AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 420 words1 The limited grievance which was urged during the course of the present Civil Appeal by learned counsel for the appellants was noticed in an order dated 29 April 2019 passed by this Court which reads as follows:
"The limited grievance before this Court is that by its order dated 7 March 2019, the National Green Tribunal "Tribunal" has disposed of the Execution Application, though the reports of CPCB and MPCB are to come up for consideration on 15 July 2019.
Adverting to the directions which were issued on 18 December 2015 in the principal judgment and order, it has been submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal focuses on directions (a) and (b) and that there are other directions which are to be implemented.
"Issue notice, returnable in eight weeks.
Dasti service is permitted, in addition."
2 Mr Nikhil Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Tribunal by its original judgment dated 18 December 2015 had issued a set of directions which are contained in para 57. Learned Senior Counsel urged that directions a and b are the subject matter of the pending proceedings and hence he is seeking no direction in that regard at this stage. However, it has been urged that by the impugned order which was passed by the Tribunal on 7 March 2019 the Execution Application (Execution Application No 5/2018-THC) has been disposed of. Though directions c, d, e, g and h in the order dated 18 December 2015 were also to be complied with, without ensuring compliance of those directions, the Execution Application came to be disposed of by the Tribunal. On the other hand, Mr Maninder Singh and Mr KV Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there has been compliance by the concerned industries with the directions of the Tribunal. Mr.Vishwanathan submitted that the Execution Application had been filed on 7 May 2016 within the three year period which was stipulated in directions c and d and was hence premature.
We are not expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the rival submissions. However, having regard to the directions which were issued by the Tribunal in its original judgment dated 18 December 2015, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served by restoring the Execution Application to the file of the Tribunal so as to enable it to assess compliance with all its directions. We keep open all the rights and contentions of the parties.
4 The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.