Summary
The State of Andhra Pradesh was rebuilding its resort on Rushikonda Hill near Visakhapatnam with additional facilities. A public interest writ petition challenging the construction was pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which on 16.12.2021 permitted the work to proceed strictly in accordance with the environmental clearance and the master plan. Meanwhile, on a Member of Parliament's letter, the National Green Tribunal registered an original application, and although its first expert committee found no violation, it appointed a second committee and on 06.05.2022 prohibited further construction, later refusing to vacate that order despite being told of the High Court's seisin. The Supreme Court quashed the NGT proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the National Green Tribunal may continue proceedings and pass an interim order prohibiting construction on the same cause of action over which the High Court is already seized and has passed an interim order permitting the construction.
- Which order prevails when a statutory tribunal and a constitutional court pass conflicting directions on the same subject.
Provisions considered
- Articles 141, 226 and 227 (supervisory superiority of High Courts over tribunals; L. Chandra Kumar), Constitution of IndiaTribunals are subordinate to the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction they function; the law declared by the higher court in the State binds tribunals under its superintendence (Priya Gupta), so the NGT ought not to have continued once the High Court's seisin and interim order were pointed out. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- Original jurisdiction of the Tribunal (O.A. initiated on a letter), National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The proceedings initiated on a Member of Parliament's letter, in which the NGT appointed a second expert committee after the first found no violation and stayed construction without awaiting its report, were quashed as not in the interest of justice while the High Court was seized of the same cause. (¶¶ 4, 5, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- It was not appropriate for the NGT to continue proceedings when it was pointed out that the High Court was seized of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting construction; conflicting orders of the tribunal and the High Court create an anomalous situation for the authorities, and in such a situation the orders of the constitutional courts prevail over those of statutory tribunals. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Given the serious allegations, the facts should be placed before the High Court, which should strike a balance between development and environmental concerns, for while development is necessary for economic progress it is equally necessary to preserve a pollution-free environment for future generations; the respondent may seek impleadment there, and the High Court may use the NGT's expert committee report or appoint its own. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 20)
- Until the High Court takes a fresh call, construction is permitted only on the area where the demolished resort stood and on the flat area, the State undertaking to claim no equities on that account. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeals disposed of; the proceedings pending before the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 361 of 2021, including its orders of 06.05.2022 and 20.05.2022, quashed and set aside; parties relegated to the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 241 of 2021, with construction meanwhile confined to the previously built-up and flat areas.