The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, and the decision of the Tribunal can be challenged before the High Court at the first instance. The High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is functioning can entertain the writ petition.

MR. N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR AND MR. P. DEVADASS, JJ.

1. These WPSRs are posted before this Court at the instance of the Registry to decide as to whether the writ petitions are maintainable against the orders of the National Green Tribunal, Southern Bench, Chennai, which was constituted under the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved about the order passed by the Green Tribunal, Southern Region, Chennai, wherein they have challenged the order of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, dated 29.7.2013.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Registry entertained doubt as regards maintainability of the writ petitions by stating that the statutory provision viz., Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, enables any person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the Tribunal to file an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on any or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 CPC within 90 days of the communication of the award, decision or order of the Tribunal, and raised a question regarding maintainability of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders of the Green Tribunal, Southern Region, Chennai. The learned counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme court reported in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125 : (1997) 3 SCC 261 wherein the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the Tribunals were constituted under Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution of India, still jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, and the decision of the Tribunal can be challenged before the High Court at the first instance before the Division Bench and the parties need not be forced to file SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that an identical provision viz., The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, enables the party to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing appeal under Section 30 against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, still the Uttaranchal High Court in W.P.168(SB)/2012 dated 25.5.2012 entertained the writ petition, challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The learned counsel also relied on the order of the Calcutta High Court made in W.P.C.T.No.196 of 2012 etc., wherein the Calcutta High Court entertained the writ petition challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal by following the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)No.13360 and 13367 of 2009 dated 26.4.2011. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court referred above, wherein a detailed order was passed relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1 : 2010 (5) Scale 514 : LNIND 2010 SC 495 : (2010) 4 MLJ 734 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (supra),and various other decisions. The Delhi High Court also relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Joby Varghese v. Armed Forces Tribunal 2010 (4) KLT 611 and held that writ petitions are maintainable against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal before the High Court, though appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Act. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.6927 of 2011 dated 25.1.2013 entertained writ petition against the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal and granted relief to the affected person. Again the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.6991 of 2012 dated 12.4.2013 entertained writ petition challenging the orders of the Armed Forces tribunal.

5. The above said Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.4.2011 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)Nos.27886-27887 of 2012 and by order dated 27.8.2013 the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following interim order:

“Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that constitutional history relating to Articles 136(2), 227(4), 33 and 310 o