Msn Laboratories Ltd v. The Registrar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 16..03..2015 Coram:
The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.7272 of 2015 MSN Laboratories Ltd., through General Manager MSN House, Plot No. C-24, Industrial Estate Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad 500 018.
.. Petitioner versus 1.The Registrar National Green Tribunal Southern Zone, 950/1 Poonamalle High road, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600106.
2.Union of India represented by its Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
3.Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board represented by its Member Secretary 4th Floor, Podupu Bhavan Hyderabad Collectorate Complex, N.S.Road, Hyderabad 500 001.
4.V.Rajendra Prasad
5. V.Raju
6. V.Pulya
7. K.Srinu
8. V.Krishnan
9. V.Badru
10. V.Ravi
11. V.Shiva Raju
12. R.Chander 13.V.Ravi 14.R.Hanmanthu 15.V.Umila
16.V.Laxman 17.M.Jangaya 18.V.Peerya Naik 19.V.Janya Naik 20.V.Peerya 21.V.Srinivasulu 22.V.Rukman 23.V.Hanmanthu
24. K.Raju
25. K.Shankar
26. V.Heerya 27.R.Dashrath
28. N.Kishan
29. V.Chinya
30. V.Goari
31. V.Kishan
32. P.Venkatesh
33. K.Dasharath .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in respect of the order dated 10.02.2015 passed in M.A.No.148/2014 and quash the same. For Petitioner ::: K.S.Viswanathan For Respondents ::: R.1 - Tribunal Mr.Su.Srinivasan Assistant Solicitor General for R.2
O R D E R
(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice) The sole issue which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether in a case of environmental clearance where the period of limitation of 30 days for filing an appeal has expired and the window period of 60 days provided for condonation of delay expires during vacation, the appeal can be filed on the re-opening day. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the environmental clearance (EC) was granted on 07.03.2014. It was subsequently put on the website and in the newspaper on 11.03.2014 and 25.03.2014. The appeal was filed on 1st July, 2014. Thus, from which-ever date the period of limitation begins - the date of hosting it on the website or on the publication in the newspaper, the 30 days period had expired, while in both eventualities, the 90 days
period inclusive of 60 days window period expired in the month of June, 2014 when there was vacation for the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The appeal was filed on the re-opening date of 01.07.2014.
2. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that looking to the facts of the case where the villagers have opposed the EC granted to the petitioner, the Tribunal exercised its power to condone the delay. The plea that the appeal could have been filed in summer recess cannot be countenanced since the vacation is not intended for filing of the regular proceedings, a view we are in full agreement with, and find no perversity to interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as justification and sufficient cause for condonation of delay is concerned, the finding is that both in the process of hosting it on the website and publication in the News Paper, all the particulars and materials which were required to enable the applicant to prefer the appeal are not available.
3. The learned counsel by the petitioner fairly conceded that in the process of scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he would not take us through the merits of the controversy, but he has strenuously contended that the period of limitation is 30 days, within which the appeal ought to have been filed. The remaining 60 days period is only a window period. His contention thus is that if the 30 days period lapsed during vacation, there would be justification in filing the appeal on the re-opening day, but not if the window period expired during the vacation.
4. We are unable to accept the contention for the reason that the window period of 60 days creates a bar as observed by the decision of the Full Bench of the NGT in MA.No.573 of 2013 in Appeal.No.67 of 2013 in Sunil Kumar Samanta vs. West Bengal Pollution Control Board on 24.07.2014. For seeking condonation of this delay, sufficient cause is to be shown. The finding is that sufficient cause has been shown. Once sufficient cause is shown and the window period expires during vacation, the applicant is not disabled or at least within his rights to prefer an appeal immediately on the re-opening date. If the appeal would have been filed on 2nd July, 2014, the situation may have been different.
5. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially as the petitioner has every right to defend his case on merits.
6. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. Consequently MP.No.1 of 2015 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ksr Copy To 1.The Registrar, National Green Tribunal Southern Zone, 950/1 Poonamalle High road, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600106.
2.The Secretary Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
3.The Member Secretary Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board 4th Floor, Podupu Bhavan Hyderabad Collectorate Complex, N.S.Road, Hyderabad 500 001.
1 cc to Mr.Su.Srinivasan ,Advocate, SR.No.14562 1 cc to Mr.V.Suthakar ,Advocate, SR.No.14635 W.P.No.7272 of 2015 ctk(co) pmk.27.3.2015