Você está na página 1de 7

NGT and protection of Environment

Introduction: the birth of NGT


The National Green Tribunal was established in the year 2010 in order to uplift
the right to healthy environment which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. The courts in India are overburdened with backlog of cases which
makes it unfeasible to dispose of environmental cases expeditiously. Basically in
environmental cases immediate preventive action is required in order to protect
the environment from degradation which the court fails to provide. Therefore
urgent need was felt for an alternative forum so that environmental cases were
resolved without much delay.
The need for setting up of Environmental court was first highlighted by the
Supreme Court of India in MC Mehta v. UOI. The judgment highlighted the
difficulties faced by judges while disposing of environmental cases. It further
observed that Environment Court must be established for expeditious disposal
of environmental cases and reiterated it time and again. As a consequence two
legislation were enacted by the parliament the National Environment Tribunal
Act, 1995 and National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997. The two Acts
was utter failure and there was growing demand that some legislation must be
passed to deal with environmental cases more efficiently and efficaciously.
The Law Commission while giving model for NGT referred the practise of the
Environmental Courts in Australia and New Zealand. The commission relied on
multi-faceted Court with judicial and technical inputs. As a result NGT was
formed, it is a special fast-track quasi-judicial body comprising of judges and
environment expert who will ensure expeditious disposal of cases.
The Act is also an endeavor of the Parliament under Article 253 of the
Constitution read with Entry 14 of List I of Schedule VII to fulfill the obligation of
India towards Stockholm Declaration, 1972 and Rio Declaration of 1992 in which
India participated, calling upon the States to take appropriate steps to protect
human environment and to develop national laws regarding liability and
compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.
Analysis of NGT working
An analysis of the NGT since its inception has been progressive in its approach
towards environmental protection in general and the right of marginalized people
in particular. The NGT has not only come down heavily against microstructures
but has also challenged the big corporate sectors and the central and state
governments for not following environmental regulations. Here are some of the
cases where Tribunal came harsh on perpetuator of environment degradation.

1. Baijnath Prajapati v. Ministry of Environment and Forests


NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Decided On: 20.01.2012


This case is an Appeal challenging the orders granting environmental clearance in favor of
M/s Moser Baer Power & Infrastructure Ltd for a coal based thermal power plant. After a few
months, the Appellant filed an application seeking the withdrawal of his Appeal on the
ground that after careful consideration, he has come to the conclusion that the present
developmental project is necessary for the region and he does not oppose it. It is claimed that
the decision to withdraw the application has been made voluntarily without any undue
influence. The NGT emphasized that it has been constituted for strengthening environmental
protection and the conservation of forests and other natural resources by referring to the
Statements of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act, 2010. The NGT cautioned future litigants
against invoking its jurisdiction for frivolous litigation that unnecessarily consumes the time
of the tribunal without serving the intended purpose.
The NGT also affirmed that it does not have the power to prevent the withdrawal of the case
and also does not have suo motu powers to proceed with the case. However, the NGT
imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Appellant to be paid to the Respondent in order to prevent
such frivolous litigations arising in the future.
2. Rajeev Suri v. Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Ors
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Decided On: 19.04.2016
In this case, the Applicant sought restitution/ restoration (under Section 15 of the NGT Act)
of Kushak Nala running through Defence Colony, New Delhi following the Reverse
Environment Impact Study conducted by an independent body authorized by the tribunal.
The Applicant contends that the DDAs work on the drainage system has caused adverse
environmental impacts and hazards to human health and safety. This case only deals with the
maintainability of the present suit and does not adjudicate on the merits. The Respondents
contend that the present application is barred by limitation because of a delay of more than
six months as per Section 14 of the NGT Act. The NGT held that even assuming that the
construction of the drain started much earlier, the ill effects of the construction could not have
been manifest from the moment of starting the project. Ill effects gradually mounted with the
progress in the construction project. Hence, at every new stage, fresh and distinct cause of
action arose. Essentially, the NGT held that the principle of recurring cause of action would
be applicable and each such cause of action would have its own limitation period and would
not be barred by the limitation imposed by the earlier act. Hence, the Respondents
contentions were dismissed and the application was held maintainable.
3. Wilfred J. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL


PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Decided On: 17.07.2014
The present case was instituted by an Application filed by a group of fishermen against
Vizhinjam Port Project on the grounds that it had adverse environmental impact and also had
an adverse effect on their livelihood. The issue to be decided was whether the NGT had
jurisdiction to hear the matter. It was held that as per the scheme of the NGT Act, the Tribunal
has complete independence to discharge judicial functions and any question relating to the
environment, falling within the Scheduled Act would have to be examined by the Tribunal,
subject to the provisions of relevant Acts and the Tribunal would have to examine on merits
whether areas in question, would have require some protection or preservation within ambit
and scope of environmental jurisprudence. Hence, the impugned application was held to be
maintainable because the Tribunal adopted a wide and comprehensive definition of
environment and held that it had jurisdiction to entertain all such matters pertaining to the
environment as per environmental jurisprudence and purposive construction of the NGT Act.
4. P. Sundararajan and Ors. v. The Deputy Registrar National Green Tribunal and
Ors.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided On: 07.07.2015
This case dealt with the issue of the validity and exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the
NGT under the NGT Act. The Court relied extensively on the case of Union of India and
others v. Major General ShriKant Sharma and another 2015 (3) Scale 546 in coming to its
conclusions. The main conclusions derived from the said judgment are as follows:

The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the
basic essential features of the Constitution and any legislation including Armed
Forces Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Refer: L. Chandra and S.N. Mukherjee).

The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32
though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, they will
certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the
Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act.
(Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd.)

When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition
should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita
Sharma).

The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an
effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under
which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma).

5. Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 09.08.2012
In this case, the Supreme Court essentially dealt with the issue of whether the job of
overseeing various Committees involved in the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research
Centre ('BMHRC') and Bhopal Memorial Hospital Trust (BMHT/Trust') (which was
constituted for purposes of providing healthcare for affected victims of the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy) was to be transferred to the appropriate High Court. The Court also expressly
limited the jurisdiction of the NGT in the present matter. The Court held that since the present
caser does not involve any complex or other environmental issue, and primarily requires
administrative supervision of the orders of the Courts, it is appropriate to transfer it to the
Madhya Pradesh High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction to better serve the ends of
justice.

6. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided On: 07.04.2016
This case discussed the genesis of environmental regulatory authorities in India and
specifically addressed the issue of whether the Loss of Ecology Authority (LoEA) should be
wound up and replaced by the NGT. The Court concluded in the affirmative and issued the
following orders:
The LoEA as a permanent body is dismissed.
All the claims pending investigation/ enquiry on the file of the LoEA shall stand
transferred to the Chennai branch of NGT.
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 14(3) and Section 15 (3) or
Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, will not apply to the claims so
transferred from the LoEA, in view of the fact that those claims were entertained by

an Authority which had jurisdiction to entertain them, at the time when they were
taken on file and also in view of the fact that the period of limitation prescribed in the
National Green Tribunal Act could not be made applicable to cases transferred from
another Authority.
The prescription regarding court fee contained in Rule 12 of the National Green
Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules 2011 shall not apply to the claims
transferred from the LoEA, since they are transferred under orders of court, after the
abolition of an Authority.
In view of the huge volume of claims now getting transferred to the National Green
Tribunal, the Central Government shall constitute, at least one additional Bench at
Chennai, as undertaken by the learned Additional Solicitor General, for the present.
The Central Government shall examine the constitution of another additional Bench,
within six months, so that the Tribunal does not crush under the weight of such a huge
volume.
The Union of India shall consider rehabilitating the employees of the Loss of Ecology
Authority whose particulars are furnished in paragraph 79 above by absorbing them
into the National Green Tribunal.

The case of corporate giant Mantri TechZone Pvt Ltd and Core Mind
Software Services Pvt Ltd:
The recent judgment of NGT which was propounded against Mantri Constructions
Group of Bangalore is big boost to the environment and sustainability activism in
Bengaluru carried out by citizens. The NGT in this case has imposed a new buffet
zone of 75 meters for lakes and wetlands. The historic judgment will affect all the
construction operation which is being carried out within 75 meter of lakes.
Earlier known as Manipal ETA Infotech, the mixed residential project got
clearance under Special Economic Zone (SEZ) category, in a High Level
Clearance Committee meeting held during Global Investors Meet in 2000, when S
M Krishna was the chief minister of Karnataka.
The project that was dormant for a long time got reactivated in recent years. The
ambitious IT park-cum-residential project where Mantri Developers was a
partner, was planned at a cost of Rs 2300 crore. The project was planned on 72
acres of land between two of Bengalurus important lakes, which forms the
catchment area for Bellandur lake. The project was renamed as Mantri Techzone
Private Limited, with a major change in stakeholding patterns.
A copy of the BWSSB no-objection certificate issued to the builder sourced by
Citizen Matters revealed that the NOC was partial and did not cover the full
project. A study by
Indian Institute of Science (IISc) revealed that the project has encroached the
major stormwater drain that connects Madivala lake to Bellandur. The study also
said that the project would cause massive traffic jams in the area. Citizen Matters
had written a series of articles on the issue.

