AMIT MARU Vs. MOEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Application filed by Project Proponent, raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Main Application (Application No.13 of 2014), on the ground that said Application is barred by Limitation as well Applicant has no locus to file it, and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, that Original Applicant (Amit Maru) is not an 'aggrieved person' and, therefore, such Application under Section 14(1) (2) read with Page 3 (J) M.A. No.65/2014 in Application No.13/2014 (WZ) Sections 15 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is not maintainable at his behest.

(2.) THE Project Proponent (M/s Windosor Reality Pvt Ltd), has come out with a case that the plans for construction of commercial building were issued by the Planning Authority on 7.7.1993. The project work was started long back. The construction work was going on for about a period almost over and above 8/10 years. The Project Proponent alleges that the building having 28 floors, 3 level podium and 2 voids, in total 33 floors, have been constructed and that by itself must be deemed to be a notice to the Applicant. So, it is not open for the Applicant now to raise such a dispute under false and frivolous allegations that 'cause of action' to file the Application has arisen first on 23rd October, 2013. The Applicant cannot raise such a dispute at a belated stage by giving goby to the specific provisions of Section 14 (3) read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the special enactments like the Arbitration Act, 1998, the Electricity Act, 2003 and held that where a statute prescribes shorter period of limitation and different scheme of limitation is provided under such a Statute, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are excluded and the Tribunal must apply the period of Page 4 (J) M.A. No.65/2014 in Application No.13/2014 (WZ) limitation as prescribed under the special enactment while exercising its powers. So, when the special provision is set out under Section 14(3) of the NGT Act, then time cannot be extended any more by Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or any such analogues provision.

(3.) THE jurisdiction exercised by the NGT is not equivalent to writ jurisdiction available to the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and as such declaratory relief sought by the original Applicant (Amit Maru) cannot be granted since he is not 'aggrieved person' as such and hence, cannot maintain the Application for want of locus standi. For this reason also, the Application is liable to be dismissed.