Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Calcutta Present Court ought not to interfere with impugned order, since provision of appeal under Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is akin to that of second appeal MANU/WB/1312/2019 - (14 Jun 2019) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Dipak Kumar Das Vs. Raghunath Maity and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The present challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against an order whereby the National Green Tribunal passed a direction on the State Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection. Further, to find out whether the Rice Mill run by the present Petitioner is still operating without necessary approval from the concerned authorities. 
As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, a remedy is provided under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for an appeal to the Supreme Court against such order of the National Green Tribunal. It is provided categorically in the said Section that, such an appeal would be available on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) thereby putting the standards on the same footing as a second appeal, to be heard for admission before a Division Bench of this Court. 
There are certain grounds on which, this Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. First, even if a second appeal had been preferred before a Division Bench of this Court, this Court, sitting singly, would not have the jurisdiction/determination to take up the said second appeal for admission hearing. Since the provision of appeal under Section 22 of the 2010 Act is akin to that of second appeal, on similar logic, judicial propriety demands that this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order. 
Secondly, since the impugned order does not reflect ex facie any jurisdictional error sufficient to justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there could be no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same under the said Article. 
Thirdly, since a superior forum, being the Supreme Court, has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the said order, it would be providing an additional forum of challenge to the parties if the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entertained, against an order passed in which a Special Leave Petition can, in any event, be preferred to the Supreme Court, thereby increasing one forum of appeal de hors the provisions of the statute itself. 
In such view of the matter, judicial propriety demands that, this Court does not interfere with the impugned order. The Petitioner, however, is granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum with a proper challenge against the impugned order.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Inspection, Jurisdiction, Appropriate forum</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>