Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 45224524 OF 2022
(@ DIARY NO. 16486/2022)
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU
KANUMURU (M.P.) RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
Permission to file appeal without certified/plain copy
of impugned order is granted.
Issue notice.
Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel accepts notice
on behalf of the sole respondent, and as such, we have heard
the matter finally.
Signature Not Verified
th
1. The appellant challenges the order dated 6 May 2022
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2022.06.06
16:42:43 IST
Reason:
passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
1
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “NGT”) in O.A. No.361 of
2021, vide which it prohibited the appellant from
undertaking any further construction. The appellant also
th
challenges the order dated 20 May 2022 passed by the
learned NGT in I.A. Nos. 117 and 118 of 2022 in O.A. No.
361 of 2022, vide which the application seeking vacation of
th
stay imposed vide order dated 6 May 2022 was rejected.
The appellant was already running a resort at
2.
Rushikonda Hill, near Visakhapatnam. According to the
appellant, after obtaining the necessary permission, it has
demolished the existing resort and is reconstructing the
resort at the same place with additional facilities.
A writ petition being W.P. (P.I.L.) No.241 of 2021,
3.
challenging the said construction, has already been filed
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. In
the said writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court
th
has passed the following order on 16 December 2021:
“In the meanwhile, the construction activities
and other allied activities in relation to the
subject project, if any undertaken, shall be
strictly in accordance with the permission
accorded by the Ministry of Environment,
2
Forest and Climate Change, as well as the
existing master plan.”
4. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition before the
th
High Court was filed on 8 December 2021. However, a
st
letter addressed by the respondent was sent on 31 October
2021 to the learned NGT. The respondent is a sitting Member
of Parliament from one of the constituencies in the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The learned NGT, after taking cognizance of
the said letter, initiated the proceedings in O.A. No.361 of
2021. It further appears from the record that the learned
th
NGT had appointed an Experts Committee on 17 December
th
2021 which submitted its Report on 29 March 2022. A
perusal of the said report would reveal that the said Experts
Committee consisting of four experts did not find any
violation in the construction that was carried out by the
appellant.
th
5. However, the learned NGT again, vide its order dated 6
nd
May 2022, appointed a 2 Experts Committee. The report of
nd
the said 2 Experts Committee is still awaited. However,
without waiting for the said report, by the same order, the
3
learned NGT directed that no further construction to be
undertaken.
th
6. It appears that after the order dated 6 May 2022 was
passed by the learned NGT, the appellant filed an application
for vacating stay on construction as directed in the said
th
interim order dated 6 May 2022 passed by the learned NGT.
However, the same was also rejected by the learned NGT vide
th
its order dated 20 May 2022. Both these orders are
impugned in the present appeals.
7. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that when
the High Court of competent jurisdiction was already in
seisin of the matter, the learned NGT could not have
entertained a lis with regard to the same cause of action. He
submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice of
the learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the
th
interim order dated 6 May 2022, which was in conflict with
th
the order of the High Court dated 16 December 2021.
8. Dr. Singhvi submitted that NGT is a Tribunal, which is
subordinate to the High Court in so far as the territorial
4
jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. He, therefore,
submitted that the very continuation of the proceedings
before the learned NGT is not sustainable in law.
9. Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the
th
appellant has acted in gross breach of the order dated 16
December 2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
at Amravati. He submitted that the construction is
rampantly going on in blatant violation of the order of the
High Court. Contempt petition has already been filed before
the High Court, wherein the High Court after taking
th
cognizance of the blatant violation, issued notice on 4 May
2022.
This Court, in the case of
10. Priya Gupta and Another v.
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
1
, has observed thus:
Welfare and Others
“ 12. The government departments are no exception
to the consequences of wilful disobedience of the
orders of the Court. Violation of the orders of the
Court would be its disobedience and would invite
action in accordance with law. The orders passed by
this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article
1
(2013) 11 SCC 404
5
141 of the Constitution of India. No Court or
Tribunal and for that matter any other authority
can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such
obedience would also be conducive to their smooth
working, otherwise there would be confusion in the
administration of law and the respect for law would
irretrievably suffer. There can be no hesitation in
holding that the law declared by the higher court in
the State is binding on authorities and tribunals
under its superintendence and they cannot ignore
it. This Court also expressed the view that it had
become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the
constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a
grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution
and encourages chance litigation. It must be
remembered that predictability and certainty are
important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence
developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua
non for effective and efficient functioning of the
judicial system. If the Courts command others to
act in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is not
possible to countenance violation of the
constitutional principle by those who are required to
lay down the law. [Ref. East India Commercial
Companies Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962
SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand &
Ors. [(2008) 10 SCC 1]”
11. In any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as
the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to
the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court is concerned. A reference in this respect was
also made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this
6
Court in the case of
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
2
and Others .
12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not
appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued
with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was
pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter
and had passed an interim order permitting the
construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned
NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous
situation, where the authorities would be faced with a
difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There
can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the
orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be
prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.
13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view
that the continuation of the proceedings before the learned
NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the
High Court, would not be in the interest of justice.
14. We, therefore, quash and set aside the proceedings
2
(1995) 1 SCC 400
7
pending before the learned NGT in O.A. No.361 of 2021.
We further find that taking into consideration the
15.
serious allegations made by the respondent, it will be
appropriate that all these facts are placed before the High
Court and the High Court considers passing appropriate
orders in accordance with law so as to strike a balance
between the development and the environmental issues.
16. Needless to state that though development is necessary
for economical progress of the nation, it is equally necessary
to safeguard the environment so as to preserve pollution free
environment and ecology for the future generations to come.
We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate that the
17.
parties move the High Court for appropriate orders. The
respondent would be at liberty to file an application for
impleadment before the High Court in the pending
proceedings, which would be considered by the High Court
in accordance with law.
18. Though, the High Court has permitted construction to
proceed in accordance with law, we find that till the High
Court takes a fresh call on the said issue, it will be necessary
8
to issue the following direction:
(a) Until the High Court considers the issue, the
construction will be permitted only on the area
where the construction existed earlier and which
has been demolished and the flat area.
19. Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the State, on instructions from Shri Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki,
stated that the appellant would not claim any equities on
account of the construction, which is permitted to be
proceeded further.
20. We further clarify that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter and the parties would be
at liberty to raise all the issues available to them before the
High Court which shall be considered in accordance with
law. Since the learned NGT has already constituted an
Experts Committee, the High Court would be at liberty to
take into consideration the report of the said Experts
Committee or if it finds appropriate may appoint other
Committee as it deems fit.
21. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
9
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
….....................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
….....................J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI;
June 01, 2022.
10
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 16486/2022
(Arising out of impugned Interim order dated 06-05-2022
in OA No. 361/2021 20-05-2022 in IA No. 117/2022 20-05-
2022 in IA No. 118/2022 passed by the National Green
Tribunal)
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P) Respondent(s)
(IA No.80661/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.80659/2022-STAY APPLICATION
and IA No.80658/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP WITHOUT
CERTIFIED/PLAIN COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER and IA
No.81808/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 01-06-2022 These appeals were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
(VACATION BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR
Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advocate
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv
Mr. K.V.Girish Chowdary, Adv
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv
Ms. Akhila Palem, Adv
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv
Mr. Sahil Raveen, Adv
For Respondent(s) Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
11
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Permission to file appeal without certified/plain
copy of impugned order is granted.
Issue notice.
Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel accepts
notice on behalf of the sole respondent.
The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the
signed Reportable Judgment. Pending application(s), if
any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Geeta Ahuja) (Ranjana Shailey)
Assistant Registrar-cum-PS Court Master
(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
12