Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone Chennai, a Division Bench of N.V. Anjaria, CJ*., and K.V. Aravind, J. set aside the impugned order passed by NGT to the extent it recorded the finding that the petitioners have contributed to pollution. Taking note of non-adherence of principles of natural justice by the NGT, the Court remitted the matter to NGT, for fresh reconsideration. The Court further reiterated that position of law is well-settled that only reason that an alternative remedy is available, would not be an embargo on the High Court’s power to entertain the petition under Article 226 in certain contingencies.
The Court pointed out that non-compliance of principles of natural justice is one of the exceptions to the rule of discretion normally followed vis-a-vis High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the alternative remedy is available. Therefore, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would be exercisable even in the wake of providence of Section 22 in the NGT Act, provided and subject to the exceptions recognised by the Supreme Court in the relevant precedents.
Facts:
Petitioner 2 i.e., Madras Engineering Group is a category-B Training establishment, having designed capacity to train 2700 Agniveers and 1500 Soldiers. Petitioner 3 i.e., Garrison Engineers provides accommodation complexes.
The NGT initiated suo motu proceedings against Petitioners 2 and 3 based on a news item published in ‘The Hindu’ daily dated 8-3-2016 titled as ‘Lake in the heart of Bengaluru City turns graveyard for fish’. An interim order was passed by NGT wherein it imposed environment compensation of Rs 2,94,60,000/- on Petitioner 2 for non-compliance of discharge standards in 100 KLD STP. Via the impugned order dated 20
Via the impugned order dated 20-5-2022, the NGT disposed of the afore-stated proceedings by recording a finding Petitioner 2 along with Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) has contributed to pollution.
The compensation was to be recovered by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board from Petitioner 2 The Tribunal also provided that Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) may contribute Rs 1,00,00,000/- towards the interim compensation.
The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board called upon the petitioner to pay the said compensation of Rs 2,94,60,000/- as per the order of NGT within 7 days, failing which closure order would be issued under S 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated NGT order, the Petitioner knocked on the doors of the High Court via the instant writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that, the Petitioners were not party to the suo motu proceedings initiated by the NGT and they were made aware of the situation only when the Joint Committee appointed by the NGT came for inspection; hence orders passed by NGT imposing environmental compensation and the finding that the Petitioners contributed to pollution were both without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioners’ counsel argued that the impugned orders are unilaterally passed in breach of principles of natural justice.
Counsel for the respondent argued that Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 read with Section 14 of the Act deals with the settlement of dispute by Tribunal. Since the appeal is provided before the Supreme Court under the section, hence the petition under Articles 226 and 227 would not lie.
the Court noted that the Petitioners were not party to the suo motu proceedings initiated by NGT.
Relying of relevant Supreme Court precedents, the Court pointed out that Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction because of availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not of a compulsion. It was stated that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is wide and is at the discretion of the court. The writ jurisdiction can be resorted to in case of contingencies despite the availability of alternative remedies.
In Whirpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1, rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction because of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not of compulsion.
In A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani 1961 SCC OnLine SC 16, it was highlighted that the discretion vested in the High Court to entertain the petition irrespective of the remedy available is customised in the sense that facts of each case have to be applied.
The Court further pointed out that the power of judicial review can be exercised and prerogative writs can be issued in three circumstances namely enforcement of the fundamental rights, where there is a breach of violation of principles of natural justice or where the order of proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction.
Taking note of the objective of creating NGT, the Court pointed out that the Tribunal was created to go into the environmental issues with mandate to comply with the principles of natural justice.
The Court emphasised that the principles of natural justice are intended to operate in the areas not chattered by any law even though any legal provisions may not contemplate the observance of natural justice. “The consequence of the action and the prejudice which may be caused to the party would necessitate the compliance of natural justice”.
The Court observed that the NGT in imposing the liability of environment compensation on the Petitioners, not only proceeded in breach of natural justice and without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, but also the amount demanded, was imposed without even assessing the liability.
The Court thus allowed the petition and set aside the order of NGT remitting the matter for reconsideration and to decide afresh the question of imposition or otherwise of the environment compensation on the Petitioners and to decide as to whether they are liable to pay such compensation, after extending opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
[Union of India v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition no. 26954 of 2024, decided on 26-11-2024]
Judgment pronounced by- Justice N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner(s)- ASGI Sri. K. Aravind Kamath and CGSC Sri. B. Pramod
For the Respondent(s)- AGA Smt. Niloufer Akbar, Adv. Ms. Krishika Vaishnav, Sri. A. Mahesh. Chowdhary and Adv. Sri. Kiran B.S.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
