Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2015 DHC 6389
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2015 DHC 6389
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) in Appeal No.10/2009. The NEAA had dismissed the petitioner’s appeal filed under Section 11(1) of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997, thereby upholding the environmental clearance. The petitioner contended that the NEAA failed to properly consider serious environmental concerns and the principle of inter-generational equity, particularly regarding an additional Terms of Reference (TOR) which required detailed scrutiny under the EIA Notification, 2006.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the NEAA correctly adjudicated the appeal under Section 11(1) of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997, particularly in relation to environmental clearance and the principle of inter-generational equity.
  2. Whether the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and specifically Section 38, requires transfer of pending cases from the NEAA to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and consequent adjudication by the NGT.
  3. Whether the proceedings before the NEAA were valid in the absence of judicial and expert members as mandated by law.
  4. Whether the matter should be remanded to the National Green Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The NEAA failed to appreciate the serious environmental issues raised in the appeal and wrongly dismissed it, thereby upholding an environmental clearance that violated the principle of inter-generational equity.
  • The additional Terms of Reference (TOR) constituted a vital addition requiring detailed scrutiny as per the EIA Notification, 2006.
  • The NEAA proceedings were conducted without the mandatory presence of judicial and expert members, rendering the process flawed.
  • Reliance was placed on Section 38 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which dissolves the NEAA and transfers pending cases to the National Green Tribunal for disposal.
  • Relied on Supreme Court judgments in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another and Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others v. Union of India and Others to support the transfer and proper constitution of tribunals.

Respondent No.3’s Arguments

  • Respondent No.3 did not object to setting aside the impugned NEAA order and consenting to remand the matter to the National Green Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 1 Jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of law can be transferred to an appropriately constituted tribunal. Supported the principle that environmental cases should be heard by the National Green Tribunal rather than other fora to avoid conflict of orders.
Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 326 Environmental issues under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, should be instituted and litigated before the National Green Tribunal. Affirmed that the National Green Tribunal is the appropriate forum for environmental matters, supporting the transfer of cases from NEAA to NGT.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined Section 38 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which mandates the dissolution of the NEAA upon the establishment of the National Green Tribunal and the transfer of all pending cases to the latter. The Court noted that the NEAA's order was passed without the mandatory presence of judicial and expert members, which is a statutory requirement. The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court rulings that establish the National Green Tribunal as the appropriate forum for environmental disputes to ensure consistency and avoid conflicting orders. Considering the petitioner’s submissions and the concession by respondent No.3, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the NEAA order and remand the matter to the National Green Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the proper legal framework and tribunal composition.

Holding and Implications

The impugned order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the National Environment Appellate Authority is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the National Green Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

This decision directs that the appeal originally filed before the NEAA must now be heard and decided by the National Green Tribunal, ensuring adherence to statutory requirements regarding tribunal composition and jurisdiction. The ruling does not establish any new precedent but enforces the existing legal scheme under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, for environmental adjudication.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Samata Petitioner v. Union Of India & Ors. S

    W.P.(C) No.2996/2010 Page 1 of 4

    $~ 24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10th August, 2015

    + W.P.(C) 2996/2010 & C.M. APPL. No.5976/2010 SAMATA ..... Petitioner

    Through: Mr. Raj Panjwani, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Pallavi Talware, Advocate.

    versus

    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. S.S. Rai, Advocate for R-1.

    Mr. Dhananjay Baijal with Mr.

    Nikhil Nayyar, Advocate for

    respondent No.2.

    Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr.

    Advocate with Mr. G.N. Reddy,

    Advocate for respondent No.3.

    CORAM:

    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

    VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

    1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the National Environment Appellate Authority, New Delhi in Appeal No.10/2009 whereby the appeal filed under Section 11(1) of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 by the petitioner was dismissed.

    2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the National Environment Appellate Authority (for short "NEAA") failed to appreciate the issues raised by the petitioner. The NEAA did not

    1

    apply its mind to the very serious concerns raised by the petitioner herein in its Appeal and instead dismissed the Appeal and upheld the environmental clearance. The NEAA failed to appreciate that the environmental clearance violated the principle of inter-generational equity. The additional TOR was vital addition to the original TOR and as such deserved a detailed scrutiny as provided under the EIA Notification, 2006.

    3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn this Court's attention to the relevant provision of Section 38 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short "the Act"), which reads as under: -

    "Section 38. Repeal and savings. -

    xxx xxx xxx

    (3) The National Environment Appellate Authority established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (22 of 1997), shall, on the establishment of the National Green Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, stand dissolved.

    xxx xxx xxx

    (5) All cases pending before the National Environment Appellate Authority established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (22 of 1997) on or before the establishment of the National Green Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, shall, on such establishment, stand transferred to the said National Green Tribunal and the National Green Tribunal shall dispose of such cases as if they were cases filed under the Act.

    xxx xxx xxx"

    2

    4. On a perusal of the relevant provisions of Section 38 of the Act it is clear that on the establishment of the National Green Tribunal the NEAA will stand dissolved and further all cases pending adjudication in the NEAA shall stand transferred to the National Green Tribunal, who shall dispose of such cases in terms of the provisions of the Act.

    5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proceedings in the NEAA were conducted without the presence of judicial members and expert members whose presence is mandatory in terms of the provisions of the Act and therefore the present matter may be remanded back to the National Green Tribunal for adjudication in a manner in terms of the Act. He has relied upon judgment in 'Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another', (2014) 10 SCC 1, and 'Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others v. Union of India and Others', (2012) 8 SCC 326.

    6. In Madras Bar Association's case (supra) it was held that the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon questions of law of the High Court under any ordinary law may be transferred to an appropriately constituted tribunal. In Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that in view of the provisions and scheme of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 particularly Sections 14, 29, 30 and38 (5) of the Act, it can safely be concluded that the environmental issues and matters covered under the Act, Schedule-I should be instituted and litigated before the National Green Tribunal. Such approach is necessary to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders between the High Courts and the National Green Tribunal.

    3

    7. During the course of the argument, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the National Green Tribunal for adjudication.

    8. In view of the above discussion and submission made by learned senior counsel for the respondent, the impugned order dated 28.08.2009 passed by National Environment Appellate Authority, New Delhi in Appeal No.10/2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to National Green Tribunal for adjudication of the appeal afresh.

    9. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition and application stand disposed of.

    (VED PRAKASH VAISH)

    JUDGE

    AUGUST 10, 2015

    hs

    4

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Samata Petitioner v. Union Of India & Ors. S
    (Aug 10, 2015)