The power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and survives Section 22 of the NGT Act. The High Court's jurisdiction is not barred by the alternative remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Introduction:

Two persons have structures on their property, and that property stands covered by Coastal Zone Regulations. They both are using the structures commercially. Complained against and put on notice, they have contended before the authorities that the structures, erected before 1991, offend no Regulation. But the authorities held otherwise. Aggrieved, they filed writ petitions, withdrew them, and went before the National Green Tribunal but lost. Now, they have filed these writ petitions.

2. Given the alternative remedy under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunals Act 2010, can these two persons sustain their writ petitions?

Facts:

3. Petitioner Prasad Naik owns properties in his village, Penha de Franca. That property has structures, said to have been raised before 1991. In one part of the building, Prasad runs a general store; in the other part, his sister-in-law, Mrs Sonal S. Naik, runs a wine shop. To run those businesses, both have the required licenses, including the trade license. During his lifetime, before 1991, Prasad's father also had a small store in the property.

4. In July 2015, Kashinath Shetye, that is the second respondent, along with others, complained to Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority ("Goa CZM Authority") that Prasad and his sister-in-law have carried out illegal construction "by hill cutting" in the property. Responding to that complaint, the CZM Authority, in the first week of August 2015, wanted Prasad to show cause why it should not act against him. Besides asking Prasad to show cause, the authorities also issued "a stop-work order" to him. As both Prasad and his sister-in-law faced identical allegations, went through similar proceedings, and faced the same consequences, we will confine our narrative to Prasad.

5. Over time, Kashinath filed Application No.181 of 2016 before the National Green Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), Western Zone Bench, Pune, alleging that the CZM Authority had not acted against Prasad despite his complaint. Then, the Tribunal directed the CZM Authority to take appropriate action on Kashinath's complaint. After site inspection and personal hearing in March 2018, the CZM Authority passed an order in July 2018. Through that order, the authorities required Prasad to stop all commercial activities in his property. They have also required the Deputy Collector and SDO to ensure that Prasad has not used the structures for any commercial purpose. It was based on CRZ Notification 2009.

6. Aggrieved, Prasad filed Writ Petition No.781 of 2018 before this Court. But in July 2018 he withdrew that writ petition, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal. It was in the face of the respondents' objection that he had an alternative remedy available. Accordingly, Prasad filed Appeal No.64 of 2018 before the Tribunal, which dismissed Prasad's appeal through Order, dated 7 September 2018. The Tribunal has held that in terms of Regulation 6 (d) of Coastal Zone Regulations, "a structure being used for commercial purposes whether prior to 1991 or subsequent to it cannot be allowed to be regularised or allowed to be continued to run".

7. Further aggrieved, Prasad has filed this writ petition. This Court, through its judgment, dated 2 June 2020, dismissed the writ petition on the premise that Prasad has an efficacious alternative remedy-that is an appeal under Section 22 of the Act to the Supreme Court. But Prasad filed a review petition contending that this Court should revisit the matter. One of the grounds for review was this: the Court heard the case at two stages. At the initial stage, the Court allowed the parties to argue on the question of writ maintainability. Later, on another day, it heard the parties on the merits. So Prasad believed that the Court had waived the objection on maintainability and entertained the case on the merits. But, eventually, the Court ruled only on the maintainability, without considering Prasad's arguments or decisions h