Gujarat High Court
Mangal Murji Ghadavi vs State Of Gujarat & 4....Opponent(S) on 8 January, 2015
Author: R.P.Dholaria
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
C/WPPIL/247/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 247 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
===========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
MANGAL MURJI GHADAVI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHULSHARAD SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 3
MR BIREN A VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 3
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR SANDIP SINGHI,
ADVOCATE for SINGHI & CO, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 08/01/2015
Page 1 of 4
C/WPPIL/247/2014 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA)
1. This petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : "12.(A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing State Authorities to instruct the respondent No.4 to construct a permanent channel to transport sea water from sea to its power plant and instruct to treat the water before discharging the same into the sea and be further pleased to restrain the respondent No.4 from using the sea water unless permanent channel is constructed at its power plant at Mundra Taluka.
(B) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents - State Authorities to instruct the respondent No.4 to construct a permanent channel for transporting the sea water and till then restrain the respondent No.4 from using the sea water and be further pleased to direct the respondent No.4 not to discharge the hot and chemical water into the sea without proper treatment.
(C) to pass such other and further orders as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case."
2. We have heard Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2, Mr.Biren A Vaishnav, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 and Mr.Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sandip Singhi, learned advocate for Singhi & Company, learned advocate for respondent No.4.
3. During the course of hearing, learned advocate for the Page 2 of 4 C/WPPIL/247/2014 JUDGMENT respective parties taken us to the material available on record. Material available on record clearly indicates that grievances, precisely raised by the present petitioner are concerning the environmental issue, arisen due to the alleged actions undertaken by respondent No.4. After having received the environmental clearance certificate, respondent No.4 Company has constructed a channel in the year 2009. Respondent No.4 - Company is using sea water for its power plant through intake channel which is not constructed but it is in a raw form and natural form. According to the petitioner, it should be a permanent pakka channel made of cement. This amounts to challenging the Environmental Clearance Certificate granted to respondent No.4.
4. Learned advocate for the respondents has made reference to Section 16 (h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which reads thus : "16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction.
(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986)."
5. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, we dismiss this petition on the ground that the petitioner is having alternative remedy under Section 16 (h) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Petition is dismissed accordingly. Notice discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
Page 3 of 4 C/WPPIL/247/2014 JUDGMENT
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.)
(R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)
Amar
Page 4 of 4