VIKAS K. TRIPATHI Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY , this Appeal was filed by Appellant -Vikas Tripathi, before the National Green Tribunal (PB), New Delhi. He filed Misc. Application No. 628/2013, in the said Appeal. On the first date of admission, i.e. July 17th, 2013, the Hon'ble Principal Bench of NGT, passed following order: M.A. No. 628 of 2013 "Notice of this Misc. Application on the question of limitation be issued by registered post/acknowledgement due and Dasti as well. Notice returnable on 04th September, 2013." ...Sd/ - xxx...,CP (Swatanter Kumar) ...Sd/ - xxx...,JM (U.D. Salvi) ...Sd/ - xxx..., JM (S.N. Hussain) ...Sd/ - xxx..., EM (P.S. Rao) ...Sd/ - xxx..., EM (Ranjan Chatterjee)

(2.) THE issue of limitation, thus, loomed at large since day one of filing of the present Appeal. Learned Advocate for the Appellant was made aware about such objection in respect of limitation, particularly, when we directed learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7, to file reply affidavit to delay condonation Application, stating relevant information as to the date of communication by way of placing Environmental Clearance (EC) in the public domain on the website, including time of placing it on the website and for how much period it was so on the display. At the relevant time when such direction was given by order dated September 28th, 2013, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, made a categorical statement that there was newspaper publication of revised E.C.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT development is rather interesting, inasmuch as learned Advocate for the Appellant sought amendment of the Appeal Memo, on the ground that he desires to make it comprehensive Application -cum -Appeal under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the NGT Act, 2010. He contended that there are plural remedies available in view of the facts stated in the Appeal Memo. Accordingly, he got the Appeal Memo amended and requested that his further Memo of Appeal filed by him, may be amalgamated with the previous Appeal No. 80 of 2013, and that is what he desired to describe as comprehensive amended Application. By order dated October 29th, 2013, this statement of learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Pratap is amply clear. We may reproduce the same for ready reference: "We have heard Learned Counsel Mr. Aditya Pratap. By Order dated 9th October 2013, in Appeal No. 80 of 2013, we noted that Learned Counsel desires to amend the Appeal, in order to make it as a comprehensive Application -cum -Appeal under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010. The Counsel then submitted that due to availability of plural remedies, he desires to amend the Appeal Memo for conversion of the same into the form of Application. The Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 indicated that he may not take any objection, if such Application is submitted and amendment is carried out. What we find today is that the Learned Counsel has presented Memorandum of another Appeal, without carrying out any amendment, as such. He argued that the Second Appeal may amalgamated with earlier Appeal and that is what he describes as comprehensive Amendment Application. According to him, the second Memorandum of Appeal itself can be termed as amendment in view of the provision of Rule 16(7) of the National Green Tribunal (Practices & Procedure) Rules 2011. We pointed out to the Learned Counsel that filing of Second Appeal by submitting a letter dated 21st October 2013, addressed to the Registry, is not the true compliance of the earlier order, in as much as, he is supposed to submit a regular Amendment Application, by indicating proposed amendments to be carried out in the Memorandum of Appeal and then, to file the amended Application. The procedure for filing of Amendment Application is well settled. Amendment Application will be treated as Misc. Application, in as much as, the amendment must be restricted to the relief, which may be sought within permissible limits of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of NGT Act. The Applicant may not be allowed to include unnecessary pleadings or irrelevant pleadings in the Amendment Application. The purpose of amendment is to secure that the pleadings are focused to the issues, which are involved in the lis. Therefore, filing of separate Amendment Application is always essential and copy of such Application has to be served on the other side, in order to get response of other side as regard a nature of the amendment to be carried out. The Applicant cannot carry out any kind of amendment, as per his whim and choice. It must have some nexus with the nature of the litigation and the case put forth by him. The Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant vehemently argued that the Civil Procedure Code, is not strictly applicable and therefore, the Application for Amendment, need not be filed and that the present Second Appeal may be treated as Amendment Application. It is true; no doubt, those provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applicable to the proceedings before this Tribunal. However, when the Rule 16(7) of the NGT (Practices & Procedure) Rules 2011, categorically states that Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, will be applicable, then the Amendment ought to be carried out, in accordance with the said procedure. In other words, we cannot exclude the said provision, when it has been so specifically enumerated for the Rules. Under the circumstances, we direct the Applicant to take appropriate steps to file the Amendment Application, as per Order VI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and to do the needful. The Application/Appeal will be deemed as dismissed, in case no such Application is filed within a period of three (3) weeks. If the Application for Amendment, is filed, the Registry then to serve copy thereof on the other side without any delay. The Applicant may file such Amendment Application in the Registry, as provided under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and, it shall be registered as Miscellaneous Application. ...Sd/ - xx...JM(Justice V.R. Kingaonkar) ...Sd/ - xxx... EM(Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande)