Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, JJ.
M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9057 of 2020
Decided On : 06-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Niranjans Reddy for Mr. Thoom Srinivas.
For the Respondents: Mr. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. B.S. Prasad.
Point of Law :
purpose of having Section 22 of the Act in the statute, the existence of the alternate remedy of filing of appeal before the Apex Court of the country is, indeed, the most efficacious remedy available. For, such an alternative remedy would shorten the period of judicial proceedings, thereby providing “an effective access to judicial proceedings.”
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 21 and 226 -Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 22 and 19, 14 - Discretionary Power - , Drugs Control Administration - Legality - Petitioner has challenged legality of order National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai whereby on an Original Application filed learned Tribunal has constituted a fact finding Committee comprising of a Senior Officer dealing with the pharmaceutical matters from Regional Office, Chennai, a Senior Scientist of Regional Office, Central Pollution Control Board, Chennai, Telangana State of Pollution Control Board, Director, or a Senior Officer Deputed by Director, Drugs Control Administration, State of Telangana and District Collector, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District to inspect the area in question and to submit a factual and action taken report, if violation of any environmental laws were discovered
Finding of the Court:
learned Tribunal has passed an ex-parte order, whereas power to pass an ex-parte order is not available to the learned Tribunal - Suffice it to say, that the power to pass an ex-parte order does exist - Learned Tribunal has power “to set-aside an ex-parte order passed -Court refrains from commenting any further, as the issue before this Court is whether the writ jurisdiction should be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available - Environmental issues may cover a large population, may cover a large area of country, it is, indeed, in interest of justice that such issues be debated and decided by highest court of country - Keeping in mind legislative logic behind existence of High Court should be weary of exercising its writ jurisdiction unless rarest of rare case is made out and unless there are exceptional circumstances for invoking the writ jurisdiction discussed above no such exceptional circumstances have been made out in present case - Environmental issues alive for some time would defeat very purpose of invoking of the power of writ would be against public interest -
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
1. M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the National Green Tribunal, South Zone, Chennai (‘the learned Tribunal’ for short) whereby on an Original Application filed by the Kalushya Parikshana Samithi, the learned Tribunal has constituted a fact finding Committee comprising of a Senior Officer dealing with the pharmaceutical matters from Regional Office, Chennai, a Senior Scientist of Regional Office, Central Pollution Control Board, Chennai, Telangana State of Pollution Control Board, Director, or a Senior Officer Deputed by Director, Drugs Control Administration, State of Telangana and the District Collector, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, to inspect the area in question and to submit a factual and action taken report, if violation of any environmental laws were discovered.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company established in 1998. Ever since its establishment, the Company is manufacturing bulk drugs and drugs intermediate; it is exporting the same to a few foreign countries. For the excellent work carried out by the Company, in the year 2006, the National Safety Council awarded a Certificate of Appreciation to the Company. In the years 2004, 2007 and 2009, the District Collector, Nalgonda awarded the Best Green Belt Development Certificate to the Company.
3. However, in 2019, based on a complaint made by a third party, the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (‘the Board’ for short), the respondent No. 3, held an elaborate enquiry against the Company. The Board discovered minor discrepancies, which were in no way connected with the allegations with regard to the pollution of water, or environment. The respondent No. 3 directed the Company to comply with the minor deviations. The Company not only complied with the minor deviations, but also submitted a report to the respondent No. 3.
4. Further, in January, 2020, the respondent Nos. 11 to 15, including the Kalushya Parikshana Samithi (the applicant before the learned Tribunal), filed a complaint before the Telangana Human Rights Commission (‘the THRC’ for short) wherein they claimed that the petitioner-Company and other pharmaceutical Companies were causing environmental pollution in the Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. Thus, the pharmaceutical companies were violating the human rights of the people residing in the District. Considering the complaint, the THRC directed the Board to enquire into the allegations about groundwater, air, and land pollution allegedly being caused by the industries in the District. Consequently, respondent No. 3 again conducted an elaborate enquiry, and submitted its report, dated 05.02.2020, before the THRC.
5. Furthermore, while the case was pending before the THRC, the respondent Nos. 11 to 15 also approached the learned Tribunal, where similar allegations were made before the learned Tribunal. Based on the complaint, by order dated 10.06.2020, the learned Tribunal constituted a Committee as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.
6. Considering the fact that Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short ‘the Act’) provides an efficacious alternate remedy to any person aggrieved by any order of the Tribunal, this Court has asked Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, to address this Court on the issues of maintainability of the present writ petition.
7. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
“Firstly, the mere availability of efficacious alternate remedy does not bar a High Court from invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relying on the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that where a writ is filed for enforcement of any fundamental rights, or on the ground that there is a violation of th
