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

2017 Supreme(P&H) 2437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
S.S. SARON, SNEH PRASHAR, JJ.
Sunil Singh – Appellant
Vs.
Ministry of Environment and Forests – Respondent
CM No. 5110 of 2016 in CWP No. 20032 of 2008
Decided On : 22-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Ms. Nivedita Sharma
For the Respondent: Arun Gosain, Arun Gosain, Lokesh Sinhal, Lokesh Sinhal, R.S. Rai, Rajeev Anand, M.S. Sidhu

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of res judicata applies to applications for transfer of cases, and once an application has been dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be re-agitated.

Headnote:

Transfer of Cases - National Green Tribunal Act - 2010 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The civil miscellaneous applications were filed for transferring the writ petitions pending in the Court to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in the interest of justice. The petitioners argued that the matters pertaining to environmental issues are more appropriately dealt with by the NGT, a specialized body established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that similar transfer applications were earlier filed and dismissed as withdrawn, and a subsequent transfer petition filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate redress. The Court held that the doctrine of res judicata applies, and the applications for transfer cannot be re-agitated after being earlier dismissed as withdrawn.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the cases are liable to be transferred to the NGT. The Court also considered the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata and the maintainability of a second application for transfer after the first one had been dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the applications for transfer of cases to the NGT, having been earlier dismissed as withdrawn, cannot be re-agitated, especially when the respondents have objected to the same and pleaded that there is a bar to the maintainability of a second application after the first one had been dismissed.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the applications for transfer of cases to the NGT, citing the doctrine of res judicata and the earlier dismissal of similar applications as withdrawn.

JUDGMENT :

CM No. 5110 of 2016 in CWP No. 20032 of 2008 and CM No. 6479 of 2016 in CWP No. 13594 of 2009.

The present civil miscellaneous applications have been filed by the petitioners of the respective petitions i.e. Sunil Singh v. Ministry of Environment and Forest (CWP No.20032 of 2008) and Qutab Enclave Residents Welfare Association v. The State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 13594 of 2009). In both the said civil miscellaneous applications a prayer has been made for transferring both the cases i.e. the writ petitions pending in this Court to the learned National Green Tribunal at New Delhi ('Tribunal - for short) or whatever order deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants/petitioners that during pendency of the case, the Parliament enacted the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 ('Act 1 - for short) and the learned Tribunal has been established under the Act, which is headed by a retired Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court. The matters like the present case are the domain of and would more appropriately be dealt with by the learned Tribunal. In fact, the learned Tribunal is already seized of several matters pertaining to degradation of ground water, river water and other such matters pertaining to the environment.

3. Ms. Nivedita Sharma, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners submits that in a recent decision in the case of S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India, O.A. No.37 of 2015 (M.A. 219, 293 and 294 of 2015) and Manoi Mishra v. Union of India. O.A. No.213 of 2014 (M.A. 755 of 2014 and M.A. 177 of 2015), the learned Tribunal, in a case transferred to it, in terms of order dated 07.07.2015 considered the effect of notification dated 14.09.2006 in pursuance of which the 'Environment Clearance Regulations, 2006' were framed which require 'Environment Clearance' being obtained prior to commencement of any activity or project. In the said judgment, a reference was made to an earlier decision of the learned Tribunal in Forward Foundation v. State of Karnataka and others. O.A. No.222 of 2014, decided on 07.05.2015 where the Project Proponents had raised the construction on the wet lands and the Rajakaluves (storm water drains), affecting the same, without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance. The learned Tribunal while appointing a special Committee referred to various questions relating to environment and ecology and prohibited the Project Proponents from creating any third-party interests. The learned Tribunal further imposed 5 per cent of the project cost as environmental compensation on the Project Proponent for degrading and damaging the environment and ecology of the area in question and it required the Committee to submit a report to it.

Therefore, it is submitted that the present is an appropriate case where this Hon'ble Court may transfer the matters to the learned Tribunal in the interest of justice.

4. Reply has been filed by DLF Universal Limited (respondent No.3 in Sunil Singh's case) (supra), which has been taken on record by a separate order passed today.

5. In terms of the reply, it is submitted that the application for transfer of the case is not maintainable in the present form. The Act, it is submitted, was notified on 02.06.2010 and the present case is pending in this Court since the year 2008 and various interim directions have been passed from time to time before and after the notification to enforce the Act. The petitioner, it is stated, kept taking advantage of the various interim orders towards its prayer knowing well about the enforcement of the Act. He never moved any such application. The petition was admitted on 20.05.2014 after various status reports were filed by the respondents authorities from time to time towards the compliance of the interim orders. It was only at the present stage in order to forum hunt and to seek a re-











































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