Summary
The Court held that an execution application seeking compliance with an NGT direction had become infructuous because the Collector had passed an order pursuant to that direction. The petitioner remained free to challenge the Collector’s order through the appropriate proceedings. A challenge filed within eight weeks was protected against dismissal solely for delay. The Court did not decide the disputed wetland classification or the legality of reclamation on merits.
Issues
- Whether execution remained maintainable after the Collector passed an order pursuant to the NGT’s direction.
Held
- The Collector’s order responding to the NGT’s direction rendered the execution application infructuous. An objection to the lawfulness of that order could be pursued by challenging it in accordance with law. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5)
- If the petitioner challenged the Collector’s order within eight weeks, the challenge was not to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay. The competing assertions concerning land classification, exemptions and construction were not finally adjudicated. (¶¶ 2, 4, 5)
Result
Matter disposed of. Execution held infructuous; liberty to challenge the Collector’s 30 April 2019 order, with protection against dismissal solely for delay if challenged within eight weeks.