Sarv Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti vs Union Of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3571 OF 2019

SARV JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Appeal admitted.

On 8 February 2019, the following order was passed by

this Court, when a challenge was addressed to the order

of the National Green Tribunal1 dated 5 December 2018:

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

Since the OA is still pending before the Tribunal, this shall not come in the way of the appellant pursuing its remedies in the pending proceedings.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.”

On 5 December 2018, the NGT had, while adverting to Signature Not Verified its earlier order dated 30 October 2018, reiterated that Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.04.24 17:01:04 IST Reason: the fourth respondent herein may submit a proposal to the

1 NGT 2

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change2 and

to the State Government. The proposal was to be

considered by the State of Haryana and by the MOEF&CC.

When the earlier Civil Appeal came up before this

Court on 8 February 2019, as the order indicates, it was

disposed of since the direction contained in the order

dated 5 December 2018 was interlocutory in nature.

However, this Court observed that:

(i) Any decision by the MOEF&CC and by the Forest

Department of the Government of Haryana must be in

accordance with law;

(ii) Since the Original Application3 was still pending

before the NGT, this shall not come in the way of the

appellant pursuing its remedies in the pending

proceedings.

Following the order passed by this Court, a two-Judge

Bench of the NGT passed the following order on 11

February 2019:

“At the outset, we have been informed that the order dated on 05.12.2018 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the said civil appeal has been decided without any interference by the Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the steps to be taken in furtherance of the proposal given on 05.12.2018 should be expedited. The State of Haryana, before which the proposal is pending for consideration, to decide the same within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the matter be sent to Regional Officer, MoEF at Chandigarh who shall consider and decide within two weeks from date of receipt of the proposal from State of Haryana.

2 MOEF&CC 3 OA 3

Accordingly, Original Application No.124 of 2017 stands disposed of, with no order as to cost.

M.A. No.208 of 2017 This application does not survive for consideration as the main appeal itself stands dismissed.

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

The above order dated 11 February 2019 is the subject

matter of the present Civil Appeal.

On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted

that as a result of the impugned order of the NGT, the

appellant has been completely shut out from seeking

redress in the proceedings which were pending before the

NGT. It has been urged that the clear intendment of the

order of this Court was that all objections which the

appellant has in regard to the proposal for the exchange

of land with forest land alleged to have been encroached

upon would have to be considered by the NGT. The NGT has

obviated that process by simply disposing of the OA

without considering the objections.

On the other hand, Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent,

submits that the fourth respondent has already taken

steps to dismantle and shift the wall and the impugned

order of the NGT was in furtherance of the earlier

directions which have already been issued on 30 October

2018 and 5 December 2018. Moreover, it has been

submitted that the Court may at best delete the last 4

sentence of the order of the NGT by which the OA has been

disposed of so that the OA may be restored to file for

consideration of such objections as the appellant may

have. Alternatively, it has been submitted that the

appellant may be left at liberty to pursue its remedies

once a final decision has been arrived at by the State of

Haryana and by the MOEF&CC.

At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the

order of this Court dated 8 February 2019 indicates that

the reason why the Court did not interfere, at that

stage, with the order dated 5 December 2018 was because

it was of an interlocutory nature. At the same time,

this Court observed that any decision by the MOEF&CC as

well as by the State Government would have to be in

accordance with law. More significantly, since the OA

was pending, this Court observed that this shall not come

in the way of the appellant pursuing its remedies in the

pending proceedings. We find from the impugned order of

the NGT dated 11 February 2019 that it proceeded on the

basis of what it was informed as the crux of the order of

this Court. Had the NGT awaited a copy of the order of

this Court, it would have been in a position to

appreciate the contents of the order which was passed on

8 February 2019. The consequence of the impugned order

is to effectively shut out the appellant from addressing

its objections to the proposed exchange before the NGT.

In our view, this course of action, which has been 5

followed by the NGT, is indefensible. The NGT ought to

have, in deference to the order passed by this Court,

allowed the process which had been initiated before the

State and MOEF&CC to continue, but to permit the

appellant in the pending proceedings to address its

objections in accordance with law.

We are, therefore, unimpressed with the submissions

which have 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 follow the order of this Court

and we are constrained to observe that this has not been

done.

For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set

aside the impugned order of the NGT dated 11 February

2019 in its entirety. We accordingly restore OA 124 of

2017 to the file of the NGT and now expect that the NGT

shall abide by the order passed by this Court on 8

February 2019.

The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

.............................J. (DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD)

.............................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI APRIL 16, 2019 6

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3571 OF 2019

SARV JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

(WITH IA No.59463/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )

Date : 16-04-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Varun Mahalawat, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Nishant Anand, Adv.

Mr. Varun Deswal, Adv.

Ms. Mallika, Adv.

Mr. Prateek, Adv.

Abhigya, AOR Adity Vaibhav Singh, Adv.

Ms. Rekha Ahgara, Adv.

Ms. Sneha Siddharth, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shyel Trehan, Adv.

Mr. Raghav Anand, Adv.

Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.

Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR

Mr. Anil Grover, AAG Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Appeal admitted.

The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

reportable order. No costs.

7 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)