The Goa Foundation vs The Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority & Ors.

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

mitigation measures were taken. The Tribunal passed an interim Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.07.31 10:22:38 IST Reason:

order of status quo and, thereafter, sought a report from the

1 National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai (for short,

“NIOT”). By the first impugned order dated 22 nd 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

the appellant on 30th March, 2016. The report of the NIOT was filed

on 8th February, 2016. The first impugned order dated 22 nd 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.

4. The second impugned order dated 17th January, 2022 has been

passed on a misc. application filed by the appellant for recall of

the order dated 22nd January, 2020. The Misc. Application for

recall was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court

vide order dated 11th 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

order dated 22nd 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.

7. Our attention is invited to a judgment dated 21st September,

2022 in PIL Writ Petition No. 4 of 2022 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

of the National Green Tribunal at Pune on 9th 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,

the interim relief granted by this Court on 10th 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