IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's decision to permit the appellant to approach the NGT with the grievances contained in the writ petition and directing the NGT to decide the matter without being influenced by the observations in the impugned judgment.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appeal arises out of a judgment and order of April 19, 2022 by which the appellant's writ petition has been, in effect, dismissed with certain observations and with liberty to the appellant to approach the National Green Tribunal in respect of the matters complained of in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. In addition, the order impugned directs the appellant herein to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- for 'concealment of facts and presentation of inaccuracies before this Court'. In view of such finding, it would be improper to interfere with such part of the order since it was the perception of the Single Bench that material facts had been concealed and there were other inaccuracies in the petition. The costs should be tendered as directed.

3. However, the primary grievance of the appellant needs to be addressed. The appellant submits that despite the Single Bench not adjudicating on the grievances raised and relegating the appellant to the NGT, observations have been made in course of the impugned judgment that may render the appellant's essay before the NGT meaningless. In all fairness, when the writ court perceived that the matters complained of could not be appropriately dealt with in summary procedure on affidavit evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegated the petitioner before it to an alternative forum, even if certain observations were necessary, a caveat at the end should have clarified that such observations would not impede the adjudication of the matter by the forum that may receive it.

4. Accordingly, the appellant is permitted to approach the NGT with the grievances contained in the writ petition, whereupon the NGT will decide the matter, including any application for interim relief, in accordance with law but without being influenced by any of the observations as to the conduct of the appellant as may be contained in the judgment impugned herein.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the writ petition was filed by the appellant herein despite the principal order against which the petition was directed having been issued against one Anil Goswami. It is further submitted on behalf of the State that it was only upon the State's affidavit indicating that there were several other orders passed by the NGT against the writ petitioner, that such other orders came to be disclosed in the rejoinder filed by the writ petitioner before the Single Bench.

6. However, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that once all the orders were before the Court prior to the final hearing, the writ petitioner could no longer be found guilty of suppression. At any rate, it is the submission of the appellant that due permission for undertaking mining and stone-crushing activities had been obtained by the appellant herein. Such position is vehemently disputed by the State.

7. WA No.21 of 2022 is disposed of without going into the merits of the matter and by leaving the appellant free to approach the NGT in accordance with law, whereupon the NGT will be free to decide all matters subject to its jurisdiction, uninfluenced by the observations contained against the appellant herein in the impugned judgment.

8. In view of the appellant having voluntarily agreed to deposit the costs, such payment of costs will not be drawn as an adverse inference of the appellant's conduct by any appropriate authority. Such costs should be deposited within the next four weeks.

9. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.