2024 (2) TMI 1565 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - territorial jurisdiction - cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court - Principle of forum conveniens. Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT - The writ jurisdiction of the High Court being prerogative in nature it was held that the same could not be taken away nor ousted as it was a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. In the light of this authoritative pronouncement there can be no manner of doubt that this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has the jurisdiction to examine and consider a challenge to an order passed by the NGT. It is thus clear that a writ petition raising challenge to the orders passed by the NGT as in the present case is maintainable and the Court is competent to receive the lis. The writ petition as filed is maintainable. Part of cause of action - HELD THAT - The NGT has been constituted to safeguard rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter the observations made in paragraph 38 of the decision in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) would not stand extended to the orders passed by NGT which has been constituted to safeguard rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence it would not be possible to accept the contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the second respondent that the present proceedings raising challenge to the orders passed by the Principal Bench of NGT would not be maintainable before this Court - The petitioner has its manufacturing unit at Taloja District Thane which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The substance in question that was being transported was from the petitioner s unit at Taloja. The petitioner also has its registered office within the territorial limits of this Court. On this premise we find that part of cause of action in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition can thus be entertained by this Court. Availability fof alternative remedy - HELD THAT - A perusal of the Advance Cause List of the Principal Bench pertaining to Pune Zonal Bench indicates that cases at serial nos.1 and 2 were to be taken through video conference while case at serial no.3 was to be taken up for hearing on 16th February 2022. It thus becomes clear that matters pertaining to Western Zone were being considered at the Principal Bench of NGT while all the six cases shown to be listed on 6th January 2022 before the Western Zone of NGT at Pune stood adjourned to 25th February 2022. From these Cause Lists it becomes clear that no proceedings were entertained by the Western Zone at Pune on 6th January 2022. On the other hand matters pertaining to the Western Zone were considered through video conference at the Principal Bench. In addition it may be stated that in the Cause List relating to Western Zone Original Application No. 5 of 2022 had not been listed. It thus becomes clear that on 6th January 2022 the Western Zone of NGT at Pune did not consider any matters that were listed since the learned Members were not shown to be available. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that since the Principal Bench of NGT proceeded to take suo motu cognizance of the proceedings of which the Western Zone was seized of the impugned orders suffer from a jurisdictional error thus requiring this Court to interfere in the matter cannot be accepted. We do not find that any exceptional case has been made out by the petitioner on this count. Principle of forum conveniens - HELD THAT - It is found that a part of cause of action does arise within the territorial limits of this Court we are inclined to apply the doctrine of forum conveniens in the facts of the present case for more than one reason. The cognizance of the very same incident that occurred at Surat Gujarat has been taken in public interest by the Gujarat High Court and presently it is seized of the said proceedings. Further there are about six reports filed within the territorial limits of the Gujarat High Court that seek to initiate criminal prosecution against the accused - though a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of this Court we decline to entertain the writ petition by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The present writ petition is not entertained by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The petitioner is free to seek redressal of its grievances as raised in this writ petition by invoking such remedies as are available in law. It is clarified that observations made in the order are only for the purposes of examining whether this Court should exercise discretion and entertain the writ petition in the present facts - Petition disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), New Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to take suo motu cognizance and entertain proceedings relating to an incident occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the Western Zone Bench of NGT, Pune.Whether the writ petition challenging orders passed by the Principal Bench of NGT is maintainable before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.Whether a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens applies to refuse entertaining the writ petition despite maintainability.Whether the Full Bench judgment in The Goa Foundation case concerning jurisdictional issues of NGT Benches is applicable to the facts of the present case.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Principal Bench of NGT, New Delhi did not commit any jurisdictional error in taking suo motu cognizance of the incident dated 6th January 2022, as the Western Zone Bench was not functioning on that date and no proceedings were entertained by it; hence, the Principal Bench was justified in entertaining the matter.The writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Principal Bench of NGT is maintainable before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the jurisdiction of the High Court under these Articles is not ousted by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and the writ jurisdiction is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.A part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court since the petitioner has its registered office and manufacturing unit within its territorial limits, and civil consequences of the impugned orders are suffered there.Despite maintainability, the writ petition is not entertained on merits by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens, as the incident occurred in Surat, Gujarat, where the Gujarat High Court is seized of related Public Interest Litigation and criminal proceedings, making it the appropriate forum.The Full Bench judgment in The Goa Foundation case is not applicable to the present facts because there was no administrative order transferring proceedings from the Western Zone to the Principal Bench; the Principal Bench took suo motu cognizance when the Western Zone was not functioning.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the constitutional provisions under Articles 226 and 227, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association, that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts is plenary and not ousted by the NGT Act, 2010.The distinction between "maintainability" and "entertainability" of writ petitions was emphasized, following the Supreme Court's guidance in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., clarifying that availability of an alternate remedy does not render a writ petition "not maintainable" but may affect its "entertainability".The Court examined the Cause Lists of the Western Zone and Principal Bench of NGT on the relevant dates to determine the functionality of the Western Zone Bench, concluding it was not functioning on 6th January 2022, thereby justifying the Principal Bench's suo motu action.The doctrine of forum conveniens was invoked to decline entertaining the writ petition on merits, considering the locus of the incident, ongoing proceedings in the Gujarat High Court, and presence of local authorities as parties, to avoid conflicting orders and serve the interest of justice.The Court distinguished the Full Bench decision in The Goa Foundation case on jurisdictional grounds, noting the absence of any administrative transfer order in the present case and reliance on the Supreme Court's recognition of NGT's suo motu powers in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.