1 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

M.A. No.20 of 2017 (SZ) and M.A.No.83 of 2016 M.A.No.83 of 2016

Applicant(s) Respondents

Clament Zakkula 1. Union of India, rep. by Secretary S/o. Chinna Agrippa Zakkula MoEF, New Delhi C/o. Parasuram. T 2. State Environmental Impact House No.25/34, Baba Nagar Assessment Authority, Bangalore Toranagallu, Kurekuppa Post 3. M/s. Epsilon Carbon Pvt. Ltd Sandur, Belary

Counsel appearing for applicant Counsel appearing for respondents

Yogeshwaran. A Mr.M.R. Gokul Krishnan for R1 Mr. Devaraj Ashok for R2 M/s. R. Parthasarathy, Rahul Balaji Madhan Babu & Vishnu Mohan for R3

M.A. No.20 of 2017 (SZ) in M.A.No.83 of 2016

Applicant(s) Respondents

J.M. Channabasaiah 1. Clament Zakkula 2. Union of India, rep. by Secretary MoEF, New Delhi 3. SEIAA, Bangalore 4. M/s. Epsilon Carbon Pvt. Ltd. Counsel appearing for applicant Counsel appearing for respondents Yogeshwaran. A

Note of the Registry Orders of the Tribunal

Item No. Date: 2nd March, 2017 The applicant – Clament Zakkula has filed the above M.A.No.83 of

2016 praying for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing appeal

against the order of the State Level Environment Impact

Assessment Authority (SEIAA)– Karnataka dated 18.2.2016 granting

Environmental Clearance (EC) for the project of the 3rd respondent –

M/s. Epsilon Carbon Private Limited for setting up of 3,00,000 TPA

Coal Tar Distillation Plant at Musinayakanahalli Village, near

Sultanpur Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District of Karnataka and

direct the 3rd respondent to restore the project site.

2) The clause relating to limitation in the appeal states that the impugned EC dated18.2.2016 has not been communicated in accordance with law and the applicant was unable to access the project proponent’s website and the website of the Karnataka State

Pollution Control Board (Board) does not have the impugned EC uploaded. Further the EC has not been published in the manner mandated by law. It was after noticing the construction activity on the site in November, 2015, the appellant came to know in May,

2016 that the activity was for the purpose of the present project and thereafter through his counsel sought help and the impugned EC found to have been uploaded on the website of the MoEF.

3) In the affidavit filed in support of M.A.No.83 of 2016 for condonation of delay, the applicant, while reiterating the same and relying upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the

National Green Tribunal, has stated that the appeal has actually been filed on time but the delay condonation application has been filed only as a matter of abundant caution.

4) The prayer in the said application is opposed by the 3rd respondent who in his reply has raised a preliminary objection stating that the application has been filed with false statement of fact and in fact the application is filed by certain other persons who have vested interest. While stating that sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicant for condonation of delay, it is stated by the

3rd respondent that there has been a deliberate misstatement of fact.

The 3rd respondent has stated that it is a company registered under the Companies Act for establishing 3,00,000 TPA Coal Tar

Distillation Plant at Musinayakahalli, Toranagallu, Bellary District,

Karnataka within the industrial area regulated by the Vijaynagar

Area Development Authority and the project is in the extent 34.65 acres, leased out to the 3rd respondent by JSW Steel Ltd.

5) Originally the Government of India for setting up of an

Integrated Steel Plant in the name of Vijayanagar Steel Ltd., has acquired 9341.41 acres of land at Toranagallu, Sandur Taluk,

Bellary District, Karnataka but subsequently transferred the business proposal along with the acquired land to the Government of

Karnataka for setting up of a steel plant and the Karnataka

Government has invited companies to establish the same.

6) Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd., (JSW), as it was earlier known, has shown interest in establishing the integrated steel plant, as it is now operating a steel plant as per the order of the Government of

Karnataka since 1990 in the extent of 7,000 acres in the industrial area. The proposal of the 3rd respondent to establish a Coal Tar

Distillation Plant was cleared by the State Level Single Window

Clearance Committee on 12.1.2016.

7) The 3rd respondent has made an application for Terms of

Reference (ToR) for the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

Study on 12.10.2015 for establishment of the said project which according to the 3rd respondent is a “B” category project. The

SEIAA in the meeting held on 3.11.2015 has issued ToR for the project and the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) has also visited the project on 21.12.2015. The SEAC study was submitted to

SEIAA on18.1.2016 and thereafter the SEIAA has granted EC to the

3rd respondent on 18.2.2016 with stringent conditions. As part of the conditions, the 3rd respondent published the details of EC on

24.2.2016 in the local edition of ‘The Times of India’ (English) and

Vijaya Karnataka (Kannada) and also in E Namma Kannada

(Kannada) setting out the details of EC as well as the website address where EC could be accessed by the public. Based on the

EC, the 3rd respondent has obtained ‘consent to establish’ from the

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Board) and applied for

‘consent to operate’ after compliance of the conditions.

