Goa cases to stay with Pune NGT: Bombay High Court stands up for Bar

The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has struck down a central government notification transferring the jurisdiction for Goa-related matters from the Pune Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to the Principal Bench at New Delhi..The notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change (MOEF) on August 10, two months after the state government requested for the same. The request was made on the ground that Pune, being poorly connected to Goa by air, was not an ideal location, and was inconveniencing government officials, lawyers, and litigants alike..A slew of petitions challenging this notification were filed by parties like the Goa Foundation, and the Goa High Court Bar Association was tagged along with the Bombay High Court’s suo motu petition. Senior Advocates SD Lotlikar, SS Kantak and Mario Brut Da Costa appeared for the various petitioners and intervenors..The Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Nutan Sardesai, which took suo motu cognizance of the notification, had asked senior counsel Lotlikar to act as Amicus Curiae in the matter..The government’s contentions that poor air connectivity with Pune meant that that their officers were forced to spend an additional day in Pune and that this in turn was a waste of tax payers money, did not cut ice with the Bench, which observed that it was only the affluent that could afford to travel by air..It was observed that Pune was well connected to Goa by both road and rail and that shifting matters to Delhi would rule out these options, which were most favoured by the common litigant. The move to Delhi would significantly hamper affordable access to justice, which was an integral part of the NGT Act, the Bench said..Amicus Lotlikar also submitted that access to justice was also a constitutional mandate and a fundamental right which was being adversely affected by the move. The Bench noted,.“Apart from the question of the right to a clean environment, it is in Mr Lotlikar’s submission well established that “access to justice”, whatever be the cause, is also a facet of Article 21.”.As far as the question of accommodation went, the Bench observed that the government had various options to take suitable premises for its own use..The government’s stand that they had only one lawyer in Pune while they had several in Delhi, and that litigants would get better representation in Delhi, did not find favour with the Bench..“That (Pune) is a city bursting with lawyers. We see no reason why the Government could not have assembled a team of lawyers to represent it even as standing counsel. The statement on affidavit is regrettable. .If the imputation is that lawyers from Goa are unable to cope or properly attend to NGT matters in Pune, then that is simply untrue. Mr Mario Brut Da Costa represents a very fine Bar. It is quiet, discrete, good-natured, and respectful without being subservient, and unfailingly courteous. Its civility should not be mistaken for weakness. Its quietness should not be misunderstood for inability or incapacity. .The level of advocacy and drafting is of an extraordinarily high order, and we speak here not only of the many Senior Counsel at this Bar, renowned in their own right, but of the sterling junior Bar too.”.The Bench also went on to recommend that the state government and MoEF take up with all seriousness a proposal to set up a circuit bench of the NGT in Goa..The same had been proposed by the State Government in 2015, but hit a road block in 2016. The government in its affidavit submitted that this would indeed be the best solution, but disagreed with suggestions made by the petitioners on where it should be set up..While noting that there was a lack of consultation with stake holders, the Bench had some kind words for the people of Goa..“If the NGT in Pune has so very many cases from Goa, it is not because — or not just because — the people of Goa are litigious; if true, that may only speak to their continued faith in the legal system and its processes. It is because they perceive that there is something of value here to protect. Few are frivolous causes; in the past few weeks, we saw none.”.The Bench concluded by thanking all the lawyers appearing in the matter..“The contribution of even the most junior advocate was invaluable. Finally, we would be utterly remiss if we failed to acknowledge Mr Lawande, the learned Advocate-General for Goa: not only for the concision of his arguments, but for his exemplary fairness, breadth of mind and largeness of heart. If ever any evidence was needed of a ‘strong NGT Bar’, it was here, before us in this very Court.”.Read the judgment.Image courtesy:.Justice Patel.Justice Sardessai