental jurisprudence under the NGT Act. Therefore, wherever the environment and ecology are being compromised and jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of the environment. [Para 43] [1026-C-D]
5. The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be given a broader reading. The existence of the Tribunal without its broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c) read with Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless, and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specialized Tribunal specifically to address environmental concerns. The Tribunal, specially constituted with Judicial Members as well as with Experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation to provide for preventive and restorative measures in the interest of the environment. [Para 44] [1026-D-F]
6. Section 15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction, independent of Section 14 thereof. Further, Section 14(3) juxtaposed with Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. Sections
14 and 15 of the Act) independently. The limitation provided in Section 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years. Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep Section 14 and
15 as self contained jurisdictions. [Para 45] [1026-F-H]
7. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to file applications each under Sections 14 as well as 15. Therefore, it cannot be argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to the Tribunal while Section 15 merely supplements the same with powers. As stated supra. the typical nature of the Tribunal, its breadth of powers as provided under the statutory provisions of the Act as well as the Scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leaves no manner of doubt that the only tenable interpretation to these provisions would be to read the provisions broadly in favour of cloaking the Tribunal with effective authority. An interpretation that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should be preferred rather than one taking away jurisdiction. [Para 46] [1027-A-C]
8. Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than this Act. This gives the Tribunal overriding powers over anything inconsistent contained in the KIAD Act, Planning Act, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (“KMC Act”); and the Revised Master Plan of Bengaluru, 2015 (“RMP”). A Central legislation enacted under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India will have the overriding effect over State legislations. The corollary is that the Tribunal while providing for restoration of environment in an area, can specify buffer zones around specific lakes & water bodies in contradiction with zoning regulations under these statutes or the RMP. [Para 47] [1027-C-E]
9. The second question raised by the appellants is that the petition is barred by time. According to appellants, environmental clearance was granted to the respondent No. 9 on 17.02.2012 for which notice was published in the leading newspaper on 12.03.2012 and 14.03.2012. Modified building plan was approved on 30.08.2012, which was followed up to 10.08.2014. Similar events had taken place in regard to the project of respondent No. 10 who had been granted environmental clearance on 30.09.2013. The application had to be filed within a period of six months from the date on which cause of action for such dispute has first arisen in terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Admittedly, the present application has been filed in March, 2014 and according to them, it is much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Also, there is no application for condonation of delay accompanying the main application. Therefore, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay. [Para 48] [1027-F-H]
10. The OA No. 222 of 2014 filed before the Tribunal was not an application simpliciter under Section 14 of the Act. It was an application where a specific prayer has been made with reference to Lake Development Authority’s (“LDA”) Report dated 12.06.2013 and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEF”) Monitoring Committee Report dated 14.08.2013 for restoration of ecologically sensitive land and for maintaining the sensitive in its natural condition so that the ecological balance of the area is not disturbed. It is clear from the documentary evidence supported by data, that the project proponents have committed breaches and the implementation of the project is bound to have serious adverse impact on the ecology, hydrology and the environment in the catchment area of Bellandur Lake. The environmental degradation as established from the documents would give rise to an independent cause of action. Therefore, this was a petition under Section 15 of the Act and thus it could be filed within 5 years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose. [Para 49] [1028-A-D]
11. In fact, in the original application before the Tribunal there was no mention of the provision under which it was being filed. It is well settled principle of law that non-mention of or erroneous mention of the provision of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order. It would be a mere irregularity and would not vitiate the application or the judicial order of the Tribunal. [Para 50] [1028-D-E]
12. The Tribunal has pointed out on the basis of the Committee report of August 2015, that the appellant had encroached 3 acres 10 guntas of Bellandur Lake and a boundary wall has been raised around the said land. The Tribunal has also found that the project proponents have violated the Master Plan. They have not obtained the mandatory clearance from the Sensitive Zone Committee constituted by the Government of Karnataka. It is also clear from the materials on record that there are several other violations by the project proponents. The Tribunal has discussed all these issues. It is also clear from the materials on record that there is a definite possibility of environment, ecology, lakes, and wetland being adversely affected by these projects. [Para 52] [1028-G-H; 1029-A-B]
13. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not only based on the documents that were available on record but also on the pleadings that were made by the parties buttressed by the Committee’s report and the inspection note of the Expert Members. Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty imposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents are valid and sustainable and do not suffer from any perversity. [Para 54] [1030-F-G]
Kishsore Lal v. Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corpn.(2007) 4 SCC 579 : [2007] 6 SCR 139 ;
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing [1962] 3 Suppl. SCR 549
– relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.