2019 (3) TMI 1924 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Tribunal's judgment, emphasizing environmental protection and sustainable development principles.

Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. Versus Forward Foundation and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Respondent Nos. 9 and 10, upholding the Tribunal's judgment and specific directions to them. Appeals by ... Maintainability of application - disclosure of cause of action over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under the provisions of the NGT Act, 2010 - principle of res judicata and/or constructive res judicata - time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is settled that there is no vested right of appeal unless the statute so provides. Further, if a statute provides for a condition subject to which the appropriate Appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction, the Court is under an obligation to satisfy itself whether the condition prescribed is fulfilled. Exercise of appellate jurisdiction without the fulfillment of statutory mandate would be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the right of appeal provided Under Section 22 is to be read subject to the conditions provided therein - Section 22 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 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 Under Section 22, therefore, is restricted to substantial question of law arising from the judgment of the Tribunal. It is equally 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 - there cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of facts and evidence in a statutory appeal under this provision. Maintainability of the application - HELD THAT:- 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. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- 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. The prayers and the geneses of the respective proceedings are entirely distinct and different in their scope and relief. The issues before the Tribunal would essentially relate to environment ecology and its restoration while the proceedings before the High Court relate to entirely different issues with acquisition of land, its allotment and transfer to the third party - the Tribunal was justified in holding that the objections taken by the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 do not satisfy the basic ingredients to attract the application of res judicata or constructive res judicata. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the application before the Tribunal.2. Limitation period for filing the application.3. Principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata.4. Impact of the Tribunal's directions on the Revised Master Plan, 2015.5. Imposition of environmental compensation on the project proponents.6. General and specific directions issued by the Tribunal.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of the Application:The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the NGT Act. Section 14 provides jurisdiction over civil cases involving substantial questions relating to the environment, arising out of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Section 15 allows the Tribunal to provide relief and compensation to victims of pollution and environmental damage, and for restitution of property and the environment. The Tribunal's power under Section 15(1)(c) is independent and not limited to Schedule I enactments. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is broad and includes preventive and restorative measures for environmental protection. The application was found maintainable under these provisions.2. Limitation Period for Filing the Application:The application was filed under Section 15 of the NGT Act, which allows a period of five years from the date the cause for compensation or relief first arose. Although the environmental clearance was granted in 2012 and the application was filed in 2014, the Tribunal held that the application was within the limitation period as it sought restoration of ecologically sensitive land based on reports from 2013. The Tribunal emphasized that non-mention or erroneous mention of the provision of law does not vitiate the application if the Tribunal has jurisdiction.3. Principle of Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata:The Tribunal found that there was no commonality of parties or issues between the writ petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka and the application before the Tribunal. The issues in the writ petitions related to land acquisition and allotment, while the application before the Tribunal focused on environmental and ecological restoration. The Tribunal concluded that the application was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata.4. Impact of the Tribunal's Directions on the Revised Master Plan, 2015:The Tribunal's directions to maintain a buffer zone around lakes and Rajakaluves were challenged as being contrary to the Revised Master Plan, 2015. The Tribunal held that its directions were necessary for sustainable development and environmental protection. The Tribunal's directions were found to have an overriding effect over the Revised Master Plan, 2015, under Section 33 of the NGT Act, which gives the Tribunal's provisions precedence over inconsistent state laws.5. Imposition of Environmental Compensation on the Project Proponents:The Tribunal imposed environmental compensation on the project proponents for violations of environmental laws and conditions of environmental clearance. The compensation was based on the adverse impact on the environment, including encroachment on Rajakaluves and non-compliance with conditions of environmental clearance. The Tribunal's findings were based on expert reports and inspections. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no perversity in the imposition of compensation.6. General and Specific Directions Issued by the Tribunal:The Tribunal issued several directions, including the constitution of a committee to inspect the projects, maintaining buffer zones around lakes and Rajakaluves, and restoring ecologically sensitive areas. The Tribunal directed that no construction should take place within the buffer zones and that existing offending constructions should be demolished. The Tribunal also directed regular supervision and monitoring of the projects by SEIAA and MoEF. The Supreme Court upheld the directions specific to Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 but set aside the general directions affecting other parties.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Respondent Nos. 9 and 10, upholding the Tribunal's judgment and directions specific to them. The appeals filed by other parties, including the State of Karnataka, were allowed, and the general directions in the Tribunal's order were set aside except those against Respondent Nos. 9 and 10. The Tribunal's decision was found to be within its jurisdiction and in line with the principles of environmental protection and sustainable development.