The main legal point established is that issues related to air pollution can be more appropriately raised before the National Green Tribunal under the 2010 Act, highlighting the Tribunal's jurisdiction and authority in matters of environment pollution.

This writ petition has been filed by a public spirited lawyer of this Court raising concerns about the prevention of air pollution in the State of U.P. particularly, in he district of Lucknow and seeks a direction for establishing air quality monitoring stations in order to monitor the critical pollutants of the districts. A further mandamus to the State of U.P. that all Government vehicles issued, should be converted to CNG mode that are running on diesel and to promote the same also in the private sector by enforcing it and by encouraging reduction in tax on CNG fuel. Further relief has been prayed for increasing the number of CNG outlets and also to improve the public transport by introducing the new buses and its frequency so that such measures may come to the aid of citizens of the State particularly, the citizens of the district Lucknow.

2. It is not disputed that the law governing air pollution is subject matter of control under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In matters relating to environment and its protection, the Parliament came up with the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010 and for the purpose of regulating, controlling and taking action in matters of environment pollution conferred a very wide authority on the National Green Tribunal including such matters the laws relating are referred to in the First Scheduled of the 2010 Act. It is undisputed that the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 is very much in the said Schedule. This Court after entertaining the petition, had called upon the petitioner to assist the Court as to whether the writ petition in so far as it relates to the issue of air pollution, should be entertained keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 and 18 read with Schedule-1 of the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010 on which the petitioner contended that since the issue relates to the protection of environment, the same would be a subject matter of consideration if the protection under Article 21 is sought from this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted when it comes for enforcement of any fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner on the constitutional plane is correct and this Court can exercise its discretion for the enforcement of fundamental rights as it is the High Courts and Supreme Court that have been given extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution to come to aid of its citizens for protection of fundamental rights.

3. However, we are of the opinion that such issues for which expert Tribunals have been set up to deal exclusively with the matters as in the present case, relating to environment, then in our opinion, it would be a sound rule of precaution for us under Article 226 of the constitution to refrain ourselves from entertaining such issues that can be more conveniently and appropriately be redressed under a statutory law framed exclusively for the said purpose in its wisdom by the Parliament.

4. This does not mean to say that there can be an absolute ouster of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but where such rights that are regulated under a statute made by the Legislature, then the High Court should not ordinarily undertake an exercise of the nature as raised in this writ petition in so far it relates to air pollution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that keeping in view the provisions of Sections 14 ad 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the matter relating to air pollution as raised in the present writ petition and its control and monitoring, can be more appropriately raised before the National Green Tribunal under the 2010 Act.

5. The petition in person upon his extensive research cited 14 decisions the compilation whereof has been placed before us to urge that such issues have been dealt with by the High Courts and Supreme Cour