TEAM HERALD
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
PANJIM: The National Green Tribunal (NGT)set aside the order of the GCZMA which had asked Sesa Goa to stop and remove extended portion of a jetty deemed illegal within fifteen days, set aside the order dated 4th March, 2011.
It also asked GCZMA to re start proceedings from show cause notice stage and proceed according to directions given by the tribunal.
Pulling up the GCZMA, the tribunal asked it to follow its directions stating “in all cases and with immediate effect,” it directed that show cause, containing all the acts of omissions, commissions which the affected party has committed, rendering it liable for any action in terms of the Notification should be given to parties; the affected party should submit its reply with documents within the time prescribed in the show cause notice; the authority must furnish to the applicants, complaints, documents and/or any other material that it proposes to rely upon for the purposes of determining the controversy in issue; the affected party should be provided a fair opportunity to put forward its case before the authority and after hearing the parties, “the authority should pass a reasoned order. The order should deal, preferably with the grounds which have been raised by the affected party, as precisely as possible.”
Meanwhile, the National Green Tribunal headed by Justice Swatanter Kumar, despite rejecting all the contentions raised by mining companies, directed the union Ministry of Environment and Forests to complete its detailed inquiry and pass appropriate orders within three months on the holding in abeyance of the Environmental clearances of three mining companies. However, it refused to go into the order holding the ECs in abeyance pending inquiry.
Stating that the order holding 139 EC clearance was passed on 14th September, 2012 and “even till date, the proceedings have not been concluded. In other words, the order dated 14th September, 2012, has not culminated into passing of a final order by the competent authority.”
The EC were granted by the MoEF on May 4, 2007.
“There can be no justification in the eye of law, that MoEF should keep this aspect pending for an indefinite period. The applicant has right to carry on a business that in law they are entitled to. Closure of their business certainly invades their rights. Thus, it would be expected of the MoEF to pass the final order upon detailed inquiry expeditiously and without undue delay…. In light of the reasons aforestated and while declining to interfere with the impugned order date 14th September, 2012, we hereby direct the MoEF to complete its detailed inquiry and pass appropriate orders/directions as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than three months from today,” the tribunal said.
The decision was taken in the matter of M/s Lithoferro, M/s Sociedade Timblo Irmaos Ltd, represented by Sociedade de Fomento Ind Pvt Ltd and M/s Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd versus Union ministry of environment and forests.
