TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The date on which environment clearance (EC) granted to the project proponent is "communicated" to "any person aggrieved" is relevant for calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Sec. 16(h) of the Green Tribunal Act, 2010.[Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.] Considering the fact that such communication is the obligation of plurality of duty bearers and to "any person", we have interpreted Sec. 16(h) of the Act to hold that limitation will commence from the earliest of the date on which the communication is carried out by any of the duty bearers. Having considered the legal and factual submissions of the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the appellant is beyond the mandatory period of limitation. We have thus affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) The respondent being the project proponent, applied and obtained an EC for limestone mining covering an extent of 193.3269 hectares at Talli and Bambor villages in Gujarat from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 5/1/2017. The appellant, the Gram Panchayat of village Talli, sought to challenge this EC before the National Green Tribunal by filing an appeal under Sec. 16(h) of the Act. However, as there was delay, the appeal was accompanied by a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was contended therein that the grant of EC was known to them only through the reply dtd. 14/2/2017 received under the Right to Information Act. It was therefore contended that limitation must commence either from 14/2/2017 or from the last of the communications received from the authorities who had the duty to intimate the appellant.

(3.) By its order dtd. 29/1/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default and even the subsequent application for restoration was also dismissed on 16/7/2021. Challenging these orders, the appellant filed a civil appeal before this Court, primarily contending that such orders could not have been passed by a single member of the Tribunal. Accepting the submission, this Court by its order dtd. 11/7/2022 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration and disposal on merits. While remanding, this Court directed the Tribunal to consider all questions, including the issue relating to limitation. After restoration of the appeal, the Tribunal heard the appeal and the accompanying application for condonation of delay and proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the appeal was filed after the maximum condonable period of 90 days as such barred by limitation. Thus, the present Civil Appeal under Sec. 22 of the Act.