IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Tribunals would be subordinate to High Court insofar as territorial jurisdiction of High Court is concerned – Orders passed by Constitutional Courts would be prevailing over orders passed by statutory Tribunals.
(2) Balance between development and environmental issues is imperative.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

Permission to file appeal without certified/plain copy of impugned order is granted.

Issue notice.

Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the sole respondent, and as such, we have heard the matter finally.

1. The appellant challenges the order dated 6th May 2022 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “NGT”) in O.A. No.361 of 2021, vide which it prohibited the appellant from undertaking any further construction. The appellant also challenges the order dated 20th May 2022 passed by the learned NGT in I.A. Nos. 117 and 118 of 2022 in O.A. No. 361 of 2022, vide which the application seeking vacation of stay imposed vide order dated 6th May 2022 was rejected.

2. The appellant was already running a resort at Rushikonda Hill, near Visakhapatnam. According to the appellant, after obtaining the necessary permission, it has demolished the existing resort and is reconstructing the resort at the same place with additional facilities.

3. A writ petition being W.P. (P.I.L.) No.241 of 2021, challenging the said construction, has already been filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. In the said writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court has passed the following order on 16th December 2021:

“In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.”

4. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court was filed on 8th December 2021. However, a letter addressed by the respondent was sent on 31st October 2021 to the learned NGT. The respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament from one of the constituencies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The learned NGT, after taking cognizance of the said letter, initiated the proceedings in O.A. No.361 of 2021. It further appears from the record that the learned NGT had appointed an Experts Committee on 17th December 2021 which submitted its Report on 29th March 2022. A perusal of the said report would reveal that the said Experts Committee consisting of four experts did not find any violation in the construction that was carried out by the appellant.

5. However, the learned NGT again, vide its order dated 6th May 2022, appointed a 2nd Experts Committee. The report of the said 2nd Experts Committee is still awaited. However, without waiting for the said report, by the same order, the learned NGT directed that no further construction to be undertaken.

6. It appears that after the order dated 6th May 2022 was passed by the learned NGT, the appellant filed an application for vacating stay on construction as directed in the said interim order dated 6th May 2022 passed by the learned NGT. However, the same was also rejected by the learned NGT vide its order dated 20th May 2022. Both these orders are impugned in the present appeals.

7. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that when the High Court of competent jurisdiction was already in seisin of the matter, the learned NGT could not have entertained a lis with regard to the same cause of action. He submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice of the learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the interim order dated 6th May 2022, which was in conflict with the order of the High Court dated 16th December 2021.

8. Dr. Singhvi submitted that NGT is a Tribunal, which is subordinate to the High Court in so far as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. He, therefore, submitted that the very continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT is not sustainable in law.

9. Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the appellant has acte