TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at Raipur (Chhattisgarh). On 27.6.2007, the Appellant submitted an application to Chhattisgarh Environment and Conservation Board (Respondent No. 3) for sanctioning the proposed expansion of its existing plant at Naharpali, Kharsia, Raigarh. Respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 4.8.2007 under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder for holding public hearing. As many as 700 persons participated in the public hearing. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 sent report dated 4.10.2007 to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Respondent No. 2), which granted environmental clearance for the project of the Appellant. 3. Two days before the date fixed for public hearing, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners withdrew their cause. 6. The environment clearance granted by Respondent No. 2 was challenged by Respondent No. 1 by filing an appeal under the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (for short, 'the 1997 Act'). On notice, Respondent No. 3 filed reply and pleaded that environment clearance was granted to the Appellant in accordance with law. NEAA dismissed the appeal of Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 31.12.2008 by recording the following observations: 10. The Counsel for Appellant submitted the proceedings of the draft constitution of Jan Chetna on 24.11.2008 without supporting affidavit which was required to be filed under the NEAA Rules, 1997 for taking responsibility of the authenticity of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed in para 4(iv) above nor it has been authorized by the primary aggrieved persons. The Appellant has not disclosed all material facts for the purpose of adjudication of the Appeal. While considering the legality of secondary public injury complaints by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. UOI (1981), See SCC 87 held as follow: ... in such cases a member of the public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such acts or omissions but if the person or specific class or group of persons who are primarily injured by such acts or omissions, do not wish to claim any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without protest, the member of public who complaints of a second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 was seeking annulment of the order passed by NEAA and such relief could be claimed only by filing a regular petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is required to be heard and decided by a Single Judge. The Appellant also referred to the pendency of Writ Petition(C) No. 5534/2007 before the Chhattisgarh High Court and pleaded that the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court was an abuse of the process of the Court. Another plea taken by the Appellant was that the entire cause of action for filing the petition had accrued in Chhattisgarh and the Delhi High Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by Respondent No. 1. 9. The Division Bench of the High Court did take cognizance of the objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the Court. The relevant clauses of Rule 1 of Part B read as under: Part B JURISDICTION of A SINGLE JUDGE AND of BENCHES of THE COURT 1. Cases ordinarily to be heard by a single Judge-Subject to the provisos hereinafter set forth the following classes of cases shall ordinarily be heard and disposed of by a Judge setting alone: (i) to (xvii) xxx xxx xxx (xviii) (a) Application or petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of any directions, orders or writs in the nature of Mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto or certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India or for any other purpose, except: (i) Petitions where vires of Acts or statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed of by a Bench of two Judges. 14. A bare reading of the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that the petition filed by Respondent No. 1 for quashing order dated 31.12.2008 could be heard only by Single Bench of the Delhi High Court. However, by disguising the petition as a Public Interest Litigation, Respondent No. 1 succeeded in getting the same listed before the Division Bench of the High Court. Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not deal with the objection raised by the Appellant to the maintainability of the petition filed by Respondent No. 1 and proceeded to decide the matter on merits which, in our considered view, was legally impermissible. 15. We are not suggesting that Respondent No. 1 had indulged in Bench huntin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
