DINESH KUMAR MAHESHWARI Vs. UOI
LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-63
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on October 25,2013

DINESH KUMAR MAHESHWARI Appellant
VERSUS
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VIJAY BISHNOI, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsels for the parties submit that identical writ petitions have already been transferred by the Division Bench of this Court upon a reference made by this Court to National Green Tribunal under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and they further submit that the present writ petitions may also be transferred to the National Green Tribunal in terms of the Division Bench order of this Court dated 01.10.2013 in a batch of 58 writ petitions viz. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8074/2010 ­ M/s Laxmi Suiting vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected writ petition, the operative portion of which is reproduced hereunder: "Considering the ambit and expanse of the definition of the expressions "environment" and "substantial question relating to environment" as engrafted in Section 2(c) and 2(m) respectively, we are unable to persuade ourselves to conclude that any constricted approach to scuttle the otherwise attributed wide jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal is either envisaged by the Parliament or is intended. Not only the environment includes water, air and land as defined and their inter -relationship alongwith human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro -organism and property, the substantial question relating to environment includes amongst others the eventualities set out in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 2(m) of the Act. The definition "substantial question relating to environment" as provided in section 2(m) is an inclusive one and by no means can be ascribed a connotation to limit the scope and sphere thereof. Apropos the factual backdrop of the legislation and the salubrious accomplishments thereof as intended, any endeavour to muzzle the legislatively intended contour thereof would be antithetical thereto and cannot receive judicial imprimatur. A purposive interpretation has to be essentially provided to the relevant provisions of the Act so as to facilitate the wholesome implementation of its enjoinments lest the same is rendered otiose. The words contained in Section 14 delineating the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal therefor have to be assigned the desired flexibility and amplitude to achieve the objectives thereof. Section 16 by no means ousts or regulates or circumscribes the ambit of Section 14.
(2.) THE reliefs grantable by the learned Tribunal and enlisted in Section 15 are also couched in compendious terms with adequate discretion to the learned Tribunal to mould the same within the framework thereof. The reliefs contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15 (1) therefore do not admit of literal interpretation to circumvent the otherwise intended wide ambit thereof. Though the Act does not contain any provision in particular mandating transfer of any pending case or proceeding otherwise within the purview of the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to it, having regard to the framework thereof and the interplay of the relevant provisions, with the Tribunal as the envisaged fora to settle the disputes involving substantial questions relating to environment, in our view, the non - existence thereof (provision of transfer) is suggestive of impermissibility of such transfer.
(3.) TO reiterate, the Act has been given an over - riding effect. Though the same per se would not oust the jurisdiction of the superior courts contemplated by the Constitution of India, the plea of inadequacy or inefficacy of the remedy provided by the Act does not weigh with us. The reference of Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India and the enactments made thereunder ipso facto also do not, in our estimate, outweigh the otherwise unmistakable edict of the Act and the inbuilt exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts in matters within the purview of the learned Tribunal for its adjudication. The contention that this Court is beyond the concept of civil court and thus, the provisions of the Act do not apply to the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be recorded only to be rejected. There is no repugnance or conflict between the provisions of the Act and the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal outlined thereby with that of the superior courts under the Constitution of India. No ouster of the writ jurisdiction of this Court as well is either conceived of or intended. This, however, does not detract from the necessity of transfer of the proceedings also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the learned Tribunal in view of the avowed mission of the Act and for the settlement of disputes relating to environment with suitable reliefs as a corollary thereof.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.