On 23-04-2020,
Since the AP High Court had already taken cognizance of this issue, NGT made following Order.
In Para 8,
Satyanarayana Bolisetty Vs Union of India on 23 April 20208. So under these circumstances, we feel it appropriate to adjourn the matter to Monday 27th April, 2020 at the same time. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant wanted the learned counsel appearing for the Government of Andhra Pradesh to mention about the pendency of this matter before the Honb’le High Court of Andhra Pradesh as well so that the Hon’’ble High Court may be knowing about the pendency of similar matter before this Tribunal. Further, learned counsel appearing for Government of Andhra Pradesh wanted the counsel for the applicant to furnish the details of Survey Numbers of the properties from where the alleged violations are said to be committed by the Government as well and these particulars are lacking in this application. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant is directed to ascertain those particulars and submit the same before this Tribunal before the next hearing date with copy to counsel for respondents 2 to 6 in advance so that she can get further report regarding the same and send the same to this Tribunal before the next hearing date.
On 01-05-2020,
NGT was prima facie, satisfied that there is arguable case here.
12. We are satisfied that there arises substantial question of environment for consideration. Admit. Issue notice to respondents. Since respondents 1 to 6 entered appearance through counsel, direct notice to respondents is dispensed with. The counsel for applicant is directed to serve copy of the original application and also the amended application to the counsel appearing for respondents. The respondents are directed to file their detailed response to the application before the next hearing date.
Then,
Satyanarayana Bolisetty Vs Union of India on 01 May 202011. So in order to ascertain these facts, we feel it appropriate to appoint a joint committee comprising of (1) Senior Officer from the Regional Office of MoEF & CC, Chennai (2) Senior Officer from Andhra Pradesh Coastal Zone Management Authority (3) Senior Officer nominated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Forces/Chief Wildlife Warden (4) District Collector, *East Godavari District and (5) District Forest Officer, *East Godavari District, Kakinada to go into the question as to whether the area in question was a mangrove forest subject to the provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications 2011 and 2019 requiring any clearance for any project, whether any clearance from MoEF & CC or Forest Department is required under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and whether permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden is required for commissioning the project as according to the applicant it is adjacent to Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary. In order to ascertain the anterior position of the area in question, the committee is directed to verify the forest cover map maintained by the Forest Survey of India prepared through satellite images for a period of six months prior to the filing of the application and if any violation is found they are directed to mention the nature of violation and also the nature of damage caused to environment and assess the environmental compensation required for restoration of damage caused to environment, including restoration of mangroves in that area. The committee shall verify the satellite image of forest cover prepared by the Forest Survey of India for a period of six months prior to the filing of the application and compare the same with the present condition in order to ascertain the extent of damage, if any caused either to forest cover or mangroves and assess environmental compensation. Regional Office of MoEF & CC, Chennai will be the nodal agency for coordination and for providing necessary logistic for this purpose. Three months time is granted to the committee to inspect and submit the report to this Tribunal through e-mail at [email protected] with advance copy to the counsel appearing for the parties. Construction if any done will be subject to the result of this application . If ultimately it is found by the committee that there is any violation of any of the environmental laws by the State Government and the officers concerned who were responsible for the destruction then they are liable for the consequences, including demolition of the building and payment of environmental compensation apart from restoration of damage caused to the mangroves. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the above officers immediately by e-mail in order to enable them to comply with the direction of this Tribunal.
