Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 23604
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
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 Appellant: Mr Joaquim Godinho
For the Respondents: Mr J.A. Lobo, Mr Manish Salkar, Mr D. Zaveri with Mr M. Mahamal
Statutory authorities cannot be restrained by injunctions from performing statutory duties; such actions are barred by law, necessitating rejection of related plaints in Civil Courts.
Headnote:(A) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 46 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 58 - Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The Applicant, a statutory body under the Government of Goa, filed for rejection of the plaint against it, arguing that jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred under the cited acts - The court emphasized that injunction against statutory authorities preventing them from performing their duties is impermissible - Application for rejection was upheld. (Paras 6, 47, 51, 53)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 11 - The court clarified that a plaint can be rejected as a whole if it is barred by law against a particular defendant - Bar under Section 46 of the Air Act and Section 58 of the Water Act was pivotal in the court's reasoning - The court also discussed precedent case law that supports this position. (Paras 19, 32, 51)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant sought to reject a plaint concerning injunctions against its statutory functions related to pollution control, under the claim that such injunction is not maintainable under specific provisions that exclude Civil Court jurisdiction. The case centers around illegal operations of a slaughterhouse without required permissions.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the plaint was clearly barred under the statutory provisions, emphasizing the authority’s duty and the lack of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in such matters. Thus, the entire suit against the statutory authority was deemed impermissible and rejected.
Issues: The central issue was whether the plaint could be rejected against a statutory authority claiming jurisdiction was barred per statute.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that statutory authorities cannot be prevented from discharging their duties under the law via court injunctions, reaffirming that the jurisdictional bar specific to these authorities renders the suit untenable.
Result: Revision stands allowed; plaint against Defendant No.6 rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the statutory authority cannot be enjoined from performing its duties. (Para 1 , 2 , 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 2. the plaint may be rejected as a whole against a defendant if barred by law. (Para 5 , 35 , 36 , 51 , 52) |
| 3. jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under pollution control laws against statutory bodies. (Para 16 , 18 , 24 , 34 , 44) |
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 application filed before the
