Limitation under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 #legalupdates

The Tribunal has held that a recurring or continuous cause of action may give rise to a fresh cause of action resulting in fresh accrual of right to sue. The Tribunal was of the opinion that a subsequent wrong or injury would become an independent first wrong or injury and a subsequent, composite and complete cause of action and will not be hit by the term, “when the cause of action first arose”, as provided in Section 14(3) of the NGT Act.The Hon’ble National Green tribunal has expanded the scope and extent of disputes in pursuance to its objective of effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection.

The National Green Tribunal or NGT was established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forest as well as other natural resources. The Tribunal, under the NGT Act, has been empowered to settle disputes pertaining to the following statues:

  1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;
  2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;
  3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
  4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
  5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
  6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;
  7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Section 14 of the NGT Act provides that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment with respect to the above legislation and that the cause of action has first arisen within six months from the date of filing of such an application before the Tribunal.

The Section 14(3) of the NGT Act clearly provided that the limitation of disputes falling in the Ambit of the National Green Tribunal will be six months. The Hon’ble Tribunal has held in Amit Maru v. Secretary, MoEF & Ors. in Original Application No. 13/2014 on 01.10.2014 that where a statute prescribes a shorter period of limitation and different scheme of limitation is provided in the Limitation Act, 1963, then the provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 are excluded and the Tribunal must apply the period of limitation as prescribed under the special enactment, i.e. as per Section 14(3) of the NGT Act. Therefore, time cannot be extended anymore by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay.

However, the Tribunal has held in Doaba Paryavaran Smiti v. Union of India, Original Application no. 327 of 2015 on 10.11.2015, where the ecology of a wildlife sanctuary was in danger due to operation of helicopters, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that each flight of a helicopter would give rise to an independent cause of action.

The doctrine of continuous cause of action was also reiterated by the Hon’ble NGT in its decision in the Forward Foundation v. State of Karnataka, Original Application No. 222/2014 wherein the Tribunal held that a recurring or continuous cause of action may give rise to a fresh cause of action resulting in fresh accrual of right to sue. The Tribunal was of the opinion that a subsequent wrong or injury would become an independent first wrong or injury and a subsequent, composite and complete cause of action and will not be hit by the term, “when the cause of action first arose”, as provided in Section 14(3) of the NGT Act.

The Hon’ble National Green tribunal has expanded the scope and extent of disputes in pursuance to its objective of effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection.

 

Niharika

Email: niharika@tcl-india.net