TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order dated 29th July, 2009 of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 677-678/2009 filed by respondent No.3. On 19th May, 2010, it was informed that the Transfer Petition had been disposed off by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, this petition was listed for hearing. Since respondent No.3 in its counter affidavit was also contesting the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition, this petition was thereafter taken up for hearing by the Full Bench constituted to test the correctness and soundness of the decision of an earlier Full Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. UOI AIR 2010 Del. 43 (FB). The said Full Bench rendered judgment dated 1st August, 2011, partially overruling and clarifying the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra). The said judgment of the latter Full Bench is reported as M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India Ors. AIR 2011 Del. 174. Thereafter, this petition was again listed for hearing. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the environment clearance dated 26th December, 2007 for the aforesaid project of respondent No.3 was granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h; that the entire case against the grant of the said environment clearance is based on the complaint of one Raghuvir Pradhan who claim to be associated with an NGO called Ekta Parishad; that the said Ekta Parishad through its member Ramesh Sharma along with Ram Kumar Aggarwal filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the said clearance and which writ petition is still pending; that the present writ petition on behalf of Jan Chetna as also the statutory appeal before the NEAA are filed through one Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal who is related to Ram Kumar Aggarwal of Ekta Parishad; that the petitioner is a middlesome interloper; that the PIL jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked in respect of an industry situated in the State of Chhattisgarh; that the challenge made in this petition can also be made either by filing a fresh petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court or by adding to the petition already pending in that court; that no written objections were filed by the petitioner or anybody else in response to the public notice; that Shri Ramesh Aggarwal has also filed a representative civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Raigarh against respondent No.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that petition will be heard finally at the admission stage itself , and contends that this Court has in its discretion opted to entertain this petition in this Court. He further contends that as far as the reason given by the NEAA for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner is concerned, the same is no longer good in view of the judgment dated 14.09.2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 277/2009 titled Vedanta Alumina Ltd v. Prafulla Samantra Ors. He has taken us through the English translation of the report of the public hearing prepared by the Additional Collector, Raigarh to demonstarate that public hearing was adjourned. It is argued that without holding adjourned hearing, environment clearance was given. He has further invited our attention to the reply filed by the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board before the NEAA where, initiation of legal action against respondent No.3 for commencing construction prior to receipt of clearance is admitted. On the basis thereof it is argued that since the action against respondent No.3 was taken on the complaint of the petitioner, NEAA was wrong in holding the appellant to be not an aggrieved person. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inciple of forum non-convenience is not applicable to domestic law and once this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the petition, it cannot refuse to exercise the said power on the doctrine of forum non-convenience, however the subsequent Full Bench in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., has held that the Court, nothwithstanding having jurisdiction can refuse to entertain a petition under Article 226 invoking the doctrine of forum non-convenience if it is not convenient territory to entertain the petition or if some other Court is a more convenient Court to entertain the petition. 10. We have recently in judgment dated 17.02.2012 in LPA 960/2011 titled Vishnu Security Services v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, held that for ousting the jurisdiction of the Court on the doctrine of forum non-convenience, a case of another Court being better equipped and convenient Court for all parties concerned, has to be made out and the Court cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction by mere lip service to the said doctrine. Applying the said principle, we find that the only ground urged by respondent No.3, for the Chhattisgarh High Court being a more c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
