Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri Rajdeepak Rastogi, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that the observations made by the Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan, supra, does not in any way restrict the jurisdiction of this court. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got much wider jurisdiction than the Tribunal established under the NGT Act. Section 16(a) of the NGT Act when it provides that any person aggrieved by directions issued, on or after the commencement of the NGT Act, by the State Government under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act of 1974'), aggrieved by an order passed under Section 25 or 26 of the Act, may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal, does not debar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to examine the correctness of the order passed by the State Pollution Control Board in exercise of its power of judicial review. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others AIR 1997 SC 1125. Learned counsel argued that the order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board is not part of the record and has been produced for the first time today before this court, therefore the petitioner be permitted to amend the writ petition to challenge that order.

Howsoever the learned counsel for petitioner may canvass that this court in exercise of its powers of judicial review, despite the specific provision made by the National Green Tribunal Act, would retain the power to entertain such like dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution, this court is not inclined to countenance that argument in view of afore-noted specific verdict of the Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan, supra.

Firstly, appeal against orders passed under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act of 1974 passed by the State Board lies to the Appellate Authority under Section 28 of the Act of 1974. Section 14 of the NGT Act provides that the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment, is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Section 15 of the NGT Act provides that the Tribunal may, by an order, provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I, for restitution of property damaged, and for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as it may deem fit. Section 16(a) of the NGT Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order or decision made by the Appellate Authority under Section 28 of the Act of 1974, may within thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. The remedy of the petitioner in the present case would, therefore, lie before the Appellate Authority under Section 28 of the Act of 1974. And if now, in its perception, the STP having already been established and made operationalized, that remedy would not be efficacious, even then he cannot directly approach this court. His further remedy would still lie before the National Green Tribunal. This court, in the face of efficacious remedy available to him under the provisions of the NGT Act, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.