NDLI: Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Forward Foundation and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	18 and 22 National Green Tribunal Act alloted to KIADB 15 16 ecologically sensitive land 2010 project encroaching on two Rajakaluves s. 14
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (14 of 1977) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (19 of 2010) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (11 of 1963)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	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 ScheduleI – 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 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 off actual 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-appreciation of evidence and the factual matrix that has been considered by the Tribunal is ex facie impermissible u/s.22 – There cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of fact sand evidence in a statutory appeal under this provision. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14 and 15 – Held:s.15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction, independent of s.14 thereof – Further, s.14(3) juxtaposed with s.15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. s. 14 and s.15 of the Act) independently – The limitation provided in s.14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and whereas in s.15 it is 5 years – Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep s.14 and s.15 as self-contained jurisdictions.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 315
Petitioner	Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent	Forward Foundation And Ors.
SCR	[2019] 4 S.C.R. 995
Judgement Date	2019-03-05
Case Number	5016

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Forward Foundation and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Meghalaya Vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-hasao District Committee & Ors.

Citizens for Green Doon Vs. Union of India and Others

Techi Tagi Tara Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors.

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. V. B. R. Menon & Others

Gajubha Jadeja Jesar Vs. Union of India & Ors.

M/s Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests & Ors.

The Director General (road Development) National Highways Authority of India Vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Ors.

राष्‍ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण अधिनियम, 2010

Sarv Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Forward Foundation and Ors.

Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Forward Foundation and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Meghalaya Vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-hasao District Committee & Ors.

Citizens for Green Doon Vs. Union of India and Others

Techi Tagi Tara Vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors.

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. V. B. R. Menon & Others

Gajubha Jadeja Jesar Vs. Union of India & Ors.

M/s Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests & Ors.

The Director General (road Development) National Highways Authority of India Vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Ors.

राष्‍ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण अधिनियम, 2010

Sarv Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Forward Foundation and Ors.