BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Miscellaneous Application No.164 of 2014 (SZ) Miscellaneous Application No.167 of 2014 (SZ) Miscellaneous Application No.168 of 2014 (SZ) in Appeal No. of 2015 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s. G.J. Multiclave (India) Pvt. Limited Rep. by its Chief Executive ‘Dr. S. John Robert No.7-1-47/A, D.K. Road, Ameerpet Hyderabad.500 016 Semby Ramky Environmental Management Pvt. Limited Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Stephen Antony Fernandez 6-3-1089G/10 & 11, Gulmohar Avenue Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082
...
AND 1.The Appellate Authority Sanmanpmr Flat No.501 & 502, Lakdi-ka-Pool Hyderabad-500 004 2.State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary EFS & T Department A.P. Secretariat Hyderabad. 3.Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Member Secretary Paryavaran Bhavan A-3, Industrial Estate Opp: Police Station Sanath Nagar Hyderabad.500 018
Applicant(s)
4. M/s. Roma Industries Rep by its Partner Mr.K. Shyam Babu Door No.12-225, Adarsh Nagar Opp: IDPL Colony, Quthbullapur Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh
..
Respondent(s)
Counsel appearing for the Appellant(s) / Applicant(s) M/s. R. Saravanakumar Veda Bhath Singh K.V. Vani and J. Raja Rao
Counsel appearing for the Respondents: Mr. T.Sai Krishnan for R-2 and R-3 M/s. V.B. Subramaniam for R-4
COMMON ORDER PRESENT:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI P.S. RAO, EXPERT MEMBER
Dated 13th April, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The counsel for the parties are present. The Miscellaneous Application Nos. 164 of 2014, 167 of 2014 and 168 of 2014 have been filed by the appellant in the context of appeal made by him whereby an order of the Appellate Authority Pradesh
State Pollution Control, Hyderabad
Pradesh
State Pollution Control Board
Andhra
issuing a direction to the Andhra
to consider the application of the 4 th
respondent, M/s. Roma Industries for Consent to Establish Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF) has been challenged.
In these three
applications the applicant prayed one for condonation of delay, other one for leave to appeal and the third one for dispensing with the production of the Judgment dated 16.11.2013 made by the Appellate Authority – Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control in Appeal No. 29 of 2013. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant herein is a third party and he came to know the order of the Appellate Authority issuing a direction to the 3rd respondent Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board only by making
an application under
the Right
to
Information Act as the appellant could not get a copy of the order of the Judgment made therein and now in that process the delay has occasioned and hence the other two applications came to be filed. entered appearance.
The learned counsel for the respondents
The 4th respondent filed reply in the last hearing.
The
counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that pursuant to the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control –Appellate Authority which is under challenge, the 3rd respondent has already given Consent to Establish CBMWTF on 16.2.2015 along with conditions attached there with and thus it is in force.
Hence,
he would further add that nothing survives in the Appeal. After hearing the counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the copy of the order of Consent to Establish granted by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent in the proceedings dated 16.02.2015, the Tribunal is afraid that whether the appeal at this stage filed by the appellant as third party, can be admitted. The learned counsel for appellant makes a request that the appellant can be given liberty to challenge the Consent before the appropriate authority.
Heard the counsel for the respondents on those submissions. The Tribunal is satisfied that though the appeal could not be admitted,
whereby the order of the
appellate authority – Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control can be admitted or challenged herein
in view of the grant of Consent to Establish given to the 4th
respondent industry dated 16.2.2015, it is a fit case where liberty has to be granted to the appellant for taking appropriate action before the Appellate Authority.
With
this liberty, all these applications are disposed of. No cost.
Justice M. Chockalingam (Judicial Member)
P.S. Rao (Expert Member)
