SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(JK) 277

S. No.117
Supp. List
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 1593/2024
CM 4290/2024
Cav 1566/2024
M/S K. K. INDUSTRIES (ICE PLANT)
…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through:
Mr. Mir Suhail, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J & K AND ORS.
...Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr.Syed Musaib, Dy.AG
Mr. Zubair Ahmad, Advocate for Caveator/s
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE

The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies under the National Green Tribunal Act before seeking judicial intervention.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14 and 16 - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - The Tribunal has jurisdiction over cases involving substantial questions relating to the environment arising from specified enactments - The petitioner failed to avail the alternative remedy under section 16

(C) before filing the petition - The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 2, 4, 6)

(B) Alternative Remedy - The principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies is emphasized, requiring parties to pursue available statutory remedies before approaching the court. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order of the Jammu and Kashmir Pollution Control Committee without first appealing to the National Green Tribunal as mandated by section 16

(C) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Findings of Court:
The court found the petition not maintainable as the petitioner did not follow the statutory procedure for appeal, thus granting permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to appeal to the Tribunal.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could maintain a writ petition without availing the alternative remedy provided under the National Green Tribunal Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy under section 16

(C) of the National Green Tribunal Act before seeking judicial intervention, reinforcing the principle of alternative remedies in administrative law.

Result: Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondents.

2. From a bare perusal of section 14 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, it is apparent that the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over all cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

3. It would also be apt to reproduce section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act which provides as under:

16. Tribunal to have appellate jurisdiction.— Any person aggrieved by, --

(a) an order, or decision on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, by the appellate authority under section 28 of the Water (prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);

(b) an order passed, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal act, 2010, by the state Government under section 29 of the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, (c) directions issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by a-Board, under section 33-A of the water (prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974);

(d) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the appellate authority under section 13 of the water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (36 of 1977);

(e) an order or decision made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the state Government or other authority under section 2 of the forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980);

(f) an order or decision, made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 by the Appellate Authority under section 31 of the Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981);

(g) any direction issued, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, under section 5 of the Environment (protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);

(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);

(i) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Refusing to grant environmental clearance for carrying out any activity or operation or process under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);

(j) any determination of benefit sharing or order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by the National Biodiversity authority or a State Biodiversity Board under the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (18 of 2003), May within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed under this section within a further period not exceeding sixty days.

4. Since the case of the petitioner falls under the ambit of section 16 (C ), thus it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have preferred an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date order came to be passed by the concerned Member Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir Pollution Control Committee. The petitioner without availing the alternative remedy provided under the statue i.e. section 16 (C) of Nation Green Tribunal, Act. 2010 has filed the instant petition which is not maintainable.

5. Confronted with the above said, the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the instant petition with liberty to prefer an appeal before the Nation Green Tribu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top