MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. versus FORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 05-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
                          MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD.
v.
  FORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5016 of 2016)
MARCH 05, 2019
[A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 22
– Wetlands (Conservation of Management) Rules, 2010 – Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Applicants filed application
before National Green Tribunal (NGT) contending that ecologically
sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board (KIADB) to respondents nos.9 & 10 for setting
up of Software Technology Park, Commercial and Residential
Complex, hotel and Multi-level Car Parks – It was further contended
that the Revenue Map in respect of properties referred in the Land
Lease Agreements had multiple Rajakaluves (Storm Water Drains)
– It was alleged that the said Project was encroaching on two
Rajakaluves – It was also alleged that respondents had obtained
NOC by concealing material facts and commenced construction over
the ecologically sensitive area of the lake catchment area and valley,
with utter disregard to the statutory compliances – Tribunal
constituted the committee to inspect the projects in question and
submit the report – Further, Tribunal directed Respondent No.9 to
pay penalty of Rs.117.35 crores and Respondent No. 10 to pay
penalty of Rs. 22.5 crores for environmental and ecological
restoration – In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellants
contended that original application was not maintainable as it did
not satisfy requirements of s.14(1) and 14(3) of the Act and it was
barred by limitation as it was not filed within six months from date
on which cause of action arose – Held: The Jurisdiction of the
Tribunal is provided u/ss. 14, 15 and 16 of the Act – s.14 provides
the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question
relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right
relating to environment) is involved – However, such question should
arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule
I – Also, s.15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and
jurisdiction r/w. s.20 of the Act – Whenever the environment and
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 995
995
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
ecology are being compromised and jeopardized, the tribunal can
apply s.20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of the
environment – The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power
bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly – An
interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be
given a broader reading – Further, an interpretation that is in favour
of conferring jurisdiction to the Tribunal should be preferred rather
than one taking away jurisdiction – Insofar as limitation is
concerned, the original application filed was not an application u/
s. 14 of the Act, it was a petition u/s. 15 of the Act and thus it could
be filed within 5 years from the date on which the cause for such
compensation on relief first arose – Also, the findings arrived at by
the Tribunal are not only based on the documents that were available
on record but also on the pleadings that were made by the parties
buttressed by the Committee’s report and the inspection note of the
Expert Members – Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty
imposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents valid and
sustainable.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.22 – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Held:s. 22 provides for an appeal to the
Supreme Court on the grounds specified in s.100 of the CPC – U/
s.100 CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case
involves a substantial question of law as may be framed by the
Appellate Court – The scope of appeal u/s. 22, therefore, is restricted
to substantial question of law arising from the judgment of the
Tribunal.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.22 – Appellants sought
a factual review through the methodology of re-appreciation of
factual matrix by Supreme Court u/s.22 of the NGT Act – Held: It is
settled that merely because the remedy of appeal is provided against
the decision of the Tribunal on a substantial question of law alone,
that does not ipso facto permit the appellants to agitate their appeal
to seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix of the entire matter –
The appellants cannot seek to re-argue their entire case to seek
wholesale re-apprecia

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.