THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.) on 1 June 2022

1. The appellant challenges the order dated 6[th] May 2022 passedby the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the “NGT”) in O.A. No.361 of 2021, vide which it prohibitedthe appellant from undertaking any further construction. The appellantalso challenges the order dated 20[th] May 2022 passed by the learnedNGT in I.A. Nos. 117 and 118 of 2022 in O.A. No. 361 of 2022, vide A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awhich the application seeking vacation of stay imposed vide order dated6[th] May 2022 was rejected.

2. The appellant was already running a resort at Rushikonda Hill,near Visakhapatnam. According to the appellant, after obtaining thenecessary permission, it has demolished the existing resort and is re-Bconstructing the resort at the same place with additional facilities.

3. A writ petition being W.P. (P.I.L.) No.241 of 2021, challengingthe said construction, has already been filed before the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh at Amaravati. In the said writ petition, the DivisionBench of the High Court has passed the following order on 16[th] DecemberC2021:

“In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other alliedactivities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shallbe strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by theMinistry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well asDthe existing master plan.”

4. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition before the High Courtwas filed on 8[th] December 2021. However, a letter addressed by therespondent was sent on 31[st] October 2021 to the learned NGT. Therespondent is a sitting Member of Parliament from one of theEconstituencies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The learned NGT, aftertaking cognizance of the said letter, initiated the proceedings in O.A.No.361 of 2021. It further appears from the record that the learnedNGT had appointed an Experts Committee on 17[th] December 2021 whichsubmitted its Report on 29[th] March 2022. A perusal of the said reportFwould reveal that the said Experts Committee consisting of four expertsdid not find any violation in the construction that was carried out by theappellant.

5. However, the learned NGT again, vide its order dated 6[th] May2022, appointed a 2[nd] Experts Committee. The report of the said 2[nd]GExperts Committee is still awaited. However, without waiting for thesaid report, by the same order, the learned NGT directed that no furtherconstruction to be undertaken.

6. It appears that after the order dated 6[th] May 2022 was passedby the learned NGT, the appellant filed an application for vacating stay H

on construction as directed in the said interim order dated 6[th] May 2022passed by the learned NGT. However, the same was also rejected bythe learned NGT vide its order dated 20[th] May 2022. Both these ordersare impugned in the present appeals.

7. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant, submitted that when the High Court ofcompetent jurisdiction was already in seisin of the matter, the learnedNGT could not have entertained a lis with regard to the same cause ofaction. He submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice ofthe learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the interim orderdated 6[th] May 2022, which was in conflict with the order of the HighCourt dated 16[th] December 2021.

8. Dr. Singhvi submitted that NGT is a Tribunal, which issubordinate to the High Court in so far as the territorial jurisdiction of theHigh Court is concerned. He, therefore, submitted that the verycontinuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT is not sustainablein law.

9. Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the appellant has acted ingross breach of the order dated 16[th] December 2021 passed by the HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. He submitted that the constructionis rampantly going on in blatant violation of the order of the High Court.Contempt petition has already been filed before the High Court, whereinthe High Court after taking cognizance of the blatant violation, issuednotice on 4[th] May 2022.

10. This Court, in the case of Priya Gupta and Another v.Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare andOthers[1], has observed thus:

“12. The government departments are no exception to theconsequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court.Violation of the orders of the Court would be its disobedience andwould invite action in accordance with law. The orders passed bythis Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of theConstitution of India. No Court or Tribunal and for that matter A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

Aany other authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Suchobedience would also be conducive to their smooth working,otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of lawand the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can beno hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher courtBin the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under itssuperintendence and they cannot ignore it. This Court alsoexpressed the view that it had become necessary to reiterate thatdisrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline havea grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution andencourages chance litigation. It must be remembered thatCpredictability and certainty are important hallmarks of judicialjurisprudence developed in this country, as discipline is sine quanon for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system.If the Courts command others to act in accordance with theprovisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it isDnot possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principleby those who are required to lay down the law. [Ref. East IndiaCommercial Companies Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors. [(2008) 10SCC 1]”

D

E

11. In any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as theTribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Courtinsofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. Areference in this respect was also made to the judgment of theConstitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v.FUnion of India and Others[2].

12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was notappropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with theproceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the HighCourt was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim orderGpermitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learnedNGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, wherethe authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order theyare required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a H2 (1995) 1 SCC 400

situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which wouldbe prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.

13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view thatthe continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the samecause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in theinterest of justice.

14. We, therefore, quash and set aside the proceedings pendingbefore the learned NGT in O.A. No.361 of 2021.

15. We further find that taking into consideration the seriousallegations made by the respondent, it will be appropriate that all thesefacts are placed before the High Court and the High Court considerspassing appropriate orders in accordance with law so as to strike abalance between the development and the environmental issues.

16. Needless to state that though development is necessary foreconomical progress of the nation, it is equally necessary to safeguardthe environment so as to preserve pollution free environment and ecologyfor the future generations to come.

17. We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate that the partiesmove the High Court for appropriate orders. The respondent would beat liberty to file an application for impleadment before the High Court inthe pending proceedings, which would be considered by the High Courtin accordance with law.

18. Though, the High Court has permitted construction to proceedin accordance with law, we find that till the High Court takes a fresh callon the said issue, it will be necessary to issue the following direction:

(a) Until the High Court considers the issue, the construction willbe permitted only on the area where the construction existedearlier and which has been demolished and the flat area.

19. Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf ofthe State, on instructions from Shri Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, stated thatthe appellant would not claim any equities on account of the construction,which is permitted to be proceeded further.

20. We further clarify that we have not expressed any opinion onthe merits of the matter and the parties would be at liberty to raise all the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aissues available to them before the High Court which shall be consideredin accordance with law. Since the learned NGT has already constitutedan Experts Committee, the High Court would be at liberty to take intoconsideration the report of the said Experts Committee or if it findsappropriate may appoint other Committee as it deems fit.

B21. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Pendingapplication(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

C

Nidhi Jain

Appeals disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H