8) According to the 3rd respondent, the applicant has

4 suppressed the material facts and has not come with clean hands and therefore the filing of the proposed appeal is an abuse of process of court. Despite the availability of EC in the 3rd respondent’s website which is accessible, the applicant has given false information stating as if the EC was not available in public domain. The applicant himself has knowledge of EC notified in public in the newspapers on 24th and 25th February, 2016 and inspite of it, he has chosen to state that the period of limitation has not even commenced for the purpose of proposed appeal which has been filed beyond the period of limitation of 30 days, the appeal having been filed on 18.5.2016 and therefore the appropriate reason not having been explained by the applicant, the application for condonation of delay has to be rejected. The 3rd respondent has also filed the extract of the website and also the extract of the website of the MoEF

9) After the filing of the original reply affidavit, the 3rd respondent has filed another affidavit dated 14.11.2016 after applicant has filed rejoinder to the original affidavit along with certain documents. The reason for additional affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent is stated to be that certain new facts have come to the knowledge after the rejoinder and documents were filed which has serious impact on the maintainability of the M.A and main appeal, as the entire litigation has been engineered by the business competitor to prevent the functioning of the 3rd respondent for which the applicant has been used.

10) In the rejoinder the applicant has produced an affidavit filed for electoral card. In the affidavit of the applicant – Clament Zakkula it is stated that he is the son of Chinna Agrippa Zakkula, aged 35 years, C/o. Parasuram, House No.25/34, Baba Nagar, Toranagallu,

Kurekuppa Post, Sandur, Bellary and the said affidavit was sworn in after the present M.A.No.83 of 2016 was filed. In the affidavit he has

5 also stated that he is a permanent resident of the above said address.

11) It is stated by the 3rd respondent that the said affidavit of the applicant was shared with Parasuram, a resident of the said address who has stated that the applicant has never resided in the said address and the address has been illegally used by the applicant and the said Parasuram has also written to the local authorities highlighting that unknown person Clament Zakkula is gaining identification documents by misrepresenting as if he is residing with him and the said T. Parashuram has produced an affidavit signed by him on 7.11.2016 wherein he has stated as follows:

“I, Parashuram T. Son of T. Halappa, aged 32 years, residing at 4th Ward, Baba Nagar, Toranagallu R.S., Sandur Taluk, Bellary District – 583 123, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:

1)I am staying with my family in the address 4th Ward, Baba Nagar (portion of which is now known as Mehboob Nagar), Toranagallu, Sandur Taluk, Bellary from past 12 years. I cast my vote at Baba Nagar and I am registered in the electoral roll at Baba Nagar.

2. I have come to know that one Mr. Clament Zakkula has filed an affidavit dated 24.6.2016 claiming to be residing at my address. These facts have come to light in a matter pending before the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai i.e., M.A.83 of 2016, wherein he has stated that he is resident of C/o. Parashuram T. House No.25/34, Baba Nagar, Toranagallu, Sandur Taluk, Bellary. In the said affidavit dated 24.6.2016, the said Clament Zakkula has further stated that he is a permanent resident of the aforementioned address since more than 3 years and that he has no documentary proof to prove his address. He has also stated that he does not have any Birth Certificate or any educational records or any documentary proof to prove his age and date of birth.

3. It is submitted that a criminal case has been registered by the Toranagallu Police Station, Bellary as per which my name, address and Voter ID Card has been used by the accused therein for filing the aforementioned case M.A.83 of 2016. It is likely that these persons are working in combination.

4. As per the said affidavit dated 24.06.2016 Mr. Clament Zakkula is claiming to be the permanent resident of House No.25/34 Baba Nagar, Toranagallu, Sandur Taluk, Bellary and claims to be making applications to authorities on this basis under my name as care of (C/o). I have, on 04.11.2016, written a letter to Tasildhar Sandur Taluk, Bellary District with a request to take action against the misrepresentation and fraud being played out

by the said Mr. Clament Zakkula.

