Statutory tribunals like the NGT are subordinate to the High Courts within their territorial jurisdiction; thus, when a matter is pending before a High Court, the tribunal should not proceed with the same dispute to avoid conflicting judgments (Res Sub Judice).

ORDER

1. The grievance of the petitioner are that the Applicants, who are residents of Village Patherwada, , Tehsil Katangi, District Balaghat and are directly affected by the illegal establishment and continuous operation of a highly polluting rice mill namely M/s Sant Jairamdas Rice Mill, operated by Respondent No.7.The said rice mill has been constructed and is being operated in a densely populated residential locality without complying with environmental norms and without obtaining the mandatory Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The said industrial unit emits harmful smoke, fine grain dust, noise and waste materials which are causing serious environmental pollution and adversely affecting the health and safety of nearby residents.

2. The matter was filed before the Competent Magistrate Katangi, District, Balaghat, District Balaghat and direction was issued that the unit will not be operational and will be closed till the consent conditions are not complied with.

3. A case was filed before the Divisional Magistrate Katangi, as Case No. 001/2017-2018 and vide order dated 28.12.2020 a direction under section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code was passed by the Competent Magistrate directing the Project Proponent not to operate the mill until the environmental conditions are fulfilled and further to ensure that there should not be any pollution.

4. In a 3rd application and remedy, the Applicant filed a writ petition number 6657–2021, and vide order dated 05.04.2021 Hon’ble the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed an order as follows: -

“From perusal of the averments made in the petition and hearing the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that the writ of mandamus is being sought directing the authority to take appropriate action against Respondent No.7 who is running a rice pollution.

According to the petitioners, if the said mill is allowed to be continued, it may cause serious health problems to the residents of nearby areas.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents/State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have already raised their grievance before the competent authority and said authority i.e. Respondent No.2 inspected the spot and prepared the report observing therein that the said rice mill is not following the mandatory requirements and causing serious damage to the environment as the rice mill of Respondent No.7 is polluting the environment of the area where the mill is situated and causing great damage to the public at large residing in the area.

We are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of directing the petitioners to approach Respondent No.2 raising their grievance and to show them the orders already passed by the authority against Respondent No.7. If the same is done, Respondent No.2 shall consider the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate action thereof.

It is made clear that if any adverse action is being taken against Respondent No.7, he may also be given proper opportunity of hearing.

It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The authority shall consider the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate decision thereof in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.”

5. A 4th matter was filed before Hon’ble the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Jabalpur Bench vide contempt petition, civil number 2590 or 2021. And Hon’ble the High court, vide Order dated 6th of May, 2022, passed an order as follows: -

i. This petition has been filed on the ground that the order dated 05.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.6657 of 2021 has been disobeyed. In terms whereof, the Respondent No.2 was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action with regard to the Mill in question.

ii. A reply has been filed. Learn