Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) Appeal No. 172 of 2013 (SZ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order of the 1st respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF) dated 18.11.2013, granting Environmental Clearance (for short EC) to the 4th respondent, M/s. KGS Aranmula Air Port Ltd., to set up an airport at Mallappuzhasserry, Aranmula and Kidangannur villages in Kozencherry taluk of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. A writ petition has also been filed in W.P. (C). No. 6004 of 2012 challenging the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, the State of Kerala declaring the area as an industrial area and the said writ petition is still pending before the Honble High Court of Kerala. The brief facts of the appeal filed herein are stated as follows: 2. The proposed airport is being set up by the 4th respondent on the banks of the holy river Pampa, in an ecologically sensitive and environmentally diverse and rich area. Aranmula is a declared he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
M.S Nambiar (Judicial Member): 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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Swatanter Kumar, (Chairperson) 1. The Legislature has vested the Central Government with the power to issue directions, in writing, to any person, officer or authority, in exercise of its powers and in performance of its functions under the provisions of Section 5 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short the Act). Section 5 has two distinct and significant features. Firstly, it opens with a non-obstante clause to give an overriding effect to such directions but such directions have to be subject to the provisions of the Act. Secondly, in explanation to Section 5, the scope of the power to issue directions has been described by use of inclusive language. It extends to issuance of directions even for closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process. It further goes to the extent of issuing directions with regard to the stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other services. This wide power has been vested in the Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The above applications were filed in NGT against the proposed widening of sectoral roads involving cutting of number of trees in front of National Media Centre (NMC). The Project Proponents stated to be involved in the project are Haryana Development Authority (HUDA) and DLF Ltd. The main contention of the applicants is that there will be significant air and noise pollution problems due to movement of traffic in the area due to cutting of trees which were acting as a buffer and reducing noise and dust pollution. Incidentally, an email was received by NGT from Haryali Welfare Society addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Haryana and the Copy was sent to NGT raising the similar issues pertaining to the cutting of trees by DLF/HUDA, which was treated as an Application no. 120/2013. Regarding this Application No. 120/2013, NGT passed the order restraining the Respondents from cutting/felling or uprooting any tree on the site in question on 2/08/2013. Besides these two applications,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This Application is filed under Section 18 (1) read with Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. M/s Riverside Resort Pvt. Ltd., the Applicant, herein, is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Applicant, for the purpose of brevity, will be hereafter referred to as œM/s Riverside Resort?. 2. The Application is mainly filed against the construction of a crematorium activities of Respondent No.1, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC). Respondent No.2, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), and Respondent No.4, Collector, Pune are the formal parties. Respondent No.3- M/s Yashak Associates, is a building contractor, in whose favour tender work is allegedly given by the PCMC for construction of the crematorium in question. The Respondent No.5, Irrigation Department, is also a formal party, but seems to have been joined, because it is supervisory authority over flood line areas of the rivers. 3. From the pleadings of the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
DR. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member): 1. The Appellant in the present appeal was the original complainant before the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the Respondent No. 3 before the Appellate Authority. He has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.12.2013 under Section 31-B of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Section 35-B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. 2. The Impugned order of the Appellate Authority was passed in the appeal filed by respondent no. 1, the project proponent, under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. By such appeal he challenged the order of the HSPCB dated 31.03.2013, in and by which the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) has refused to grant consent to operate the unit of the respondent no. 1 for the year 2013 and 2014 under bot...
Tag this Judgment!