The main legal point established is that matters involving substantial questions relating to the environment, as defined in the NGT Act, fall within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal and are not maintainable in civil courts.

ORDER :

The revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.256 of 2017 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. The suit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the revision petitioners from flowing out chemical waste from their factory to the public canal, through the channel in the property of defendants 3 and 4/respondents 3 and 4. The other prayer is for a mandatory injunction to close the channel in the property of respondents 3 and 4, through which the effluents containing chemicals are drained into the public canal. The prayers are founded on the following averments;

The plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the plaint scheduled paddy lands, which are part of a large cluster called the ‘vilangu thazhathe peedika padasekharam’. There is a public canal on the northern side of the plaintiffs' property. The property of defendants 3 and 4 are lying on the north of that canal and the property of the defendants 1 and 2 is situated on the northern side of the property of defendants 3 and 4. The first and second defendants are conducting a textile dyeing unit in their property and chemical waste generated from the industry is flown to the public canal through the drainage channel in the property of defendants 3 and 4. The contaminated water ultimately flows into the padasekharam. As a result, water in the padasekharam is getting polluted, making it impossible for the plaintiffs to conduct paddy cultivation.

2. In their written statement, the revision petitioners refuted the factual allegations and contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the prohibition contained in Section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (‘the NGT Act' for short) and Section 58 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('the Water Act' for short). Based on the contention, the trial court considered the maintainability of the suit as the preliminary issue and, by the impugned order, answered the issue in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, this revision petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the conclusion in the impugned order is arrived at without properly understanding the scope and ambit of the NGT Act. It is submitted that the industrial unit of the revision petitioners is functioning on the strength of permits and licences issued by the statutory authorities, including the Pollution Control Board. By alleging that the revision petitioners are causing environmental pollution by flowing out chemical waste from their factory, the respondents 1 and 2 are, in effect, imputing that the unit is being conducted in violation of the licence/permit conditions and the provisions of the Water Act. Hence, the bar under Section 29 will be attracted. To buttress the contention, the decision in Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar and Others [(2020) 7 SCC 275] is pressed into service. It is submitted that, contrary to the settled legal position, the court below has held bar under Section 29 to be not applicable. Such finding is rendered based on the reasoning that, since respondents 1 and 2 are seeking to redress their individual grievances, the dispute would not fall within the purview of 'substantial question relating to environment' as defined in Section 2(m) of the NGT Act. The reasoning being unsustainable, the revision petition ought to be allowed, is the final submission.

4. Despite service of notice, respondents have not appeared.

5. In the plaint, the specific case put forth by respondents 1 and 2 is that the revision petitioners are flowing out effluent containing chemical waste to the public canal, thereby contaminating the water in the padasekharam and making paddy cultivation impossible. Per contra, the revision petitioners assert that their factory is functioning in accordance with the norms fixed by the Pollution Control Board and no effluent above the limit prescribed by the Pollution Control Board, is