Civil Court Can't Grant Injunction On Matters Where NGT Takes Or May Take Action On 'Substantial Question Relating To Environment': Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that as per Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, Tribunals and not Civil Courts have jurisdiction to deal with civil cases on 'substantial questions relating to environment'. It held that as per Section 29 of the NGT Act, Civil Courts are barred from granting injunctions for actions taken or to be taken by the Tribunal in civil cases...
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that as per Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, Tribunals and not Civil Courts have jurisdiction to deal with civil cases on 'substantial questions relating to environment'.
It held that as per Section 29 of the NGT Act, Civil Courts are barred from granting injunctions for actions taken or to be taken by the Tribunal in civil cases on 'substantial questions relating to environment'.
In this case, the maintainability of the suit was challenged stating that the National Green Tribunal has the jurisdiction to govern 'substantial questions relating to environment' and not a Civil Court.
Justice V.G. Arun observed thus:
“…the relief of injunction is sought based on the allegation that the revision petitioners are flowing out chemical waste and contaminating the environment (padasekharam) in violation of the licence conditions and the statutory provisions. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction over such a case is vested with the Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act. As per Section 29, no civil court can grant injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Tribunal in respect of the settlement of dispute relating to any claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged which may be adjudicated by the Tribunal.”
The revision petitioners are conducting a textile dyeing unit on their property and the chemical waste from their industry flows into a public canal through a drainage canal situated on the property of the respondents. The respondents have approached the Civil Court seeking injunctions for restraining them from flowing out chemical waste through the drainage canal as it ultimately flows into their paddy land, causing water pollution and environmental pollution and affecting their paddy cultivation.
The Trial Court found that the suit filed by the respondents was maintainable. Challenging its maintainability, the revision petitioners have approached the High Court stating that the NGT has jurisdiction to govern 'substantial questions relating to environment' and not the Civil Court.
The revision petitioners contend that the suit was not maintainable due to the prohibition in Section 29 of the NGT Act. Section 29 pertains to the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and reads thus: “No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle dispute or entertain any question relating to any claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged which may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Tribunal in respect of the settlement of such dispute or any such claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment shall be granted by the civil court.”
The revision petitioners contended that the suit was filed without understanding the scope and ambit of the NGT Act. They also contend that their industry was operating with all valid permits and licenses issued by the statutory authorities, including the Pollution Control Board.
The Court noted that the case of the respondents was that they have individual grievances regarding the flowing of chemical waste through the drainage canal situated on their property. They claim that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to determine their grievances as they were not 'substantial questions relating to environment'.
Relying upon Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v Union of India (2018), the Court observed that the NGT Act was enacted to establish Tribunals for expeditious disposal of cases for adjudication of legal rights on environment protection, forest conservation and conservation of natural resources. It also held that the Tribunal have jurisdiction to grant compensation and reliefs for damages to persons and properties on issues relating to environmental protection.
The Court held that the 2 (m) of the NGT Act defines 'substantial questions relating to environment' under Section 2 (m) of the NGT Act. Analysing the definition of 'substantial questions relating to environment', the Court stated thus:
“A reading of the definition would show that, 'substantial question relating to environment' takes in instances of direct violation of specific statutory environmental obligation by a person in relation to the situations enumerated in the Section. The legislature has therefore consciously used the conjunction 'or', while describing the three different situations.”
It thus observed that as per Section 14, Tribunals have jurisdiction on civil cases about 'substantial questions relating to environment', including issues arising out of the Water Act. The Court stated that the issue of contamination of the environment as claimed by the respondents comes within the scope and ambit of the National Green Tribunal.
The Court also found that the National Green Tribunal was approached by a similarly situated property owner with a similar relief. In that case, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the functioning of the industry as they satisfied all statutory parameters. Based on this finding, the Court held that the National Green Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide upon the suit based on the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as per Section 29(2) of the NGT Act.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revision petition and upheld the objection to the maintainability of the suit.
Counsel for the revision petitioners: Advocates Blaze K.Jose, Urmila Zacharia, Gopika P.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
Case title: Kitex Garments Private Limited Company v Umaimath
Case number: CRP NO. 310 OF 2022