A case was filed in the High Court of Karnataka by Namma Bengaluru Foundation
(NBF), an nongovernmental organisation founded by Rajyasabha MP Rajeev
Chandrashekhar. The case in NGT was fought by Forward Foundation, Praja-RAAG
and Bangalore Environment Trust. NBF withdrew the PIL in the High Court and
impleaded in the NGT case. The NGT stayed the mega project through its interim
order dated 16th April 2014.
Lets look at the key highlights of the case:

1. 07.05.2015- NGT- NGT penalized both builders for commencing construction before
receiving clearances and cites the violation of environmental laws. Mantri Techzone
Private Limited and Core Mind Software and Services Private Limited are ordered to pay
Rs 117.35 crore and Rs 22.5 crore as penalty respectively, for "illegal and unauthorized"
construction in an ecologically sensitive area. NGT constitutes an eight-member
committee to inspect, validate and submit a report within three months.
2. 20.05.2015- SC- The Supreme Court granted a stay on the National Green Tribunal
(NGT) order imposing a penalty of Rs 117.35 crore on Mantri Techzone Pvt Ltd and
Rs 22.5 crore on Coremind Software and Services Pvt Ltd for not following the green
norms. The stay was granted as Mantri and Coremind contended that they were not
given enough opportunity to be heard before the NGT. The NGT allowed the
appellants to proceed with construction only on payment of penalty. The Supreme
Court stays the fines and gives the companies a weeks time to approach NGT with a
review application.
3. 07.05.2016- NGT- The Tribunal disposed of Original Application No. 222 of 2014 in
the case of Forward Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. By its detailed
judgment, various directions were passed such as upholding the levy of the
Environmental Compensation payable by the Respondents to the tune of INR 117
crores and INR 22.5 crores, appointment of High Powered Committee which was
required to submit its report to the Tribunal, etc.
The Tribunal also imposed certain conditions and issued appropriate directions, as a
condition precedent for these projects to re-commence and/or complete their projects
in accordance with law.
Key Highlights of Judgment
a) New buffer zone limits demarcated
For lakes: 75 m from the periphery of the water body to be maintained as green
belt and buffer zone for all existing water bodies.
50 m from the edge in case of primary Rajkulewas.
35 m from the edge in case of secondary Rajkulewas.
25 m from the edge in case of tertiary Rajkulewas.
These buffer zones are to be treated as no construction zones in order to maintain
sustainable development.
All existing constructions of the Respondents in such areas are to be demolished
and no new constructions in these areas are allowed.
b) All STPs operating in the area whether Government or privately owned should meet
the revised standards notified by CPCB/ MoEF.

c) Bangalore receives less water than required from the Cauvery river and the entire
zone falls within the critical zone in terms of ground water exploitation. Hence the
following rules have been prescribed:
At the time of application for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC), the water
requirement for construction phase and operation phase are to be considered
separately.
All project proponents should mandatorily use only treated sewage water for
construction purposes and this should be a condition precedent for EC.
If the quality of treated sewage water does not conform to the quality required for
construction, necessary up gradation in STP should be immediately undertaken.
The Supreme Court on 12th May 2016 stayed the Rs 117 crore penalty imposed on real estate
developer Mantri Techzone Pvt Ltd by the National Green Tribunal for encroaching water
bodies in Bengaluru. A bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice R Banumathi directed
maintenance of status quo and asked all the builders not to raise constructions within 75
metres from the lake and 50 metres from the storm water drain in the city, in keeping with the
NGT's direction.
The analysis of some of the prominent cases disposed of by NGT demonstrates that it is most
consistent and progressive environmental authority of India. The NGT refrains to favour
infrastructure project nor does it causes delay in resolving environmental cases before it. It
has been largely successful in implementing its decisions, which more often are staying
environmental clearance. Also the NGT appears to have empowered various legal advisors all
over India to represent considerable authority in environmental law.

Você também pode gostar