AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) THIS batch of writ petitions has been laid before us to determine as to whether these ought to be transferred to the National Green Tribunal (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal") established under section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act"). The writ petitions hitherto pending before the learned Single Bench have been listed in terms of the order dated 23.9.2013.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The factual spectrum though involves divergent facts projecting a range of challenges and grievances, however, pertains to environment as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act with varying degree of co relative proximacy having regard to the debate raised and needs to be addressed, it is inessential to dilate on the rival pleadings. This is more so as in course of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it has not been contended that no environmental issue whatsoever is involved in the instant proceedings. The competing pleadings as a composite whole would thus be required to be noted in the pronounced perspectives of the scheme and the underlying objectives of the Act.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners apart from contending that the reliefs provided by the Act under section 15 thereof do not constitute efficacious alternative remedy, have urged that in absence of any provision in the enactment to that effect, it is not mandatory to transfer the cases to the learned Tribunal. It has been argued that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the facts of the instant proceedings. Referring to Sections 14 and 16 of the Act in particular, it has been insisted that no substantial question in civil cases relating to environment exist in the cases in hand and thus, the learned Tribunal is bereft of jurisdiction in settling the disputes founded on the facts averred. Referring to the notice(s) issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Board") under section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1974") in the concerned cases, it has been urged that as the validity thereof has been impeached for the violation of the mandatory provisions with regard thereto, no issue relating to environment is involved and that the alternative remedy contemplated by the Act even if available, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not ousted thereby. As in some cases issues involving the Combined Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) and Jodhpur Pradushan Niwaran Trust (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Trust") are involved, it has been contended that no environmental aspect is associated therewith and thus, those cases do not merit transfer.;