Summary
The injunction preventing a proposed solid-waste project was set aside. The environmental dispute belonged before the specialised tribunal after its establishment, and the plaintiffs had not challenged the underlying statutory decisions or established imminent actionable nuisance. Mere apprehensions and perceived weaknesses in the defence could not discharge their burden. Dismissal of the civil suit preserved objections during statutory approval and available challenges to subsequent decisions; environmental compliance was not finally adjudged.
Issues
- Whether the civil proceedings could continue after establishment of the National Green Tribunal.
- Whether the evidence justified preventive injunction for anticipated nuisance.
- Whether injunction alone could be sought without challenging the underlying statutory decisions.
Provisions considered
- Section 29, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The environmental cause pending when the Tribunal was established could not continue in the civil courts; the impugned favourable findings were without jurisdiction. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Section 41(f) and section 41(h), Specific Relief Act, 1963Applied the restrictions on injunction for uncertain future nuisance and where equally efficacious remedies were available. (¶¶ 9, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- The suit raised substantial environmental questions and remained pending when the National Green Tribunal was established. Section 29 and the governing precedent required recourse to that specialised forum; prior institution did not justify continuing the suit and appeals. The favourable appellate findings were consequently without jurisdiction. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- A bare permanent-injunction claim could not bypass the existing statutory decisions allotting the land and authorising the proposed project, which the plaintiffs had not sought to invalidate through appropriate declaratory relief. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The plaintiffs had to establish their own cause for actionable nuisance. Weakness in the defence could not substitute for that foundation. Preventive relief required a strong probability of imminent or irreparable injury, not mere possibility or unsupported assumptions about a project still awaiting statutory permissions. (¶¶ 5, 16, 17)
- Sections 41(f) and 41(h) barred the injunction on these facts. The later infrastructure-project restriction in clause (ha) was noted but expressly held inapplicable to this case. Affected persons remained free to make representations during statutory approval and challenge adverse decisions before the NGT or another legally available forum, with all questions open. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; first appellate and High Court decrees set aside and civil suit dismissed. Representations and lawful challenges concerning future statutory approvals preserved, with questions open. No order as to costs.