The Tribunal must provide parties an opportunity to be heard before passing adverse orders, especially in suo motu actions.

1. The principal issue as to whether the National Green Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") can exercise suo motu jurisdiction or initiate suo motu action, has already - been answered in the present appeal(s) vide decision reported in 2021(12) SCALE 184.

2. The other plea of the appellant - Corporation, which remains to be dealt with, is that, the proceedings were pending before the High Court concerning the very issue wherein elaborate mechanism had been directed by the High Court vide order dated 02.04.2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1740 of 1998 and connected cases (Annexure - A1) and the High Court is continually monitoring the progress thereof.

3. It is urged that this aspect was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by way of a review petition. However, it appears that the Tribunal has not dealt with this plea specifically in the order passed on 05.12.2018 in the review petition, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.

4. We permit the appellant to once again move a formal application before the Tribunal and to raise all contentions as may be permissible on facts and in law. The Tribunal may deal with said submissions / objections appropriately and if any part of the decision of the Tribunal is adverse to the appellant, it would be open to the appellant to approach this Court afresh.

5. In other words, we are not dealing with other contentions raised by the appellant in the present appeals but giving liberty to the appellant to approach the Tribunal afresh and raise all contentions as may be permissible in law. The Tribunal may decide that proceeding expeditiously.

6. The direction given by the Tribunal, which has been stayed by this Court, will remain in abeyance till appropriate order is passed on the proposed application to be filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. That application be filed within two weeks from today.

7. The civil appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
C.A. Nos. 6273, 6274, 6275, 6276, 6277-6278, 6279, 62806281, 6282, 6283, 6284, 6285, 6286 of 2021 and Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 13934 of 2021

9. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel submits that there is one more matter arising out of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in which aforesaid common order has been passed, being SLP(C) No. 13934 of 2021. The same is taken on board and heard alongwith connected cases.

10. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 13934 of 2021.

11. In light of the issue answered by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-12123 of 2018 and connected cases titled as " Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Vs. Ankita Sinha and Others " reported in 2021(12) SCALE 184, it would be appropriate to permit the appellant(s) to raise all contentions / objections as may be available and permissible in law before the National Green Tribunal (In short "the Tribunal") in the first place. The Tribunal may consider those contentions / objections and record reasons for accepting or rejecting the same, so that the appellant(s) if dis - satisfied may have further remedy of appeal(s) before this Court.

12. In other words, all contentions raised in the present appeal(s) on these aspects, including on merits are left open, to be considered by the Tribunal afresh.

13. We say so because the judgment rendered by this Court predicates that even if the Tribunal intends to initiate suo motu action, must give opportunity to the parties likely to be affected before passing any adverse order against them. Viewed thus, the ex - parte preemptory order(s) passed by the Tribunal without giving opportunity to the person(s) likely to be affected by such order(s), be treated as effaced from the record.

14. Keeping that principle in mind, we deem it appropr