Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Swatanter Kumar, J. (Chairperson), U.D. Salvi, J. (Member (J)), A.R. Yousuf, Member (E) and Ranjan Chatterjee, Member (E)
Citation: MANU/GT/0104/2016
Contentions raised by the Applicant
The Applicant has filed the present application under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 raising substantial questions related to the environment, restitution of the environment and compensation appropriate for the damage caused to the ecology. The applicant contends in the present case that the sinking of a ship had caused oil to spill over the sea and this has resulted to be a major threat to the marine ecology. According to the applicant, the respondents are responsible for the voyage of the ship and its sinking and they are to be held liable for all the damages caused. The Applicant also prays that the movement of the ship be allowed only after detailed safety measure and regulations are in place in accordance with the 'Polluter Pays Principle'.
Contentions raised by the Respondents
- In the present case, Respondent No, 1 in its reply stated that the provisions under the CRZ Notification are applicable up to the territorial water limit i.e. 22.22 Km whereas the oil spill occurred at 20 Nautical Miles and therefore, the provisions of the CRZ Notification are not applicable in this case.
- Respondent No.3, the Board stated that the Board has been constituted and is primarily responsible for the prevention and control of air, water, and all other pollution in the areas under its jurisdiction.
- Respondent No. 4, Maharashtra Maritime Board filed an independent reply taking up the stand that it is constituted and functioning under the provisions of Maharashtra Maritime Board Act, 1996 and its jurisdiction is to the extent of Port limits of 48 minor ports on the coastline of State of Maharashtra and neither their impleadment nor presence is necessary for proper and effective adjudication in the present application and hence they pray for deletion of their name
- Respondent No. 6 prayed for deletion of its name from array of parties on the ground that it was only the consignee of the cargo that was being carried by the ship
- Respondent No. 8, Indian Coast Guard in its reply took a stand that it is an Armed Force of the Union, which is administered by the Ministry of Defence
- Respondent No. 9 contends that the Applicant has no Locus Standi to file the present application and the same cannot be entertained by the Tribunal. The application can be filed only by the persons stated under Section 18(2) of the Act of 2010. The Applicant is not an aggrieved person whose rights have been directly affected. The Applicant has not shown in his petition as to how he is entitled to claim the relief and how he is an interested party.
- Respondent No. 11 contends that it is not a necessary party and its name is liable to be deleted from the array of parties.
- Respondent 12 contends that after sinking of the ship the arrangements were made purely on humanitarian grounds and they were not the agents of the ship, and for that matter, any person interested in the ship. On these facts, the said Respondent prayed for discharge from the array of parties
Judgment
The Tribunal held that Respondents 5,6,7 and 11 were negligent and the element of Mens rea could be traced as the Respondents did not follow the Principle of Due Diligence pre-voyage and they directed the ship to continue its voyage even though one of the pumps and generator of the ship had been nonfunctional and according to the principle of polluter pays, Respondents 5,7 and 11 were liable to pay environmental compensation.
