LEADING HOTELS Vs. ANTHONY MENDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri V. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Upadhya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3, Smt. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, Shri D. Lawande, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent No.5 and Shri P. Dangui, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No.6 to 10.

(2.) Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice.

(3.) We have heard extensively Shri V. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Norma Alvares, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Shri S. Updhya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3. The main grievance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had raised a specific ground that the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 to 4 is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short "Act of 2010") and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the challenge to an order passed under the CRZ Notification of 1991. The learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the provisions of the Act of 2010 to point out that as there is material on record to suggest that the said respondents had knowledge of the subject environment clearance the appeal was time barred. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that it is the case of the petitioner that the challenge to the environment clearance and the challenge to the CRZ clearance, are separate and independent and, consequently, the periods of limitation to challenge such orders are on different fields. The learned Senior Counsel, however, points out that it is the case of the respondents that the orders under the CRZ Notification have merged with the environment clearance and consequently, the appeal itself is within time. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that according to the petitioner, the order granting the CRZ clearance is not appealable before the National Green Tribunal in terms of Section 16 of the Act of 2010 as, according to him, such orders do not come within the scope specified therein. The learned Senior Counsel, as such, submits that the Tribunal has failed to examine these aspects, nor the Tribunal has rendered any cogent reasons in the impugned order to suggest that these contentions have been duly considered whilst passing the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel as such, submits that there is a jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal in not dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioners and the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and, as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside.