Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs Ankita Sinha

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 598

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - Appellant
Versus
Ankita Sinha & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-12123 OF 2018 With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 86 of 2019, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5902 of 2019, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6273 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6732 of 2021), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6274 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5930 of 2021), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6275 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6733 of 2021), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6276 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16448 OF 2021) Diary No. 11655 of 2021, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6277-6278 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16449-16450 OF 2021) Diary No. 13789 of 2021, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6279 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16451 OF 2021) Diary No. 13811 of 2021, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6280-6281 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16452-16453 OF 2021) Diary No. 13890 of 2021, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2897 of 2021, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6282 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11426 OF 2021), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6283 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11427 OF 2021), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6262 OF 2021 Diary No. 16948 OF 2021, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6284 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11798 OF 2021), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6285 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12669 OF 2021), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6286 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16454 OF 2021), Diary No. 19534 of 2021
Decided On : 07-10-2021

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) Mr. E. M. S. Anam, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhilash M.R., Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas M, Adv. Mr. Amith Krishnan, Adv. Mr. M. Thangathuraj, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mrs. Tamali Wad, Adv. Mr. Pimple Sharad, Adv. Ms. Sukriti Jaggi, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Adv. M/S. J S Wad And Co, AOR Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. Enoch David Simon Joel, Adv. Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Saaketh Kasibhatla, Adv. Mr. Arsh Khan, Adv. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Talwar, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Ms. Usha Nandini. V, AOR Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Mr. K. Sakthivel, Adv. Ms. Promila, Adv. Ms. Aaina Verma, Adv. Ms. Jaswanti, Adv. Ms. Rashi Bansal, AOR Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, AOR Mr. Sajan Poovyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sinha, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chetan Saxena, Adv. Mr. Sharan Balakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Pratibhanu Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv. Mr. Arpit Shukla, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar, AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, AOR Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR Ms. Beena Victor, Adv. Ms. M. Priya, Adv. Mr. Ravi Lomod, Adv. Mr. K.Parameshwar, AOR Mr. Jobi Jose Kondody, Adv. Mr. Aex M. Scaria, Adv. Ms. Usha Nandini. V, AOR Mr. Biju P. Raman, Adv. Ms. Saritha Thomas, Adv. Mr. James P. Thomas, AOR Mr. Boby Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR Mr. Satwik Parikh, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Khurana, Adv. Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR Mr. Faisal M. Aboobacker, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Sree P, Adv. Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Kumar, AOR Mr. Harish Vasudevan, Adv. Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Singh, Adv. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Mr. Suvidutt M.S., AOR Mrs. Anu B., Adv. Mrs. Dhanya C., Adv. Ms. Vijayalakshmi Raju, Adv.

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 32, 226 , 323-A , 323-B , 21 , 47, 48A, 51A (g) , 21, 32 and 48A - NGT Act - Sections 18(2)(e), 16 , 2(1)(c) 19(25) ,14 ,15,17, 29 , 16, 19(1) , 19(4) and 25 - Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 - Section 35 - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 - Section 14(b) and 16 - Water Act - Section 18 - Water Act - Section 18 - Damage to environment and public health is self-evident’ - Mismanagement of solid waste - Vicinity of dumping - compensation Kingpins and Their Multi-Crore Trade” in online news portal article spoke of how mismanagement of solid waste had an adverse impact on environment, public health and lives of individuals living in the vicinity of the dumping city - Steps were taken for inspection of Deonar Dumping site by representative of the Central Pollution Control Board Pollution Control Board, District Collector of area and also representative of Municipal Corporation of Greater - Pursuant to Report of the inspecting team which highlighted that landfill site failed to comply with the provisions of Solid Waste Management Rules NGT vide order - Damage to environment and public health is self-evident’ and ordered MCGM to pay compensation to tune - Court while entertaining the Civil Appeal ordered stay on the operation of order passed by the NGT and thereafter arranged for analogous consideration of the related cases where the common threshold jurisdictional issue arises on whether NGT has power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction – Held, often addressing urgent concerns gain little from procedural nitpicking, which are unwarranted in the face of both statutory spirit and the evolving nature of environmental degradation - Not merely should a procedure exist but it must be meaningfully effective to address such concerns - Role of such an institution cannot be mechanical or ornamental. We must therefore adopt an interpretation which sustains the spirit of public good and not render environmental watchdog of our country toothless and ineffective - Two protagonists, in Waiting play written by Samuel Beckett with which, we started this judgment – Court find ourselves saying that National Green Tribunal must act, if the exigencies so demand, without indefinitely waiting for the metaphorical knock on its portal - Common legal issue involved in all these cases regarding the suo motu jurisdiction – Court direct delinking of these cases for now being heard - Registry may do the needful and post the matters for direction and fixing date of hearing – Ordered Accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Vladimir: We can’t.

