Chander Stone Crusher vs. The State Of Haryana

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5550 OF 2023

M/S CHANDER STONE CRUSHER <pre>...Appellant(s)</pre>

$vs.$

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

<pre>...Respondent(s)</pre>

$0 R D E R$

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Harvana. The other respondents have been served with the notice. The respondent No.8 who is the original complainant before the National Green Tribunal has been served with the notice. But he is not represented.

The arievance $\mathsf{of}$ the appellant is about the directions issued in the paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment. This direction is against 343 identified stone crusher units, as mentioned in the report of the Joint Committee dated 17^th January, 2023. Further direction issued by the Tribunal is that the Joint Committee will issue notice to the stone crusher units and if any stone crusher $\mathbf{u}$ is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, that unit will be at liberty to move the Tribunal.

$\mathbf{1}$

A drastic order was passed by the National Green Tribunal fixing the interim compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) payable by each of the stone crusher operating units, including the present appellant. Admittedly, the present appellant was not a party to the complaint filed by the eighth respondent. Thus, in our view, the Tribunal has committed a breach of elementary principles of natural justice. The impugned order shows that the Original Application is still kept pending.

We, therefore, set aside the directions contained in the paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment only in relation to the appellant.

If the respondent No.8 wants any direction to be issued by the Tribunal against the appellant, he is free to implead the appellant and seek appropriate relief in the pending Original Application.

We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the merits of the controversy.

The appeal is accordingly allowed on the above terms.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (PANKAJ MITHAL)

NEW DELHI; November 06, 2023.

2

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 5550/2023

M/S CHANDER STONE CRUSHER Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.166684/2023-EX-PARTE STAY)

Date : 06-11-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

For Appellant(s)

Mr. Pranav Sarthi, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Lokesh Sinhal,Sr.AAG

Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR

• Mr. Rahul Khurana,Adv.
• Mr. Ashutosh Jain,Adv.

Ms. Anjali Kumari,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file.)