Mahavir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 569 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of decision: 6th February, 2013

+                    WP(C) No.7302/2009
       MAHAVIR SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                     Through:      Ms. Ekta K. Sikri & Mr. Sudeep Dey,
                                   Advs. - Amicus Curiae
                                Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                            ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Najmi Waziri & Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, Advs. for GNCTD.

Ms. Natashar Sahrawat, Adv. for DPCC.

Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna & Mr. Varun Dubey, Advs. for DJB.

Ms. Manjira Dasgupta & Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Shyel Trehan, Adv. for MCD.

Mr. B.V. Niren & Mr. Prasouk Jain, Advs. for UOI.

Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA.

Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Adv.

for BSES.

Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Hari Narayan Jakkar & Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advs. for applicant.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This petition was filed in public interest seeking a direction to the

Union of India, Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Pollution Control

Committee, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, State of Haryana, Haryana

State Pollution Control Board, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi Police and BSES to

immediately stop the illegal industrial activities going on in villages of

Nangloi, Ghewara, Neelwal, Mundka, Kamruddin Nagar, Tikri Kalan,

Ranhaula etc. on the Delhi - Haryana Border and which industrial activities

are causing pollution of water and air.

2. The petition was entertained and inspection of the villages in question

to report about the illegal and polluting industries was ordered. Thereafter

from time to time, further directions were issued for closure of the illegal

and polluting industrial units functioning in the said villages and for

compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of

India (2004) 6 SCC 588 and this Court has been monitoring the compliance

of the said directions and the counsel who had filed another W.P.(C)

No.3013/2010 to stop the burning of rubber in the said villages and which

petition was not entertained for the reason of the same issue pending in this

writ petition was appointed as the Amicus Curiae in this petition and has

been rendering assistance to this Court.

3. CM No.481/2013 has been filed for impleadment by persons who

claim to be affected by the orders / directions passed in this petition.

4. The Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog

Sangathan Vs. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 326 has directed all matters

instituted after coming into force on 18.10.2010 of the National Green

Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act) and covered under the provisions of the said

Act to be transferred to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) constituted

under the said Act. Of course this petition was instituted prior to the coming

into force of the said Act. However the Supreme Court has further directed

that even cases filed and pending prior to coming into force of the said Act

but involving questions of environment laws and / or relating to any of the

seven statutes specified in Schedule I of the said Act should also be dealt

with by the specialized Tribunal constituted under the said Act and has

advised all Courts before which such matters are pending to direct transfer

of such cases to the NGT if found to be in the fitness of administration of

justice.

5. We have as such enquired from the appearing counsels whether the

present petition is also required to be so transferred.

6. Mr. Waziri, Counsel for GNCTD has contended that all polluting

industries have been closed and this petition has already achieved its

purpose. The Amicus Curiae however controverts. Both however state that

as per the directions aforesaid of the Supreme Court, the matter has to be

transferred to the NGT. The senior counsel for the applicant seeking

impleadment however opposes.

7. Section 14 of the NGT Act prescribes the jurisdiction of the NGT 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 enactments specified in

Schedule I of the Act. The legislations specified in Schedule I of the Act are

the Pollution / Environment Acts, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

8. The Amicus Curiae has rightly stated that the W.P.(C) No.3013/2010

which was not entertained for the reason of this petition, concerned pollution

owing to burning of rubber and this petition as well as W.P.(C)

No.3013/2010 thus not only involve substantial question relating to

environment but also enforcement of rights relating to environment.

9. We are therefore of the opinion that the matter in controversy in this

petition does fall within the jurisdiction of the NGT, objection of the

applicant seeking impleadment notwithstanding. We are further of the

opinion that the remaining monitoring for compliance of the directions

already issued from time to time in this petition and the need for any further

directions to be issued are best left to the NGT, a specialized body

constituted and better equipped than this Court to deal with such questions.

10. We therefore direct transfer of this petition as well as disposed of

W.P.(C) No.3013/2010 to the NGT.

11. Since the counsel for the applicant seeking impleadment expresses

urgency, we direct the Registry to ensure that the files of this petition as well

as W.P.(C) No.3013/2010 are delivered to the NGT at the earliest so as to

enable the applicant seeking impleadment to approach the said Tribunal for

the reliefs sought by it.

12. As far as this Court is concerned, the petition is disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 06, 2013 'gsr'