Point of Law: Ordinarily, a writ court should not interfere with the orders of the type or nature like the impugned order, which could be termed as a discretionary order. However, as an exceptional case and without citing this order as a precedent, we are inclined to set-aside the impugned order on two grounds: first, the writ-applicants have been able to tender reasonable explanation as to in what circumstances the inspection of the study area could not be undertaken, and secondly, the main proceedings before the Tribunal have also come to an end.

JUDGMENT :

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. As the issues raised in both the captioned writ-applications are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.5328 of 2017 is treated as the lead matter.

3. By this writ-application, the writ-applicant – District Collector, Vadodara, has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(a) To issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside that portion of the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune, imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the District Collector and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority;

(b) to pass an ex-parte ad-interim order staying the operation of the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune, imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the District Collector and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority;

(c) To pass any other order or orders in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

It appears from the materials on record that one Rohit Prajapati and another claiming to be pro bono environmentalists and social workers filed an Application No.49/2016 (WZ) before the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone Bench, Pune, bringing it to the notice of the Tribunal the alleged illegal activities of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, causing damage to the Vishwamitri river and its tributaries.

4. It appears that on 1st July 2016, the Bench of the Tribunal passed the following order :

“ORDER

1. The Respondent No.6 is hereby restrained from proceeding further with any construction or development activity within the area of Vishwamitri Riverfront Development Project (VRDP).

2. Liberty to Respondents to seek modification of this order is reserved.

3. The Respondents shall file their counter/reply and complete their pleadings within next four (4) weeks.”

5. Thereafter, the following order came to be passed on 5th August 2016 :

“In order to check continuing violations we direct the Respondent No.4 Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and Respondent No.5- Collector, Vadodara to carry out a joint inspection of the entire study area, as described in Annexure-8 to the Application and bring on record all the facts regarding present situation as regards construction carried out in the study area. SEIAA shall give Notice of inspection to the Applicant on email address furnished by the Applicant, well in advance. The inspection shall be carried out and Report be filed within two (2) weeks.

Liberty is granted to the Applicant to attend the inspection proceedings. Liberty is granted to the Respondent No.4 SEIAA to lodge prosecution/s against the delinquents, who are found violating the EIA Notification and/or injunction order.

Two (2) weeks’ time is granted to file reply. Advance copy of the reply be furnished to the Applicant, who may file rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.”

6. Thus, the writ-applicant herein, in his capacity as the Collector, Vadodara, and the Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short, the ‘SEIAA’) were asked by the Tribunal to carry out a joint inspection of the entire study area and place on record all the facts regarding the construction which was being carried out in the study area.

7. The directions issued by the Tribunal referred to above were not complied with by the Collector as well as the Member Secretary, SEIAA. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 13th February 2017 came to be passed, which read thus: “Heard. Perused record. Respondent No.4, Member Secretary of State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and Respondent No.5 Collector, Vadodara, were directed to carry out joint inspection of entire study area as described in annexure-‘A