Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the
basic essential features of the Constitution and any legislation including Armed
Forces Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Refer: L. Chandra and S.N. Mukherjee).
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32
though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, they will
certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the
Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act.
(Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd.)
When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition
should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita
Sharma).
The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an
effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under
which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma).
5. Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 09.08.2012
In this case, the Supreme Court essentially dealt with the issue of whether the job of
overseeing various Committees involved in the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research
Centre ('BMHRC') and Bhopal Memorial Hospital Trust (BMHT/Trust') (which was
constituted for purposes of providing healthcare for affected victims of the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy) was to be transferred to the appropriate High Court. The Court also expressly
limited the jurisdiction of the NGT in the present matter. The Court held that since the present
caser does not involve any complex or other environmental issue, and primarily requires
administrative supervision of the orders of the Courts, it is appropriate to transfer it to the
Madhya Pradesh High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction to better serve the ends of
justice.
6. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided On: 07.04.2016
This case discussed the genesis of environmental regulatory authorities in India and
specifically addressed the issue of whether the Loss of Ecology Authority (LoEA) should be
wound up and replaced by the NGT. The Court concluded in the affirmative and issued the
following orders:
The LoEA as a permanent body is dismissed.
All the claims pending investigation/ enquiry on the file of the LoEA shall stand
transferred to the Chennai branch of NGT.
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 14(3) and Section 15 (3) or
Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, will not apply to the claims so
transferred from the LoEA, in view of the fact that those claims were entertained by
an Authority which had jurisdiction to entertain them, at the time when they were
taken on file and also in view of the fact that the period of limitation prescribed in the
National Green Tribunal Act could not be made applicable to cases transferred from
another Authority.
The prescription regarding court fee contained in Rule 12 of the National Green
Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules 2011 shall not apply to the claims
transferred from the LoEA, since they are transferred under orders of court, after the
abolition of an Authority.
In view of the huge volume of claims now getting transferred to the National Green
Tribunal, the Central Government shall constitute, at least one additional Bench at
Chennai, as undertaken by the learned Additional Solicitor General, for the present.
The Central Government shall examine the constitution of another additional Bench,
within six months, so that the Tribunal does not crush under the weight of such a huge
volume.
The Union of India shall consider rehabilitating the employees of the Loss of Ecology
Authority whose particulars are furnished in paragraph 79 above by absorbing them
into the National Green Tribunal.
The case of corporate giant Mantri TechZone Pvt Ltd and Core Mind
Software Services Pvt Ltd:
The recent judgment of NGT which was propounded against Mantri Constructions
Group of Bangalore is big boost to the environment and sustainability activism in
Bengaluru carried out by citizens. The NGT in this case has imposed a new buffet
zone of 75 meters for lakes and wetlands. The historic judgment will affect all the
construction operation which is being carried out within 75 meter of lakes.
Earlier known as Manipal ETA Infotech, the mixed residential project got
clearance under Special Economic Zone (SEZ) category, in a High Level
Clearance Committee meeting held during Global Investors Meet in 2000, when S
M Krishna was the chief minister of Karnataka.
The project that was dormant for a long time got reactivated in recent years. The
ambitious IT park-cum-residential project where Mantri Developers was a
partner, was planned at a cost of Rs 2300 crore. The project was planned on 72
acres of land between two of Bengalurus important lakes, which forms the
catchment area for Bellandur lake. The project was renamed as Mantri Techzone
Private Limited, with a major change in stakeholding patterns.
A copy of the BWSSB no-objection certificate issued to the builder sourced by
Citizen Matters revealed that the NOC was partial and did not cover the full
project. A study by
Indian Institute of Science (IISc) revealed that the project has encroached the
major stormwater drain that connects Madivala lake to Bellandur. The study also
said that the project would cause massive traffic jams in the area. Citizen Matters
had written a series of articles on the issue.
A case was filed in the High Court of Karnataka by Namma Bengaluru Foundation
(NBF), an nongovernmental organisation founded by Rajyasabha MP Rajeev
Chandrashekhar. The case in NGT was fought by Forward Foundation, Praja-RAAG
and Bangalore Environment Trust. NBF withdrew the PIL in the High Court and
impleaded in the NGT case. The NGT stayed the mega project through its interim
order dated 16th April 2014.
Lets look at the key highlights of the case:
1. 07.05.2015- NGT- NGT penalized both builders for commencing construction before
receiving clearances and cites the violation of environmental laws. Mantri Techzone
Private Limited and Core Mind Software and Services Private Limited are ordered to pay
Rs 117.35 crore and Rs 22.5 crore as penalty respectively, for "illegal and unauthorized"
construction in an ecologically sensitive area. NGT constitutes an eight-member
committee to inspect, validate and submit a report within three months.
2. 20.05.2015- SC- The Supreme Court granted a stay on the National Green Tribunal
(NGT) order imposing a penalty of Rs 117.35 crore on Mantri Techzone Pvt Ltd and
Rs 22.5 crore on Coremind Software and Services Pvt Ltd for not following the green
norms. The stay was granted as Mantri and Coremind contended that they were not
given enough opportunity to be heard before the NGT. The NGT allowed the
appellants to proceed with construction only on payment of penalty. The Supreme
Court stays the fines and gives the companies a weeks time to approach NGT with a
review application.
3. 07.05.2016- NGT- The Tribunal disposed of Original Application No. 222 of 2014 in
the case of Forward Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. By its detailed
judgment, various directions were passed such as upholding the levy of the
Environmental Compensation payable by the Respondents to the tune of INR 117
crores and INR 22.5 crores, appointment of High Powered Committee which was
required to submit its report to the Tribunal, etc.
The Tribunal also imposed certain conditions and issued appropriate directions, as a
condition precedent for these projects to re-commence and/or complete their projects
in accordance with law.
Key Highlights of Judgment
a) New buffer zone limits demarcated
For lakes: 75 m from the periphery of the water body to be maintained as green
belt and buffer zone for all existing water bodies.
50 m from the edge in case of primary Rajkulewas.
35 m from the edge in case of secondary Rajkulewas.
25 m from the edge in case of tertiary Rajkulewas.
These buffer zones are to be treated as no construction zones in order to maintain
sustainable development.
All existing constructions of the Respondents in such areas are to be demolished
and no new constructions in these areas are allowed.
b) All STPs operating in the area whether Government or privately owned should meet
the revised standards notified by CPCB/ MoEF.
c) Bangalore receives less water than required from the Cauvery river and the entire
zone falls within the critical zone in terms of ground water exploitation. Hence the
following rules have been prescribed:
At the time of application for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC), the water
requirement for construction phase and operation phase are to be considered
separately.
All project proponents should mandatorily use only treated sewage water for
construction purposes and this should be a condition precedent for EC.
If the quality of treated sewage water does not conform to the quality required for
construction, necessary up gradation in STP should be immediately undertaken.
The Supreme Court on 12th May 2016 stayed the Rs 117 crore penalty imposed on real estate
developer Mantri Techzone Pvt Ltd by the National Green Tribunal for encroaching water
bodies in Bengaluru. A bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice R Banumathi directed
maintenance of status quo and asked all the builders not to raise constructions within 75
metres from the lake and 50 metres from the storm water drain in the city, in keeping with the
NGT's direction.
The analysis of some of the prominent cases disposed of by NGT demonstrates that it is most
consistent and progressive environmental authority of India. The NGT refrains to favour
infrastructure project nor does it causes delay in resolving environmental cases before it. It
has been largely successful in implementing its decisions, which more often are staying
environmental clearance. Also the NGT appears to have empowered various legal advisors all
over India to represent considerable authority in environmental law.