Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) SINCE all these writ petitions are fundamentally similar, largely with common facts and law in issue, they all are being decided together. The facts are being taken from SBCWP No. 13214/2014, as the lead case.
(2.) THE petitioner firm (hereinafter 'the firm') challenges the notification dated 14 -10 -2014 whereby the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter 'the Board') withdrew with immediate effect its earlier notifications and announced that the Board would thereafter only accept analysis reports from the laboratories, which were recognized by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) and Climate Change, Government of India New Delhi (hereinafter 'MoEF'). The consequential relief sought in the writ petition is that the respondent Board be restrained from interfering with the peaceful working of the firm earlier recognized by it as a Laboratory with NABL accreditation whose reports were accepted by the Board in performing its function under Section 17 of the Water (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter 'the Water Act') as also under Section 17(2) of the Air (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter 'the Air Act'). The case of the petitioner firm is that applications being invited by the Board, for empanelment of laboratories for assisting it in the discharge of its functions under the Air and Water Act it, accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), sought empanelment as a recognized laboratory and was so empanelled under the Air Act for the purpose of analysis of samples of air or emission of air pollutants as specified and for analysis of sample of water from any stream or very sample or trade affluents as specified under the Water Act. The empanelment was valid till 21 -11 -2014. The firm claims to have efficiently discharged work assigned to it by its various client industries seeking varied approvals from the Board. No objection to any of the analysis reports of the firm submitted by its client industries to the Board is stated to have been made by the Board. It has been stated that even in an office memorandum issued by the MoEF on the issue of guidelines for recognition of Environmental Laboratories under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1986'), it was an essential requirement that all Environmental Laboratories should either have ISO 17025 NABL Accreditation or ISO 9001 along with OHSAS 18001 (occupational Health and Safety Management System) certification before submission of application for consideration as a recognized Laboratory under the Act of 1986. The petitioner firm states that however the impugned notification dated 14 -10 -2014 issued by the Board arbitrarily states that analysis reports only of laboratories recognized by the MoEF and Climate Change Government of India, New Delhi would be accepted by it. The recognition of the petitioner firm's laboratory has also been withdrawn. This is a malafide and inexplicable deviation without good cause whatsoever from the memorandum of MoEF itself. It has been alleged that the Board by the impugned notification dated 14 -10 -2014 only seeks to benefit one Kavita Mathur wife of Bhuvnesh Mathur, who is an employee of respondent Board because her Laboratory alone has been recognized by the MoEF. Denial of principles of natural justice while issuing the impugned notification has also been alleged as a vitiating factor. It has been further submitted that if allowed reasonable time, the petitioner firm could have also obtained recognition of its laboratory from MoEF. In the present it is however suddenly placed in a situation where it is unable to discharge its obligation under its numerous annual and biannual contracts with its clients. Hence the prayers in the writ petition.
(3.) THE respondent Board in reply to the writ petition has submitted that Section 17(2) of both the Water Act and Air Act empowers it to establish or recognize laboratories to enable performance of its functions based on analysis of samples of water and air and other reports. It has been submitted that the power of the Board to recognize laboratories under Section 17(2) of both the Water Act and Air Act is on the face of it, is a matter relating to environment, and as such any dispute in respect thereof is amenable to the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2010'). Hence, the petitioner firm, if aggrieved of the impugned notification dated 14 -10 -2014, entailing derecognition/deempanelment of its laboratory earlier granted, with reference to Section 17(2) of both the Water Act and Air Act is free to approach the National Green Tribunal (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') under the Act of 2010 to ventilate its grievance. It has been submitted that Section 14 of the Act of 2010 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal in respect of all civil cases inter alia where a substantial question relating to environment is involved and when such a question arises out of the implementation of the various enactment specified in schedule I of the Act of 2010. Both the Water Act and Air Act are included in schedule I of the Act of 2010. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghthan v. Union of India [ : (2012)8 SCC 326] in support of the contention of the Green Tribunal having jurisdiction on all environment related issues and dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy is sought.;