Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 456
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J
Goa Pollution Control Board – Appellant
Versus
Government of Goa – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2019 | CIVIL APPLICATION NO.227 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Joaquim Godinho
For the Respondents: Mr J.A. Lobo, Mr Manish Salkar, Mr D. Zaveri with Mr M. Mahamal
The court emphasized that civil suits against statutory authorities for performing their functions are barred under relevant pollution control laws.
Headnote:(A) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 46 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 58 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Suit against statutory authorities- Application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint pertaining to injunction against statutory authority was upheld as the injunction prayed barred under the above provisions. (Paras 6, 19, 24, 51, 53)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Specific Relief Act - Permanent injunction - A Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any suit against statutory bodies performing their duties under the said Acts; thus, no part of the suit could proceed when specific legal provisions bar such actions. (Paras 28, 30, 51)
Facts of the case:
This case involves a revision against the rejection of a plaint filed by an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer alleging illegal operations at a slaughterhouse due to lack of permissions from statutory bodies. The plea for injunction and declaration against the functioning of the Goa Meat Complex was contested under specific provisions which bar liability against statutory bodies.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld that the plaint against the Goa Pollution Control Board stands rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC due to explicit statutory prohibitions on civil suits against such authorities.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the jurisdictional bar under Air and Water Pollution Prevention Acts regarding civil suits against statutory authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found in favor of the applicability of statutory provisions that bar civil suits against statutory authorities, establishing that injunctions preventing statutory compliance are impermissible.
Result: Revision allowed, plaint against Defendant No.6 stands rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. specific provisions bar injunction against statutory authorities. (Para 6 , 19 , 24) |
| 2. jurisdiction of the civil court against statutory bodies is contested. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. plaint filed alleging illegal operations against a slaughterhouse. (Para 16) |
| 4. court upheld the rejection of plaint against statutory authority due to legal bars. (Para 51 , 53) |
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Counsel Mr Joaquim Godinho for the Applicant, learned Counsel Mr J.A. Lobo for Respondent No.2, Mr Manish Salkar, learned Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and learned Counsel Mr D. Zaveri with Mr M. Mahamal for Respondent No.8.
2. Admit. Heard finally with consent.
3. With the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties, present revision is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 4. Applicant herein is the original Defendant No.6 in Civil Suit No. 22/2018 filed before the District Court at Panaji which was allotted to District Judge-2, Panaji sitting at Ponda.
5. The Applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as well as raised preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. The said application was resisted by the Original Plaintiff/Respondent No.8. The learned Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 26.09.2019, rejected such application. Hence, the present revision.
6. The short question which cropped up in the present revision is whether plaint could be rejected qua Defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC.
7. Mr Godinho appearing for the Applicant submitted that Applicant is a Board constituted under statutory provisions and is part of Government of Goa. He, therefore, submitted that the prayers for injunction against the statutory authorities would not lie. He pointed out the prayers in the suit which refer to the prayer for granting of permanent injunction against the Applicant/Defendant No.6 thereby restraining the Board from issuing permissions, licences, etc. to Defendant Nos.2 and 3. He then submitted that 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 specifically bars jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an appellate authority constituted under the said Acts is empowered by or under the said Act to determine. It is his contention that application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) filed by the Applicant/Defendant No.6 is basically for rejection of plaint as a whole qua Applicant/Defendant No.6. Such power is available with the Civil Court as suit is specifically barred under the above provisions and further, no injunction could be granted against the statutory authorities thereby preventing them from performing their duties under the Act.
8. Mr Godinho placed reliance on the following decisions:-
a) Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust , (2012) 8 SCC 706 b) Chetana Shankar Manapure & Anr. vs. Bandu s/o. Tanaji Barapatre, 2020 (3) ALL MR 254 and c) Sheela Ram Vidhani & anr. vs. S.K. Trading Company & ors, 2021 (5) Bom.C.R. 409, 9. Mr Lobo appearing for Respondent No.2 would submit that the licences and other permissions were granted to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per the procedure and also as per the order passed by this Court in earlier petition. However, he clearly admitted that Respondent Nos.2 and
3 did not file any application for rejection of plaint.
10. Mr Manish Salkar appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 7 would submit that the impugned order needs interference as there is specific bar to entertain such suit against Respondent No.6 which is the Board constituted under the said Acts.
11. Mr D. Zaveri appearing for Respondent No.8/Plaintiff would submit that first of all the application filed by Applicant is not tenable as it is well settled that the plaint cannot be rejected piecemeal. He would submit that the ap
