Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the order dated 6th May 2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, vide which it prohibited the appellant from undertaking any further construction. The appellant also challenging the order dated 20th May 2022 passed by the learned NGT, vide which the application seeking vacation of stay imposed vide order dated 6th May 2022 was rejected.
Brief Facts:
The appellant was already running a resort at Rushikonda Hill, near Visakhapatnam. According to the appellant, after obtaining the necessary permission, it has demolished the existing resort and is reconstructing the resort at the same place with additional facilities. A writ petition challenging the said construction, has already been filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. In the said writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court directed that the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the High Court of competent jurisdiction was already in seisin of the matter, the learned NGT could not have entertained a lis with regard to the same cause of action. He argued that though this fact was brought to the notice of the learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the interim order dated 6th May 2022, which was in conflict with the order of the High Court dated 16th December 2021. It was submitted that NGT is a Tribunal, which is subordinate to the High Court in so far as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. He, therefore, submitted that the very continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT is not sustainable in law.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has acted in gross breach of the order dated 16th December 2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. He submitted that the construction is rampantly going on in blatant violation of the order of the High Court. Contempt petition has already been filed before the High Court, wherein the High Court after taking cognizance of the blatant violation, issued notice on 4th May 2022.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that in any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned.
SC stated that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.
SC opined that the continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice. SC quashed the proceedings pending before the NGT.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “We further find that taking into consideration the serious allegations made by the respondent, it will be appropriate that all these facts are placed before the High Court and the High Court considers passing appropriate orders in accordance with law so as to strike a balance between the development and the environmental issues. Needless to state that though development is necessary for economic progress of the nation, it is equally necessary to safeguard the environment so as to preserve pollution free environment and ecology for the future generations to come.”
Case Title: The state of Andhra Pradesh v. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru
Bench: J. B.R. Gavai and J. Hima Kohli
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 45224524 OF 2022
Decided on: 01 June, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : twitter.com