5. A copy of my Electoral Photo Identify Card, Affidavit dated 24.05.2016 and the FIR dated 14.09.2016 have been enclosed with the aforementioned letter dated 04.11.2016, Copy of the said letter dated 04.11.2016 has also been served in the office of (i) BLO Toranagallu (R.S) (ii) RI Toranagallu and (iii) Vill. Acct. Kurekuppa and the same is being enclosed with this affidavit.

6. I neither know any person with the name Mr. Clament Zakkua nor has any person with the said name ever resided in my house. I also submit that I do not know the person whose photo is pasted in the aforementioned affidavit dated 24.06.2016 nor does any House No.25/34 exists in Baba Nagar as per the records of the Town Municipality, Kurekuppa.

7. I stated that the affidavit dated 24.6.2016 sworn and filed by Mr. Clament Zakkula before Hon’ble GreenTribunal Southern Zone Bench at Chennai is false and incorrect.

This affidavit has been drafted at my instructions and the contents of the same have been explained to me in Kannada, which I have fully understood.”

12) The affidavit states that Parasuram does not know the applicant in M.A and the proposed appellant and therefore according to the 3rd respondent by the information furnished by the applicant in the rejoinder and the subsequent affidavit filed by T. Parasuram and also the FIR it is clear that the very identity of the applicant is in question.

13) The 3rd respondent states that thereafter, it was realised that a secret plot has been drawn against the project of the 3rd respondent based a report dated 23.9.2016 in several vernacular and English newspapers stating that one, Mr. Chandrakant Shah of

Koramandal Refractionaries Pvt. Ltd. Tarihal has been arrested by

Torangal Police on charge of using fictitious name for a local address to file a petition in the National Green Tribunal against

Epsilon Carbon Pvt. Ltd. The 3rd respondent states that Police investigation is going on and therefore in the additional affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent has raised a question about the maintainability of the application as well as the proposed appeal. In the mean time, the applicant in M.A.83 of 2016 Clament

Zakkula has filed M.A.No.20 of 2017 to implead one, J. M.

Channabasaiah, son of M. Maliappa, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District as respondent stating that his presence will help the Tribunal to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.

14) After the additional affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent raising the issue relating to locus standi and residence address of the appellant in the address stated, the hearing was posted to

16.1.2017. Learned counsel who originally appeared in M.A.No.83 of 2016 has filed memo stating that he is unable to contact the applicant and therefore his vakalat should be returned and his name should be removed from the cause list.

15) Accepting the memo, the Tribunal in the order dated

16.1.2017 has directed issuance of notice to the applicant. The

Registered Post sent by the Registry addressed to the applicant –

Clament Zakkula, son of Chinna Agrippa Zakkula, C/o. Parasuram.

T, House No.25/34, Baba Nagar, Toranagallu, Kurekuppa Post,

Sandur, Bellary was returned on 6.2.2017 stating “7 days enquiry. addressee is not found” and thereafter the matter was directed to be posted on 7.2.2017.

16) On 7.2.2017, Clament Zakkula, son of Chinna Agrippa

Zakkula was present in the Tribunal. The Tribunal has examined him as a witness and on the questions put to him by the Tribunal

“Have you filed this appeal?”, the witness has stated “ I am an illiterate. I have sworn the affidavit without knowing the contents and on the instructions of Mr. Chandrakant Shah of Koramandal

Refractionaries Pvt. Ltd., Tarihal near Hubballi.” For the next question put by the Tribunal “Whether the address mentioned in the appeal is correct?“ the answer was “I am not aware. I am not living in the address”.

17) Therefore, after examining the applicant in person, it is clear that the applicant is actually not living in the said address and in his sworn statement before the Tribunal he has stated that he

8 signed the affidavit on instructions of one, Mr. Chandrakant Shah of

Koramandal Refractionaries Pvt. Ltd. On the factual circumstances it is apparent that the application has been filed with an ulterior motive and in fact the name of the proposed appellant has been used by someone else as benami and the applicant is merely a fictitious person.

18) In view of the said revelation and taking note of the fact that the learned counsel who originally appeared for the applicant has cancelled his vakalat, it is clear that as contended by Mr. A.R.L.

Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent that the application/proposed appeal has been filed with ulterior motive by using the applicant with fictitious address. That apart, as stated above, there is no cogent reason given for the purpose of condonation of delay. In view of the above said reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that the conduct of the applicant is an abuse of process of court and accordingly M.A.No.83 of 2016 and

M.A.No.20 of 2017 stand dismissed and the proposed appeal is rejected. There shall be no order as to cost.

…...... , JM (Justice Dr. P. Jyothimani)

…...... ,EM (Shri P.S. Rao)