E-Paper
Great Nicobar Project: NGT to refer to only parties’ pleadings and not parts of Centre’s high powered committee
In a new turn to an application on the Great Nicobar Holistic Development project being heard by the National Green Tribunal, the bench has decided that it will only refer to pleadings on record filed by the respective parties. It will not refer to parts of the high powered committee which were not made public and not made available to the applicant.
In a new turn to an application on the Great Nicobar Holistic Development project being heard by the National Green Tribunal, the bench has decided that it will only refer to pleadings on record filed by the respective parties. It will not refer to parts of the high powered committee which were not made public and not made available to the applicant.
The high powered committee report of the Union environment ministry on revisiting the environmental clearance granted to the Great Nicobar project was submitted to the NGT in a sealed cover and was not made available to the applicant, Ashish Kothari.
Kothari’s lawyer had recently filed an interlocutory application stating the sealed cover process ought to be deprecated. “The first respondent’s contention that the HPC report cannot be disclosed because it is of ‘strategic and national importance and has confidential and privileged information ’ is without merit and contrary to the facts,” it had said.
HT had reported on April 7, 2023 that NGT had constituted a high-powered committee, headed by Union environment ministry secretary, to revisit the environmental clearance (EC) granted by the ministry to the Great Nicobar township and area development project. Experts, however, had questioned how a subordinate authority headed by the environment secretary could revisit the green nod granted by its own ministry.
The recent interim application said consideration of such an HPC report without supplying a copy thereof to the applicant would violate the principle of natural justice.
“Submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant is that either a copy of the report of the High-Powered Committee should be supplied to the Counsel for the Applicant or the adjudication of the OA should be limited to the pleadings on record filed by the respective parties. He further submits that consideration of such a report without supplying a copy thereof to the Applicant would violate the principle of natural justice. He has further submitted that there was no plea of national security raised in the matter, therefore, the oral argument in this regard for denying a copy of the report should not be accepted,” the NGT order dated November 21 states.
Further, in support of such a submission, he has placed reliance upon various orders of the Supreme Court in the matters of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India & Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v. Union of India among others.
The Centre’s counsel stated that there is no objection if the original application is decided on the basis of the pleading and if the report of the high-powered committee is not considered and taken into account. She has further submitted that the plea of national security was taken in the pleadings earlier and it is not a new plea, according to the NGT order.
“On showing the report of the High-Powered Committee at the time of final arguments by the Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, the Tribunal was assured that such a report of the High-Powered Committee which is mentioned in the pleadings of the Respondent No. 1 exists and the material disclosed in the pleadings corroborates with the report of the High-Powered Committee. The report of the High-Powered Committee has not been supplied to the Applicant on the plea of national security not it has been placed on record as the same was immediately returned to Counsel for MoEFCC after brief perusal. Hence, considering the judgments relied upon by Counsel for the Applicant, we do not intend to go beyond the pleadings and rely upon any part of the report of the High- Powered Committee which is not on record,” the bench has observed.
All the parties have concluded their arguments, the bench has said while reserving its final judgement on the original application.
