SARV JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 16 April 2019

O R D E R

DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Appeal admitted.

2. On 8 February 2019, the following order was passed by thisCourt, when a challenge was addressed to the order of the NationalGreen Tribunal[1] dated 5 December 2018:

“Since the proceedings are still pending before the National GreenTribunal, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain the civilappeal at this stage. The earlier order dated 30 October 2018 andthe subsequent order dated 5 December 2018 (the latter isimpugned in the present appeal) are interlocutory. Any decisionby the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,Government of India and by the Forest Department of theGovernment of Haryana must be in accordance with law.

Since the OA is still pending before the Tribunal, this shall notcome in the way of the appellant pursuing its remedies in thepending proceedings.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.”

3. On 5 December 2018, the NGT had, while adverting to itsearlier order dated 30 October 2018, reiterated that the fourth respondentherein may submit a proposal to the Ministry of Environment, Forestsand Climate Change[2] and to the State Government. The proposal wasto be considered by the State of Haryana and by the MOEF&CC.

4. When the earlier Civil Appeal came up before this Court on 8February 2019, as the order indicates, it was disposed of since thedirection contained in the order dated 5 December 2018 was interlocutoryin nature. However, this Court observed that:

(i) Any decision by the MOEF&CC and by the Forest Departmentof the Government of Haryana must be in accordance with law;

(ii) Since the Original Application[3] was still pending before the 1 NGT

2 MOEF&CC

3 OA

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ANGT, this shall not come in the way of the appellant pursuing its remediesin the pending proceedings.

5. Following the order passed by this Court, a two-Judge Benchof the NGT passed the following order on 11 February 2019:

“At the outset, we have been informed that the order dated onB05.12.2018 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon’bleSupreme Court. However, the said civil appeal has been decidedwithout any interference by the Hon’ble Court. Therefore, thesteps to be taken in furtherance of the proposal given on 05.12.2018should be expedited. The State of Haryana, before which theCproposal is pending for consideration, to decide the same withintwo weeks from today. Thereafter, the matter be sent to RegionalOfficer, MoEF at Chandigarh who shall consider and decide withintwo weeks from date of receipt of the proposal from State ofHaryana.

DAccordingly, Original Application No.124 of 2017 stands disposedof, with no order as to cost.

M.A. No.208 of 2017

This application does not survive for consideration as the mainappeal itself stands dismissed.E

M.A. No.208 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly.”

The above order dated 11 February 2019 is the subject matter ofthe present Civil Appeal.

6. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that as a resultFof the impugned order of the NGT, the appellant has been completelyshut out from seeking redress in the proceedings which were pendingbefore the NGT. It has been urged that the clear intendment of the orderof this Court was that all objections which the appellant has in regard tothe proposal for the exchange of land with forest land alleged to haveGbeen encroached upon would have to be considered by the NGT. TheNGT has obviated that process by simply disposing of the OA withoutconsidering the objections.

7. On the other hand, Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, submits that the fourthrespondent has already taken steps to dismantle and shift the wall andthe impugned order of the NGT was in furtherance of the earlier directionswhich have already been issued on 30 October 2018 and 5 December2018. Moreover, it has been submitted that the Court may at best deletethe last sentence of the order of the NGT by which the OA has beendisposed of so that the OA may be restored to file for consideration ofsuch objections as the appellant may have. Alternatively, it has beensubmitted that the appellant may be left at liberty to pursue its remediesonce a final decision has been arrived at by the State of Haryana and bythe MOEF&CC.

8. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the order of thisCourt dated 8 February 2019 indicates that the reason why the Court didnot interfere, at that stage, with the order dated 5 December 2018 wasbecause it was of an interlocutory nature. At the same time, this Courtobserved that any decision by the MOEF&CC as well as by the StateGovernment would have to be in accordance with law. More significantly,since the OA was pending, this Court observed that this shall not comein the way of the appellant pursuing its remedies in the pendingproceedings. We find from the impugned order of the NGT dated 11February 2019 that it proceeded on the basis of what it was informed asthe crux of the order of this Court. Had the NGT awaited a copy of theorder of this Court, it would have been in a position to appreciate thecontents of the order which was passed on 8 February 2019. Theconsequence of the impugned order is to effectively shut out the appellantfrom addressing its objections to the proposed exchange before the NGT.In our view, this course of action, which has been followed by the NGT,is indefensible. The NGT ought to have, in deference to the order passedby this Court, allowed the process which had been initiated before theState and MOEF&CC to continue, but to permit the appellant in thepending proceedings to address its objections in accordance with law.

9. We are, therefore, unimpressed with the submissions whichhave been urged on behalf of the fourth respondent and, for that matter,on behalf of the State of Haryana. The NGT was duty bound to followthe order of this Court and we are constrained to observe that this hasnot been done.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

818SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A10. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside theimpugned order of the NGT dated 11 February 2019 in its entirety. Weaccordingly restore OA 124 of 2017 to the file of the NGT and nowexpect that the NGT shall abide by the order passed by this Court on 8February 2019.

B11. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal disposed of.

C

D

E

F

G

H