Estragon: Why not?

Vladimir: We’re waiting for Godot.”¹[Beckett, S. (1954). Waiting for Godot: Tragicomedy in 2 Acts.]

1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

2. The consideration to be made in these matters is whether the National Green Tribunal (for short “the NGT”) has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, “the NGT Act 2010”).

3. In the lead case in this group, i.e. the Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2019, the NGT noticed an article titled “Garbage Gangs of Deonar: The Kingpins and Their Multi-Crore Trade” in the online news portal, The Quint. The article spoke of how mismanagement of solid waste had an adverse impact on the environment, public health and lives of individuals living in the vicinity of the dumping ground in Mumbai city.

4. The NGT took suo motu cognizance of the above article vide order dated 07.08.2018 and directed that the article writer Ankita Sinha be the applicant in the case OA No. 510 of 2018, registered at the NGT’s instance. Thereafter, steps were taken for inspection of the Deonar Dumping site by the representative of the Central Pollution Control Board, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, the District Collector of the area and also the representative of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short “the MCGM”). Pursuant to the Report of the inspecting team which highlighted that the landfill site failed to comply with the provisions of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, the NGT vide order dated 30.10.2018 noted that ‘damage to the environment and public health is self-evident’ and ordered MCGM to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 crores.

5. This Court while entertaining the Civil Appeal No. 86/2019 of MCGM, ordered stay on the operation of the order passed by the NGT and thereafter arranged for analogous consideration of the related cases where the common threshold jurisdictional issue arises on whether the NGT has the power to exercise suo motu jurisdiction.

6. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr. V. Giri, Mr. Sajan Poovayya and Mr. Sidhartha Dave, learned Senior Counsel together with Mr. E.M.S Anam, Ms. Amrita Sharma, Mr. S. Thananjayan have taken a common stand. They have argued that the NGT is a Tribunal and a creature of statute and as such, it cannot act on its own motion or exercise the power of judicial review or act suo motu, in discharge of its function. Being a creature of the statute, the forum cannot assume inherent powers as under Article 32 and Article 226 and its domain is circumscribed by the limitations so imposed. The learned counsel also argue that the NGT has an adjudicatory role to decide disputes which necessarily mean involvement of two or more contesting parties. Therefore, the NGT by acting suo motu cannot transpose itself to the shoes of one such party. The absence of general power of judicial review with the NGT (which is available with superior courts) is highlighted to keep away suo motu power from the NGT. Various judgments relating to the Tribunal's power and role are cited by the counsel and those would be discussed in later part of this order.

7. Projecting the contrary view, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the aggrieved party in SLP(C) No. 6732/2021, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel for the Intervener in C.A. No.86/2019 and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Impleader I.A. No.71482/2021 in the SLP(C) No. 6732/2021, by referring to the special role envisaged for the NGT and the history of its incorporation, make equally powerful submission in support of exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, by the NGT.

8. Mr. Anand Grover, the learned Senior Counsel was appointed as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and he was heard at length. The counsel ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document