If NGT Acts On A Letter Representation, Will It Be A Suo Motu Case? Supreme Court Asks [Hearing Day 2]

The Supreme Court on Thursday continued hearing a batch of petitions on the issue whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has jurisdiction under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to initiate suo motu proceedings based on a letter or newspaper report. The matter is being adjudicated upon by a Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar. Senior Advocate Anand Grover has been made an amicus curiae in the matter. The cases were:1. An appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against an order of the NGT on waste disposal passed on the basis of an article published in 'The Quint'.2. Batch of appeals arising from an order passed by the NGT on the basis of a letter representation increasing the minimum distance rule for quarries in Kerala as 200 meters from 50 meters from residential units. The Kerala High Court had held that NGT has suo motu jurisdiction; however it limited the operation of the order to new quarries and allowed existing quarries to operate as per earlier distance limit till the term of their license.The bench is examining legal point if NGT had suo motu jurisdiction, and said that it will not go into the merits of the individual casesStatutory provisions must be read on a holistic basis: V. Giri Senior Advocate V Giri representing Thomsun Aggregates and M/S. Crystal Aggregates Pvt. Ltd commenced the arguments on the second day of the hearing. He argued that the NGT has 'no general power of review'. Referring to Section 14 of the NGT Act which outlines the ambit of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, he contended that Section 14(1) of the Act cannot be read in isolation. Instead it was submitted that Section 14(1) and (2) must be read together while deciding upon the extent of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Further, referring to Section 14(3) of the NGT Act which lays down the conditions required to be fulfilled for the tribunal to entertain an application, senior counsel Giri contended, "if somebody comes with an application, sub-section (3) has to be fulfilled. Just a letter won't do." Senior counsel Giri further submitted that in order to appreciate the legislative intent, statutory provisions must be read on a holistic basis. He also relied upon Supreme Court judgments in the Central Vista project and Vedanta-Sterlite cases. He thus opined that an application as per the provision of Section 14(3) is necessary to trigger the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. NGT is not a tribunal under Article 323A of Constitution: Jaideep Gupta Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State of Kerala, contended that the NGT does not possess the 'judicial review of legislative power' since it is not a tribunal constituted under Article 323A of the Constitution. He also argued that the NGT does not enjoy inherent powers such as the High Court and the Supreme Court under Article 226 and 32 of the Constitution. Opining that the NGT Act does not envisage any provision conferring suo moto powers upon the Tribunal, he contended, "Statute is silent, there must be express power in the statute for the Tribunal to take suo moto cognisance" The senior counsel further argued that even civil courts cannot ignore the provisions of the CPC and begin hearing a matter without a civil suit. "Even Courts which have inherent jurisdiction cannot go against statutory provisions unless in extraordinary circumstances', he further submitted. He also placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palaanisamy wherein the Apex Court had held that in the absence of 'express statutory provisions', the inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised. Thus, he contended that a letter petition cannot be taken up by the NGT to initiate suo moto proceedings. Legislative intent to be deciphered from the language employed in the statute: Dhruv Mehta Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta appearing for one of the petitioners argued that the NGT does not have power to initiate suo moto proceedings as the legislation does not expressly provide for the same. "Legislative intent to be seen from the language employed in the statute", he argued. Reliance was also placed on Supreme Court judgment in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Karekar wherein the Apex Court had held that 'tribunals are creatures of the statute and thus derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute'. Accordingly the Supreme Court had ruled that District Forums and State Commissions do not have the power of review as such powers have not been conferred by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. "The Parliament has deliberately not conferred such authority over the Tribunal..provisions of the Act and Rules would have to be cast aside if it is to be said that NGT has suo moto jurisdiction", the senior counsel argued. To confer suo moto powers upon NGT was not intended by the legislature: Sajan Poovyya Senior advocate Sajan Poovyya appearing for one of the petitioners...

If NGT Acts On A Letter Representation, Will It Be A Suo Motu Case? Supreme Court Asks [Hearing Day 2]

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags