Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 23603
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J
Goa Pollution Control Board – Appellant
Versus
Government of Goa – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.49 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
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to grant injunctions against statutory authorities performing legally mandated duties under the Air and Water Acts.
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 - Applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits against statutory authorities for injunctions preventing performance of duties under the aforementioned acts. (Para 51)
(B) Suit against statutory body - Rejection of plaint - Grounds for rejection specified under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were satisfied as such a suit was barred under law and relief sought was not maintainable. (Paras 49-51)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant, a statutory body, challenged the District Court's refusal to reject a plaint filed against it, which sought to bar it from fulfilling its licensing obligations, arguing that jurisdiction was barred under specific provisions of law.
Findings of Court:
The plaint was deemed barred under Sections 46 and 58 of the applicable Acts, affirming that a statutory authority cannot be enjoined from carrying out its duties.
Issues: Whether the plaint can be rejected against a statutory authority under the aforementioned provisions, and whether permanent injunctions against such authorities are permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that civil courts cannot entertain suits against statutory authorities for injunctions obstructing their duties as stipulated by law, reinforcing the binding precedent permitting rejection of suits in specific scenarios against statutory bodies without allowing continuation of claims against other defendants.
Result: The revision application was allowed and the plaint was rejected against Defendant No.6.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaint details the jurisdictional claims against statutory bodies. (Para 5 , 16 , 18) |
| 2. applicant argues for rejection based on statutory limitations. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court reviews prior case law on statutory authority jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 14 , 21 , 23 , 25) |
| 4. court reiterates that injunctions blocking statutory duties cannot be entertained. (Para 51) |
| 5. final ruling provides clarity on plaint rejection against statutory authority. (Para 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 a
