Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) ALL the aforesaid connected writ petitions have been filed for similar reliefs and have been heard together. In the writ petition (C) No. 55900 of 2013 following prayers have been made: "(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the condition No. 1 under the heading "Specific conditions" of the Environmental Clearance Certificate dated 24.4.2013, issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, SEIAA U.P., Lucknow. (2) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry out mining operation mechanically by using all the machines/equipments which can be used for mining. (3) To pass such other and further order's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and the circumstances of the present case." This Court while entertaining the writ petition had passed the following orders on 8.10.2013 : "Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter -affidavit. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that condition No. 1 under the heading of "Specific Conditions" in the Environment Clearance Certificate dated 24.4.2013 has already been challenged in Misc. Bench No. 3542 of 2013, Sushil Kumar Divedi and others v. Union of India and others. In the said case, Division Bench of this Court on 29.4.2013 has granted following interim relief: "Thus, we stay the operation of specific condition No. 1 of the certificate dated 30.11.2012, as contained in Annexure 1, relating to the environmental clearance issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, U.P. Lucknow. Consequently, the petitioners would be entitled to go for semi -mechanised mining, subject to completing the official formalities, if any, required in the matter in terms of recommendation No. 9 as noticed hereinabove. Besides, this interim order is being passed on the facts of this case, for, learned Senior Counsel submits that except the formalities required to be completed for the Semi mechanised mining, the petitioners have completed all other requirements in this matter. The parties shall complete the pleadings before the next date of hearing. List the matter on 21.5.2013 for final disposal." Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues raised in the writ petition are similar to those of Misc. Bench No. 3542 of 2013 and the petitioner is entitled for the same interim relief. List this writ petition on 11.11.2013. Rejoinder -affidavit may be filed by the date fixed. There shall be interim order in the present writ petition in terms of the order dated 29.4.2013 passed in Misc. Bench No. 3542 of 2013, as quoted above."
(2.) SRI Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court had passed interim orders in the instant writ petitions, as well as in large number of other connected matters, upon similar terms. Sri Khare has invited our attention to the order dated 31st of May, 2013, passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. (M/B) 4424 of 2013, which is reproduced: "We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, we dispose of the writ petition finally in terms of orders dated 29.4.2013 and 22.5.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 3542 (MB) of 2013. The order dated 29.4.2013, on reproduction, reads as: "We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, Shri J.N. Mathur, submitted that this writ petition has been filed being aggrieved from the part of order dated 30.11.2012 of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, U.P. Lucknow, in so far as it prohibits the use of machine completely in the mining work and which only provides that the mining work will be open -cast and exclusively manual and no mechanical work or drilling/blasting shall be involved at any stage. Shri Mathur, referred a judgment of a Coordinate Bench headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, which is in Mohd. Kausar Jah v. Union of India and others, : 2011 (5) ADJ 125 (DB) (LB). Shri Mathur, in particular, took us to Para -20 of the said judgment, which contains the inspection report on mining of minor minerals towards the compliance of direction passed by this Court dated 6.3.2009 in Writ Petition No. 1580 (MB) of 2009 [Noor Mohammad v. State of U.P. and others]. According to Shri Mathur, recommendation No. 9 of the inspection report is relevant for the purpose of considering the interim relief. The said recommendation on reproduction reads as: "9. Deployment of heavy machinery for extraction, loading and transportation of mineral should not be allowed without the prior permission of DGMS/DM." Shri Mathur also took us to Government Order No. J -11015/106/2010 -IA.II (M), dated 9.4.2012, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which provides for semi -mechanised mining. Learned counsel for State as well as Union of India do not have any cogent ground to counter the submission of learned senior counsel. Thus, we stay the operation of specific condition No. 1 of the certificate dated 30.11.2012, as contained in Annexure 1, relating to the environmental clearance issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, U.P. Lucknow. Consequently, the petitioners would be entitled to go for semi -mechanised mining, subject to completing the official formalities, if any, required in the matter in terms of recommendation No. 9 as noticed hereinabove. Besides, this interim order is being passed on the facts of this case, for, learned Senior Counsel submits that except the formalities required to be completed for the Semi mechanised mining, the petitioners have completed all other requirements in this matter. The parties shall complete the pleadings before the next date of hearing. List the matter on 21.5.2013 for final disposal." The subsequent clarificatory order dated 22.5.2013, reads as: We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. Smt. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions states that there was mistake in mentioning JCB machine vide condition No. 1 in the order dated 16.5.2013. The same will be corrected with grant of permission to go for mechanized mining in terms of the order of the Court. We also clarify that all the machines/equipments which can be used for mining in terms of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest for the semi -mechanized mining shall be permitted in this case also. In respect of similar cases, if any, needless to say that the grant of such benefits shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In view of the aforesaid statement of learned Additional Advocate General and the position clarified, the writ petition stands disposed of. Thus, writ petition stands disposed of with the relief(s) in terms of the aforesaid order." It is stated at the bar that the aforesaid order dated 31st of May, 2013, as well as similar orders passed by this Court have been challenged by filing SLP before the Apex Court and notices have been issued in the matter on 11th of August, 2014 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21522 -21529 of 2014. However, no interim order has been passed. It is, therefore, submitted that since the orders passed in identical circumstances by this Court has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the pending SLP, as such, this Court may dispose of the instant writ petitions upon identical terms.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents -State, however, has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition itself on the ground that for the relief claimed in the present writ petition, the petitioner has an statutory alternative remedy of approaching the National Green Tribunal and therefore, the present writ petition is not liable to be entertained. The attention of the Court has been invited to Section 16(i) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which reads as under: "16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction. - -Any person aggrieved by, (i) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, refusing to grant environmental clearance for carrying out any activity or operation or process under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986).";