TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which had been sought for by the fifth respondent. 2. The facts are simple: the fifth respondent (hereafter called "the Project Applicant") proposed the construction of a new Greenfield international airport. As was required by law and extant statutory notifications, it applied to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (hereinafter, the "MoEF") to seek environmental clearance. The MoEF, after following the prescribed procedure, which included ascertaining the views and objections of the concerned parties, the general public etc., indicated its approval by an order dated 14.08.2017. In terms of Section 19 of the NGT Act, the approval was posted on the website of the MoEF on 14.08.2017. Concededly, the Project Applicant published the approval in an English daily on 13.09.2017. 3. The appellant preferred her appeal to the NGT on 13.11.2017. Along with the appeal, she preferred an application for condonation of delay in approaching the NGT, given the stipulation of Section 19 that the appeal had to be preferred within 30 days from the date of communication of the order impugned. She explained that since the clearance and related documents were voluminous and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.08.2017, when the MoEF uploaded the decision on its website. The ninety-day period within which appeal was to be filed, expired on 12.11.2017, which was a Sunday. It was submitted that under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, if any period prescribed ends on a Sunday or a day on which the Court or the Tribunal does not function, the next day should be considered as the terminus quo in point of time. Consequently, it was submitted that the appeal should be considered as within time and should have been entertained on merits. 7. Lastly, it was argued that the NGT's opinion that sufficient cause was not shown while seeking condonation of delay is erroneous. Learned counsel highlighted that any proposal as well as clearances where voluminous documentation is involved, or if any individual or entity is aggrieved, or adversely affected, the only remedy provided is by way of an appeal. To substantiate the grounds of appeal, it would be essential that in many instances, expert advice is obtained based on which the grounds of appeal can be prepared and urged. If the issue were to be considered in this perspective, the explanation provided by the appellant in her application seeking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal is maintainable after the expiry of 90 days. It is pointed out that in the present case, the 90 day period in fact ended a day prior to the filing of the appeal; it was, therefore, clearly time-barred. 11. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Project Applicant supported the submissions of the Union and argued that the concerned Project Applicant, i.e. M/s Bhogapuram International Airport Corporation Ltd., has been conceived in public interest and in replacement of the existing Vishakhapatnam Airport which is primarily a defence airport. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in H. Dohil Construction Company Private Limited v. Nahar Exports Limited [(2015) 1 SCC 680] to the effect that any aggrieved litigant should be vigilant in the exercise of his rights and that he cannot claim the exercise of discretion for condoning any delay as a matter of right. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in BRS Steels Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 6 SCC 782] In this regard, it was submitted that the appeal before this Court which purports to be under Section 22 of the Act is confined to the grounds specified under Section 100 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986); (i) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, refusing to grant environmental clearance for carrying out any activity or operation or process under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986); (j) any determination of benefit sharing or order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the National Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board under the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (18 of 2003), may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal; Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtant question considered was whether a state could alienate publicly available resources like ponds. This court held that that such transfer or alienation was impermissible. In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India [(2019) 15 SCC 401] this court held that the NGT is under an obligation to consider issues as an expert body, and apply the principle of sustainable development, in adjudicating environmental issues, especially while considering the validity of grant of clearance to large projects under the Environment Protection Act. It was held that the NGT Act: "provides for the constitution of a tribunal consisting both of judicial and expert members. The mix of judicial and technical members envisaged by the statute is for the reason that the Tribunal is called upon to consider questions which involve the application and assessment of science and its interface with the environment." 16. The court noted that to be a member of the NGT, the individual had to possess specified academic qualifications, including a master's degree in science with a doctorate in engineering or technology, with prescribed experience in certain domains. To be an administrative member, the ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the initial 30 day period, required in the main provision. 19. The appellant argues that since there is no indication to the contrary; the appeal is to be considered as having been filed within the extended period of 60 days, since the last (of the 60 days) was a Sunday (12.07.2020). The appellant relied on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, for this purpose. The respondents, notably the Union, opposed this argument. 20. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897[2] stipulates that when the last date for doing something falls on a public holiday, the act "shall be considered as done.." if it "is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open". This provision applies to all Central Acts enacted after the said Act was brought into force. The scope of this provision was considered by this Court in H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh [1957 SCR 208] by a four judge Bench, which explained the object of Section 10 and held as under: "5. ... Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then according to the section the act should be consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. However, the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay." 24. Much later, in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649] this court referred to a large number of previous judgments [State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra (1975) 2 SCC 840; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123; State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132; and Tehsildar (LA) v. K.V. Ayisumma (1996) 10 SCC 634], and observed that adoption of a strict standard of proof sometimes fails to protect public justice and it may result in public mischief. Other decisions have highlighted that there cannot be a universal formula to judge whether sufficient cause has, or has not been shown and the exercise is necessarily fact specific; in Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh [(2010) 6 SCC 786], the court held: "16. While c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that exercise of discretion, per se, is a fact dependent one, and considerable latitude should be given to the court or tribunal of the first instance, in the performance of that task. Nevertheless, as decided, cases and judgments have shown that the exercise of discretion does at times, call for appellate scrutiny by this court. This is one such. The appellant pleaded that since the documentation attendant to the clearance granted to the Project Applicant was voluminous, and expert as well as professional legal advice of the kind necessary to approach the NGT was not available in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the procuring of relevant documents, and correspondence with counsel in Delhi and drafting of the appeal entailed some delay. 29. This court is of the opinion that there is merit in the appellant's argument. The respondents, especially, the project applicant, had urged that the appellant is an interested party, and cannot be called a public-spirited citizen, because she had opposed acquisition of land for the airport and therefore, was able to access legal advice at the High Court stage. There is, in our opinion, nothing in the NGT Act which excludes parties who would....