2015 (10) TMI 2843 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - petitioner submits that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the orders impugned without deciding the question as to whether the original application itself is maintainable or not being barred by limitation. HELD THAT - The remedy given under Article 226 being discretionary is subject to several checks. The checks mostly are self-imposed and as a rule of policy with a view that extraordinary remedy should always be exercised in extraordinary circumstances only. The remedy given must not be treated at par or alike other statutory remedies. A prominent self-imposed restriction in exercise the discretion given under Article 226 of the Constitution is the principle of exhausting all other statutory remedies before approaching writ court. It is a rule of convenience and discretion and does not oust the jurisdiction of a writ court, but indicates a caution in exercising extraordinary constitutional authority. The petitioner herein seeks a deviation from the doctrine of exhausting all other remedies before approaching writ court with allegation that the tribunal under the orders impugned exceeded jurisdiction vested with it as the original applicant is barred by limitation and further the issue agitated in this regard has yet not been decided. In the case in hand original applicant Shri Digvijay Singh, preferred a petition for writ before a Division Bench of this Court with an allegation of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but looking to the remedy provided under the Act of 2010 the same was transferred to the tribunal. Chapter-III of the Act of 2010 relates to jurisdiction, powers and proceedings of the Tribunal. As per Section 14 of the Act of 2010, the Tribunal have original jurisdiction to hear all civil cases in which a substantial question relating to environment in respect of the acts mentioned in Schedule-I is involved. The Tribunal acts as the first fact finding authority and exclusively hears all applications raising concerned with respect to substantial question relating to environment. The jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal is very wide and that covers not only damage already caused, but even the matter proposed to prevent any damage i.e. expected to be caused in case certain activities resulting in degradation of environment are not stopped immediately. In view of Section 14 of the Act of 2010 there is no doubt that the cause agitated by the original applicant is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The only question is with regard to filing of the application within the limitation prescribed. The remedy given by the legislature to the Supreme Court as per Section 22 of the Act of 2010 is with a caution that even appeal may be filed on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that indicates intention of the legislature for minimal interference with the orders passed by the Tribunal. The remedy given under Section 22 of the Act of 2010 by no stretch of imagination can be termed and treated as not efficacious to meet the injury, if any caused to the petitioner, and if that involves any ground as required to invoke Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The most important aspect of the matter is that the remedy provided under the Act of 2010 is before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of this country. The Tribunal as per Section 20 of the Act of 2010 is under statutory obligation to apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter page principle. Instant one is a case where an admitted polluter is demanding the shield of fundamental right to protect his business which is subject to statutory conditions. It is also relevant to notice that Section 29 of the Act of 2010 puts a bar upon civil courts to entertain any appeal in respect of any matter which the Tribunal is empowered to determine. Having considered all these aspects of the matter the writ jurisdiction vested not invoked in the instant matter - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT)
2. Limitation and maintainability of the original application
3. Environmental damage and pollution control measures
4. Fundamental rights vs. environmental protection
5. Adequacy of alternative remedies

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal (NGT):
The petitioner argued that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing interim directions without deciding the question of limitation. The court, however, found that the NGT had the authority to hear all civil cases involving substantial questions relating to the environment as per Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Tribunal's wide jurisdiction covers not only existing damage but also preventive measures against potential environmental degradation.

2. Limitation and Maintainability of the Original Application:
The petitioner contended that the original application before the NGT was barred by limitation and that the Tribunal erred by not addressing this issue. The court acknowledged that the question of limitation is crucial as it concerns the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, it was noted that the Tribunal has the power to condone delays, especially in cases of recurring nature. The court did not find any patent lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal's actions.

3. Environmental Damage and Pollution Control Measures:
The case stemmed from severe environmental damage caused by textile processing units in Balotra and surrounding areas. The NGT had issued several orders to control pollution, including the installation of Reverse Osmosis (RO) plants and ensuring that effluents are transported through conduit pipelines. The Tribunal's directions aimed at achieving zero liquid discharge and compliance with environmental norms. The court highlighted that the Tribunal's orders were based on detailed inspections and reports from pollution control boards.

4. Fundamental Rights vs. Environmental Protection:
The petitioner argued that the NGT's orders violated the fundamental right to trade and business under Article 19 of the Constitution. The respondent, however, emphasized the fundamental right to a clean environment under Article 21. The court balanced these rights by referring to the principle of sustainable development, which requires a harmonious approach to environmental protection and economic activities. The court noted that the Tribunal's orders were aimed at protecting the environment without completely shutting down industrial activities, provided they comply with environmental norms.

5. Adequacy of Alternative Remedies:
The petitioner argued that the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, should not bar the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The court, however, emphasized that the remedy provided under the Act, which involves an appeal to the Supreme Court, is adequate and efficacious. The court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction should be exercised in extraordinary circumstances only, particularly when statutory remedies are available and effective.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the NGT acted within its jurisdiction and that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court. The court emphasized the importance of environmental protection and sustainable development, while also recognizing the need for industrial compliance with environmental norms. The decision underscores the balance between economic activities and environmental preservation, and the role of specialized tribunals in addressing complex environmental issues.