Source: https://vlex.in/vid/m-s-jaypee-infratech-545838674
Timestamp: 2019-05-24 04:05:13
Document Index: 194208282

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 240', 'Application No. 158', 'Application No. 240', 'Application No. 158', 'Application No. 240', 'Application No. 158', 'application no. 58']

Miscellaneous Application No. 240/2014 and Original Application No. 158/2013. Case: M/s. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar and Ors.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - Case Law - VLEX 545838674
Miscellaneous Application No. 240/2014 and Original Application No. 158/2013. Case: M/s. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar and Ors.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 240/2014 and Original Application No. 158/2013
Party Name: M/s. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar and Ors.
Counsel: For Appellant: Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pawan Upadhyay and Mr. Manan Verma and Mr. Manan Verma, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Vivek Chib, Mr. Asif Ahmed, Advs. for Moef Respondent No. 1, Ms. Savitri Pandey, Advs. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Ms. Savitri Pandey and Mr. S.N. Pandey, Advs. for Respondent No. 3...
Judges: Dr. P. Jyothimani and M.S. Nambiar, JJ. (Members (J)), Dr. G.K. Pandey, Dr. Prof. P.C. Mishra and Ranjan Chatterjee, Members (E)
Issue: Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 22(3), 22(3)(f); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1, Order XLVII Rule 47, Order XLVIII Rule 1, Section 114; National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 19, 19(4)(f); Wild Life (protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 5-B, 5-C(2)
Judgement Date: May 30, 2014
M.S. Nambiar, J. (Member (J)), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
1. This application is for review/modification of the final order dated 03.04.2014 passed in original application no. 58/2013 filed by respondent No. 11/Noticee no. 34 (M/s. Jaypee Infratech Ltd.). By order dated 03.04.2014, the original application was disposed of giving certain directions making it clear that the decision taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) based on those directions will be subject to the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The O.A. was filed praying for a direction against the respondents to prevent illegal and unauthorized construction works undertaken by the developers within a radius of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. While the original application was pending, by interim order dated 28.10.2013 based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.12.2006 in "Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India". It was held that any new project which is being considered for the purpose of issuance of EC by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) or by the MoEF, if it falls within a radius of 10 km from the boundary of Okhla Bird Sanctuary, E.C. shall not be granted unless the authority is satisfied that the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) has given no objection for the project. It was also directed that wherever Environmental Clearances has been granted, it shall be kept under suspension as in-operative unless and until the National Board for Wild Life gives no objection certificate. In the final order, the interim orders passed earlier were directed to continue in operation till notification is issued by the MoEF regarding Eco-Sensitive Zone in respect of Okhla Bird Sanctuary.
2. The present application is filed contending that the Tribunal passed the interim order based on a wrong assumption that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India' case has laid down that the eco-sensitive zone in respect of Okhla Bird Sanctuary is within a radius of 10 km from the boundary of the bird sanctuary.
3. The case of the applicant is that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.12.2006 in 'Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India' case does not declare that the eco-sensitive zone is within a radius of 10 km from the boundary of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary and therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review/modification of the order dated 03.04.2014. The applicant would contend that the question whether by the order dated 04.12.2006 passed in Writ Petition no. 460/2004 (Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India & Ors.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court prohibited any mining activity within a distance of 10 km from the boundaries of the National Parks or Wild Life Sanctuaries was later considered by the Green Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the decision dated 21.04.2014, it was declared that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not passed any order for implementation of the decision taken on 21.01.2002 by the National Board for Wild Life to notify areas within a radius of 10 km of the boundary of the National Parks or Wild Life Sanctuary as eco-sensitive areas, with a view to conserve the forest/wild life and environment and that there was no direction interim or final prohibiting mining activities within a radius of 10 km of the boundary of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries and it is for the MoEF, Government of India to issue draft notification defining eco-sensitive zones around each protected area and after objections are received, the Central Government have to consider the same and, thereafter, take decision regarding imposition of prohibition of mining activities in the eco-sensitive area within this period stipulated in sub rule 3(b) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and no notification has so far been issued.
4. The applicant would contend that by the said decision prohibition of mining was restricted to a distance of 1 km from the boundary of the bird sanctuary and not 10 km and, therefore, the direction in the interim order prohibiting constructions without approval of the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) within a radius of 10 k.m., which was made absolute by the final order, warrants review/modification.
5. We have heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant in M.A. No. 240/2014, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the MoEF, the Learned Counsel appearing for the original applicant, and the other respondents.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant argued that when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the order of the Tribunal, prohibiting issuance of environmental clearance before getting no objection from NBWL in case of new projects and keeping environmental clearances already granted under suspension and also...