PANAJI
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken offence to the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority’s (GCZMA) callous attitude towards filing responses to matters before it.
While hearing a petition concerning alleged CRZ violations by hotels along the Salcete coast, the NGT noted that the GCZMA has kept the petition pending for more than five years through delays in filing reponses.
“The matter was initially dealt with vide order dated 30.11.2015. On 12.01.2016, the Tribunal issued notice and directed the DSLR, Goa to visit the beach and identify structures within the NDZ (No Development Zone). On 01.04.2015, the Tribunal gave three weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit. The matter was adjourned from time to time. However, no counter affidavit was filed by the GCZMA for five years,” the Tribunal noted.
“Inspite of notice and repeated opportunities, the GCZMA had not given a reply for which there was no justification. Prayer for further adjournment for filing a reply was granted subject to payment of Rs 25,000 per case to be deposited with the CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board) for being utilised for protection and restoration of the environment,” the NGT noted.
However, when the matter came up for hearing, earlier this week, the GCZMA had still not paid the cost and instead filed a review plea which was immediately dismissed since the earlier order was passed in the presence of the parties. “There is no ground for review,” the NGT reviewed.
“There is no justification shown in the application why a reply could not be filed in the last five years. The only contention raised is that there weren’t sufficient particulars of the CRZ violations and it is stated that the reply has been now filed on 30.10.2020 without payment of cost, required to be paid within one week of the last order, which was the condition precedent for accepting the reply,” the NGT said.
“Even without cost, the reply has not been filed in time but only one working day before hearing which also shows lack of bonafides. We do not find any substance in the review application which stands rejected. On account of reply being filed so late, the same could not be placed in the file or circulated for hearing which requires further adjournment. We do not follow why such an attitude is being adopted by the GCZMA,” the NGT said.
