NGT Lacks Jurisdiction Over Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act Matters Due to Omission from Schedule I List

The petitioners, operators of shrimp hatcheries, challenged an order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, dated 29.09.2022

In the impugned order, the NGT had suo motu directed that hatcheries must obtain approvals under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notifications of 2011 and 2019, failing which they were to be removed and liable for environmental compensation

The petitioners contended they were governed exclusively by the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005 (CAA Act), which is not listed in the Schedule to the NGT Act

Furthermore, they argued the NGT passed the order without providing them notice or an opportunity to be heard

The Court relied on Section 14 and Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which limits the NGT’s jurisdiction to specific environmental enactments

It applied the precedent from TNPCB v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., establishing that the NGT is a court of limited jurisdiction and cannot exercise powers over statutes not listed in its Schedule

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court followed Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, which held that while the NGT has suo motu powers, it must afford affected parties a due opportunity to be heard

It also cited Veena Gupta v. CPCB, where the Supreme Court deprecated the NGT's practice of unilateral decision-making without hearing necessary parties

The High Court observed that the NGT is a statutory body, not a Constitutional Court, and its judicial review powers are restricted to the "Scheduled Acts"

Since the CAA Act is not mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act, any direction regulating aquaculture via the CAA Act's domain was found to be outside the NGT's jurisdiction

On the procedural aspect, the Court found that the NGT had indeed failed to issue notice to the petitioners before directing the removal of their hatcheries

Applying the Ankita Sinha doctrine, the Court held that the exercise of suo motu power does not exempt the Tribunal from the rules of natural justice

Consequently, the NGT's "unilateral decision making" was deemed legally unsustainable

The Court quashed and set aside the NGT’s order dated 29.09.2022

However, recognizing the environmental importance of the subject, the High Court assumed suo motu jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

It directed the Registry to number a new suo motu writ petition to determine whether aquaculture units require CRZ clearance and how the CAA Act interacts with general environmental laws