Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1924 - SUPREME COURTMaintainability of application - disclosure of cause of action over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under the provisions of the NGT Act, 2010 - principle of res judicata and/or constructive res judicata - time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is settled that there is no vested right of appeal unless the statute so provides. Further, if a statute provides for a condition subject to which the appropriate Appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction, the Court is under an obligation to satisfy itself whether the condition prescribed is fulfilled. Exercise of appellate jurisdiction without the fulfillment of statutory mandate would be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the right of appeal provided Under Section 22 is to be read subject to the conditions provided therein - Section 22 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 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 Under Section 22, therefore, is restricted to substantial question of law arising from the judgment of the Tribunal. It is equally 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 - there cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of facts and evidence in a statutory appeal under this provision. Maintainability of the application - HELD THAT:- Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than this Act. This gives the Tribunal overriding powers over anything inconsistent contained in the KIAD Act, Planning Act, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act); and the Revised Master Plan of Bengaluru, 2015 (RMP). A Central legislation enacted under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India will have the overriding effect over State legislations. The corollary is that the Tribunal while providing for restoration of environment in an area, can specify buffer zones around specific lakes & water bodies in contradiction with zoning Regulations under these statutes or the RMP. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The application had to be filed within a period of six months from the date on which cause of action for such dispute has first arisen in terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Admittedly, the present application has been filed in March, 2014 and according to them, it is much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Also, there is no application for condonation of delay accompanying the main application. Therefore, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay. The prayers and the geneses of the respective proceedings are entirely distinct and different in their scope and relief. The issues before the Tribunal would essentially relate to environment ecology and its restoration while the proceedings before the High Court relate to entirely different issues with acquisition of land, its allotment and transfer to the third party - the Tribunal was justified in holding that the objections taken by the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 do not satisfy the basic ingredients to attract the application of res judicata or constructive res judicata. Appeal dismissed.
|