Madras High Court Stays NGT Office Order Mandating Suo Moto 'Pan India' Matters To Be Heard Only By NGT Principal Bench

The Madras High Court on Tuesday imposed a stay on an office order issued by the Registrar General of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had directed that suo matters having pan-India or inter-state implications will be henceforth listed before the Principal Bench of at least three members. Pursuant to Section 4(4)(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act), a Bench must have an equal number of judicial members and expert members. Accordingly, the petitioner argued that the officer order mandating the composition of 'three members' was in violation of the NGT Act.Accordingly, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed on Tuesday, "Since the impugned office order of June 12, 2021 appears to be contrary to Section 4 of the Act on at least three counts, it is necessary to stay such order pending the disposal of the writ petition."It was noted by the Court that Rule 5(2) of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 (2011 Rules) permits the NGT Chairperson to specify the cases which can be heard by Benches consisting of more than two Members. However, terming the officer order to be an 'anomaly', the Court observed, "Notwithstanding Rule 5(2) of the said Rules, since the statute has to prevail over the Rules, in view of the proviso to Section 4(4) of the Act, the number of Expert Members and the number of Judicial Members need to be equal. Thus, prima facie, the said Act when read with the Rules, does not permit a Bench consisting an odd number of Members. To such extent, the impugned office order seems to be an anomaly." Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that Rule 6 of the 2011 Rules permits the NGT to sit in any place other than the place it ordinarily sits, if the judicial member of the tribunal is satisfied that there are circumstances rendering it necessary, and with the prior approval of the NGT Chairperson. However, the Court opined that when territorial jurisdictions have been defined and the places of sitting have been fixed, it will not be permissible for even the Principal Bench to take up matters pertaining to any other Bench at least without a Central Government notification in such regard. It was also observed that even though the NGT has been conferred the authority to grant relief for compensation or restitution under the NGT Act, under Section 15 of the NGT Act an application in this regard has to be filed first before the NGT can assume jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court opined, "There does not, immediately, appear to be any provision under which the Tribunal may assume suo motu authority" Further, the Court held that pursuant to the exercise of judicial authority conferred upon the judicial members under the statute, the Chairperson of NGT cannot exercise any greater authority compared to the other judicial members. Accordingly, the Court stayed the officer order of the NGT by granting leave to the NGT to apply for the vacating of this stay order if required after serving due notice to the petitioner. The Central government and the NGT was further directed to file a counter affidavit within 4 weeks. The matter is slated to be heard next on September 7. Case Title: Meenava Thanthai KR Selvaraj Kumar v. National Green Tribunal Principal Bench and AnrClick Here To Read/Download Order

Madras High Court Stays NGT Office Order Mandating Suo Moto 'Pan India' Matters To Be Heard Only By NGT Principal Bench

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Madras High Court Stays NGT Office Order Mandating Suo Moto 'Pan India' Matters To Be Heard Only By NGT Principal Bench

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers