National Green Tribunal
Haripriya Patel vs State Of Odisha on 30 April, 2025
Item No.06 Court No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)
Original Application No.207/2024/EZ
In the matter of:
Smt. Haripriya Patel
106, Lumbini Enclave,
Chandrasekharpur,
Near Care Hospital,
Bhubaneswar - 751021
.... Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Chief Secretary
Department of Environment and Forest,
Government of Odisha
2. Divisional Forest Officer, Sundargarh,
Odisha
.... Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 30.04.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anup Pattnaik, Adv. (in Virtual Mode)
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aishwarya Dash, ASC for State (in Virtual Mode),
Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv. for OSPCB (in Virtual Mode)
ORDER
1. Mr. Anup Pattnaik, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Applicant ; Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the State Respondents, Government of Odisha.
2. The present case has been taken up in pursuance of an article published in the New Indian Express dated 19.08.2024 "Three jumbos die in Odisha in 24 hours, electrocution cases rise". The article also mentions that: -
a) one elephant calf dies after being hit by a goods train on the Rourkela-Bimlagarh line near Roxy of Barsuan range under the 1 Bonai Forest Division (BFD) in District: Sundargarh in the early hours on Sunday dated 18.08.2024;
b) a female elephant aged about 7 years died in Tamra Forest in Gurundia Block on the night of August 15 due to diseases; and
c) an adult female elephant was electrocuted in a forest in Charadapasi village under Naktideul range of Rairakhol division in Sambalpur district on Sunday.
3. Reference has also been made to a news article published in the Times of India on 04.10.2023 which mentioned that as many as 698 elephants died in the state of Odisha in eight years since 2015- 16 and the annual elephant mortality rate comes to 87.
4. Though counter affidavit has been filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sundargarh, but learned Counsel for the State Respondents Ms. Aishwarya Dash submits that the controversy involved in the present Original Application is also under consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P.(C) No.28706 of 2024 Registrar (Judicial) Orissa High Court, Cuttack -Versus- State of Orissa & Ors. along with other connected Writ Petition No.14706 of 2022.
5. Various subsequent orders, passed by the Hon'ble High Court from time to time have been placed before us by the learned Counsel for the State Respondents and we find that the Writ Petitions are still pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
6. Mr. Anup Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the Applicant also submitted that the identical controversy is already pending before the Hon'ble High Court
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4522-4524 of 2022 (@ Diary No.16486/2022) The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu 2 Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.) has held that when an identical issue as pending before the Tribunal is already under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court, the continuation of proceedings before the National Green Tribunal for the same cause of action would not be in the interest of justice. Paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.06.2022 reads as under:-
"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Civil Appeal No(s). 4522-4524 of 2022 @ Diary No. 16486/2022) State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.) Respondent(s) B.R. Gavai, J.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that when the High Court of competent jurisdiction was already in seisin of the matter, the learned NGT could not have entertained a lis with regard to the same cause of action. He submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice of the learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the interim order dated 6th May 2022, which was in conflict with the order of the High Court dated 16th December 2021.
8. Dr. Singhvi submitted that NGT is a Tribunal, which is subordinate to the High Court in so far as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. He, therefore, submitted that the very continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT is not sustainable in law.
9. Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the appellant has acted in gross breach of the order dated 16th December 2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. He submitted that the construction is rampantly going on in blatant violation of the order of the High Court. Contempt petition has already been filed before the High Court, wherein the High Court after taking cognizance of the blatant violation, issued notice on 4th May 2022.
10. This Court, in the case of Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others1, has observed thus:
"12. The government departments are no exception to the consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Violation of the orders of the Court would be its disobedience 3 and would invite action in accordance with law. The orders passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No Court or Tribunal and for that matter any other authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it.
This Court also expressed the view that it had become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. [Ref. East India Commercial Companies Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors. [(2008) 10 SCC 1]"
11. In any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. A reference in this respect was also made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others.
12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.
13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice.
14. We, therefore, quash and set aside the proceedings pending before the learned NGT in O.A. No.361 of 2021."
8. We therefore dismiss the present Original Application.
9. I.As, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 4
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ....................................
Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM April 30, 2025, Original Application No.207/2024/EZ SKB 5