2020 (5) TMI 727 - SC - Indian Laws

Effect of enactment of National Green Tribunal Act 2010 - Solid Waste Disposal and Management project - harmful to the health of the citizens of the Panchkrosh - Suit property is not convenient for the Solid Waste Disposal and Management Project or not? - Plaintiffs have established that objections and obstructions have been caused in his legal rights or not? - Plaintiffs are entitled to seek relief in the Civil Court or not? - Plaintiffs are entitled to get the Permanent injunction Order or not? HELD THAT - 2010 Act is an Act to provide for establishment of a National Green Tribunal (NGT) for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to amongst others environmental protection including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Chapter III of the Act delineates the jurisdiction powers and proceedings of the Tribunal. The question is whether the suit as filed in the year 2005 would be affected by the coming into force of the 2010 Act with effect from 2.6.2010 and in particular consequent to establishment of the Tribunal (NGT) on 18.10.2010. Indeed the present suit was filed prior to that date. However it was pending before the civil Court even after the establishment of the Tribunal (NGT). For the trial Court decided the suit only on 31.1.2011. Concededly the trial Court has not even adverted to the express provision in the form of Section 29 regarding bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court. On perusal of the tenor of the plaint and the subject matter of the present suit it is indisputable that the case plainly involved substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of legal right relating to environment - The fact that the suit was filed in earlier point of time does not mean that the civil Court could have continued with the action (in this case first appeal before the first appellate Court and the second appeal before the High Court being continuation of the suit) concerning the substantial question relating to environment including enforcement of legal right relating to environment. In any case there remained no tittle of doubt after the exposition of this Court that such pending cause/action ought to be transferred to the NGT for adjudication thereof. The civil suit as filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 (plaintiffs) ought to have been dismissed as was rightly done by the trial Court. Indeed the dismissal of the suit would not come in the way of the plaintiffs or any other person affected by the proposed Project to make representation to the appropriate authority considering the proposal for grant of statutory permissions under the concerned environment laws and if that decision is not acceptable to carry the matter further in appeal before the NGT or any other forum as may be permissible by law. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Health hazards due to the Solid Waste Disposal Project.
2. Suitability of the suit property for the Project.
3. Obstruction of the plaintiffs' legal rights.
4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
5. Entitlement to permanent injunction.
6. Validity of judgments by the appellate courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Health Hazards Due to the Solid Waste Disposal Project:
The plaintiffs argued that the Solid Waste Disposal Project would cause severe health problems and pollute the nearby river and Sheel Dam, which supplies water to Ratnagiri city. They cited heavy rainfall in the Konkan area, which would lead to water pollution from the waste. The trial Court found the plaintiffs' claims to be based on personal opinions without scientific proof or expert testimony. The first appellate Court, however, found the plaintiffs' evidence credible, noting the site's slope towards the river and the potential for pollution due to heavy rainfall.

2. Suitability of the Suit Property for the Project:
The plaintiffs contended that the chosen site was unsuitable due to its rocky, hilly terrain and lack of public road access. They suggested alternative sites within the Nagar Palika jurisdiction. The trial Court dismissed these claims, noting the lack of expert evidence. The first appellate Court, however, found the site unsuitable, highlighting that the defendants had previously selected another site but shifted due to political pressure. The appellate Court also noted the high costs and impracticality of transporting waste to the remote location.

3. Obstruction of the Plaintiffs' Legal Rights:
The plaintiffs claimed that the Project would interfere with their rights to unpolluted water and environment. The trial Court found no evidence of such obstruction. The first appellate Court, however, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, citing the potential health risks and environmental damage.

4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The Supreme Court highlighted the enactment of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which bars civil courts from entertaining cases related to environmental issues. The trial Court, first appellate Court, and High Court failed to consider this jurisdictional bar. The Supreme Court noted that the civil courts should have transferred the case to the NGT, rendering the lower courts' judgments null and void.

5. Entitlement to Permanent Injunction:
The trial Court denied the permanent injunction, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove imminent danger or substantial damage. The first appellate Court granted the injunction, emphasizing the potential for pollution and health hazards. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the plaintiffs' case was speculative and lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an injunction.

6. Validity of Judgments by the Appellate Courts:
The Supreme Court found that the first appellate Court and High Court erred in their judgments by not considering the jurisdictional bar and by relying on speculative evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the initial burden of proof was on the plaintiffs, which they failed to discharge. The judgments of the appellate courts were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the civil suit was not maintainable due to the jurisdictional bar under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, and the lower courts' judgments were based on speculative and unsubstantiated assertions. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.