D Chandramouleswara Reddy vs Union Of India on 29 October, 2021
The decision relied on by the 5th
respondent in State of Telangana vs. Md. Hayath Uddin and Ors.19 cannot be
said to be a decision laying down a precedent having binding nature. In that
decision, the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telengana only held
that when a preliminary issue regarding limitation or maintainability is raised,
without considering that issue, the Tribunal cannot go into further issues of
providing any interim relief without hearing the other side as there is bar
under Section 19(4) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and in that case
after discussing the legal position, the Hon‟ble High Court as only remanded
the matter to the Tribunal to consider the question afresh regarding the
question of limitation and also the maintainability under Section 14(3) of the
18
2020 SCC Online NGT 763 (O.A. No. 2 of 2017
19
W.P. No. 34458 of 2017
[70]
Act and then pass the appropriate orders. There was no final decision arrived
at by the Hon‟ble High Court as to whether the application is barred and not
maintainable and did not dismiss the application on that ground . It is true that
the order of remand was confirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court when the
same was challenged by the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition, who was the
applicant before the National Green Tribunal by filing Special Leave to
Appeals nos. 4813 of 2018. So, it cannot be treated as a binding precedent
that the application is not maintainable at all as that question was directed to
be considered by the Tribunal afresh and for that purpose the matter was
remanded.