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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
M/s. Amman Oil Mill & Refineries, Rep.by its Proprietor K. Selvakumar, Tiruppur District - Appellant
Versus
M. Saradhambal & Others - Respondents
C.R.P.(PD).No. 2706 of 2014 & M.P.No. 1 of 2014
Decided on : 12-06-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V.S. Senthil Kumar, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as well as the overriding effect of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Headnote:

Civil Revision Petition - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 46, 58 - The court discussed the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, highlighting the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts and the establishment of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The court emphasized the need for specialized environmental courts and the overriding effect of the NGT Act, 2010, ultimately concluding that the civil suit is barred.

Fact of the Case:

The Civil Revision Petition was filed to strike the plaint in O.S.No.11 of 2014 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam. The suit was filed by the respondents against the petitioners for various reliefs related to the operation of an oil mill.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the present Civil Revision Petition is maintainable before the court and discussed the jurisdiction of the civil court in entertaining the suit, ultimately concluding that the civil suit is barred.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable before the court and whether the civil suit is barred under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as well as the establishment of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which ultimately led to the conclusion that the civil suit is barred.

Final Decision: The Present Civil Revision Petition was allowed by the court, and no cost was imposed. The miscellaneous petition was closed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to pass an order to strike the plaint in O.S.No.11 of 2014 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam.)

The learned counsel for the petitioners/6th and 7th defendants alone is present. There is no representation on behalf of the 1st to 3rd respondents/plaintiffs, though notice has been served on them and their names have been printed in the cause list today. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing exparte.

2. I have gone through the documents and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The issue that arises for consideration is whether this present Civil Revision Petition is maintainable before this court?

4. The petitioners are the 6th and 7th defendants in O.S.No.11 of 2014. The said suit has been filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents against the petitioners/6th and 7th defendants in the above suit.

5. The suit has been filed for the following reliefs: -

a. To cancel the 6th defendant license and not give any permission to run the 6th defendant Oil Mill “Amman Oil Mill and Refineries” by the 1st to 5th defendants or their agent.

b. To grant a permanent injunction restraining 6th and 7th defendants from running Oil Mill “Amman Oil Mill and refineries”.

c. 1 to 5th defendants to restraining any new permission or new license to the 6th defendant property in the change of any other name.

d. Award the suit cost to the plaintiff.

6. The other respondents are the officials/officers from the various departments concerned.

7. According to the petitioners/6th and 7th defendants, the suit is barred under Section 9 of the C.P.C in view of Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 58 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which read as under:-

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

“58. Bar of jurisdiction: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an Appellate Authority constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine, and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.”

“46. Bar of jurisdiction: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an Appellate Authority constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this determine, and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in Act.”

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners/6th and 7th defendants therefore submitted that the learned District Munsif Court, Kangayam erred in entertaining the suit and numbering it.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners/6th and 7th defendants referred to the decision of this Court rendered in Aditya Masala, Nani Agro Foods Private Limited vs. M.Selvaraj 2007-1-MLJ-611 wherein dealing with an identical situation, the Court referred to the case decision rendered in M.Nandagopal vs The Chairman, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board and others ILR (1997) 2 Madras 1274.

10. The Court has extracted, the decision rendered in M.Nandagopal vs The Chairman, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board and others supra which reads as under:-

“8. There is a great purpose behind these provisions. It is common knowledge that any litigation in a Civil Court will not reach its logical conclusion within a year or two. It takes several years. These are enactments which are intended to ensure the pollution free water and pollution free air and pollution free environment, to the humanity and the people at large in India. It is common knowledge that every day, pollution of water, air and environment is increasing in



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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