Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 561
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4384-4385/2023
THE GOA FOUNDATION APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE GOA STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first and the
second respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent, and the learned ASG appearing for the sixth respondent.
2. An original application was filed by the appellant before the
National Green Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) under Sections
14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, “the
2010 Act”), taking objection to the construction of Tiracol Bridge
which was proposed to be erected on the Querim Beach in Goa. The
objection was raised on various grounds, including the ground that
there is a violation of CRZ Notification which requires prior
approval of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
(MoEFCC)/SEIAA. Another objection was that the construction was
proposed to be carried out in a No Development Zone (NDZ) and no
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
Date: 2024.07.31
10:22:38 IST
Reason:
mitigation measures were taken. The Tribunal passed an interim
order of status quo and, thereafter, sought a report from the
1
National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai (for short,
nd
“NIOT”). By the first impugned order dated 22 January, 2020, the
Tribunal referred to the observations made in the report of the
NIOT and disposed of the Original Application by directing that the
work of construction of the Bridge may proceed after taking all due
precautions in accordance with law and, particularly, as suggested
in the report of the NIOT.
3. We may note here that after the report was submitted by NIOT,
objections to the report in the form of an affidavit were filed by
th
the appellant on 30 March, 2016. The report of the NIOT was filed
th nd
on 8 February, 2016. The first impugned order dated 22 January,
2020 does not even refer to the objections raised to the report by
the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent pointed out that an affidavit was filed by the third
respondent dealing with the objections raised by the appellant. We
find that there is no reference to the said affidavit in the first
impugned order. Not giving an opportunity to the parties to make
submissions on the report amounts to the breach of the principles
of natural justice.
th
4. The second impugned order dated 17 January, 2022 has been
passed on a misc. application filed by the appellant for recall of
nd
the order dated 22 January, 2020. The Misc. Application for
recall was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court
th
vide order dated 11 March, 2021 in a writ petition filed by the
appellant.
2
5. With the assistance of the learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent, we have perused the second impugned order. According
to us, the only course open for the Tribunal was to recall its
earlier order as the appellant was not given an opportunity to
argue in support of the objections raised by it to the report of
NIOT. As the appellant was not heard on its objections, even the
third respondent was not heard on the subject. Therefore, we are
of the view that the Tribunal ought to have recalled its first
nd
order dated 22 January, 2020 and kept the Original Application for
hearing. However, that was not done.
6. One of the main objects of the 2010 Act is to uphold and
protect the right of the citizens to healthy environment which is a
part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The objects and reasons of the 2010 Act
indicate that the object of setting up the Tribunal was to protect
the said fundamental right. In this case, it was the duty of the
Tribunal to address the issues raised by the appellant on merits.
The duty of the Tribunal was to decide the issues especially when
the contention of the appellant was that the construction of the
proposed bridge will cause harm to the environment.
st
7. Our attention is invited to a judgment dated 21 September,
2022 in PIL Writ Petition No. 4 of 20 22 passed by the Full Bench of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Goa Seat, which holds that
only the Western Zonal Bench of the Tribunal can hear the matters
3
arising from Goa and Maharashtra. In view of this decision of the
Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, now after the order of remand,
the Original Application will have to be heard by the Western Zonal
Bench of the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set
aside. Original Application No.33/2015 (WZ) is restored to its
original number to the file of the National Green Tribunal,
Principal Bench at New Delhi. The Principal Bench shall transfer
the restored Original Application to its Western Zonal Bench at
Pune for hearing.
9. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to
the Registrar of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi, who will ensure that the restored Original Application is
transferred to the Western Zonal Bench of the Tribunal within three
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
10. We direct the parties to appear before the Western Zonal Bench
th
of the National Green Tribunal at Pune on 9 September, 2024 at
10:30 a.m. The parties which are represented today shall not be
issued any further notice and they will be under an obligation to
appear before the Tribunal. Considering the lapse of time, the
Tribunal will permit the parties to file additional pleadings if
they so desire.
11. Till the disposal of the Original Application by the Tribunal,
th
the interim relief granted by this Court on 10 July, 2023 will
4
continue to operate.
12. As a result of the interim order, the construction of Tiracol
Bridge has not commenced. It will be always open for the third
respondent and the State of Goa to request the Tribunal to give an
out of turn priority to the hearing of the restored Original
Application.
13. The Appeals are partly allowed on the above terms.
14. All questions are left open to be decided by the Western Zonal
Bench of the National Green Tribunal at Pune.
..........................J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
..........................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2024.
5