Environmental grievances concerning a proposed crushing plant must first be pursued before the competent pollution control authority.

The petitioner challenged the proposed establishment of an Aggregate (Gitti) Crushing Plant by respondent No. 8 on Survey No. 192/4, measuring 0.2700 hectare, at Village Patora, Tahsil Patan, District Durg.

He alleged that the plant was being established without the requisite statutory permissions, environmental clearances and No-Objection Certificates, and that its operation would cause dust, noise and other environmental pollution affecting public health and agriculture.

The petitioner sought an inquiry into the legality of the proposed plant, verification of all permissions and restraint against its establishment or operation without mandatory clearances.

The Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board submitted that the petition was premature because no new crushing unit had been established.

It stated that respondent No. 8 had been cautioned by letter dated 2 June 2026 not to establish the unit without requisite approvals, and that an inspection had found no new plant at the site.

The High Court considered the petition under Article 226 without adjudicating the environmental allegations on merits.

Whether the writ petition challenging the proposed establishment of the crushing plant was maintainable when no new plant had yet been established and no immediate legal right of the petitioner had been shown to be infringed.

Whether the petitioner should be relegated to an appropriate application or representation before the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board concerning his environmental grievances.

Section 14(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 confers jurisdiction on the National Green Tribunal over civil cases involving a substantial question relating to the environment arising from implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

The Court relied on Sridevi Datla v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 321, wherein the Supreme Court recognised that persons directly affected by environmentally consequential projects may approach the NGT and emphasised the importance of independent adjudication in matters involving potential environmental injury.

The petitioner also relied on the precautionary environmental principles recognised in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647, but the High Court did not determine the merits of that contention.

Applying the alternative-remedy principle, the Court held that the petitioner should first pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent environmental authority.

The Court noted that the challenge was directed only against the proposed establishment of the plant and that, according to the inspection conducted by the authorities, no new crushing unit had been established at the site.

Since respondent No. 4 had already cautioned the proposed operator not to establish the unit without the requisite approvals and the petitioner’s environmental objections could be examined by the competent authority, the Court considered the writ petition premature.

Having regard to Section 14(1) of the NGT Act and the principle stated in Sridevi Datla, the Court declined to examine the environmental and statutory-compliance issues directly in the writ proceedings.

It instead directed the petitioner to approach respondent No. 4, which was required to objectively examine the grievance and consider all relevant aspects in accordance with law.

It relegated the petitioner to submit an appropriate application or representation before respondent No. 4, the Regional Officer of the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to consider and decide the grievance strictly in accordance with law, objectively and after examining all relevant aspects of the matter.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.