[ad_1]
Allahabad High Court
Anshika Pandey And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 27 June, 2025
Author: Jayant Banerji
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100454-DB Court No. - 64 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1651 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anshika Pandey And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran,Manoj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Hon’ble Madan Pal Singh,J.
1. Heard the petitioners in person, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, Sri Harshit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4.The respondents nos. 1,2 and 5 are represented by the learned Standing Counsel.
2. Contention of the petitioners is that the matter relates to environment pollution as a result of improper waste disposal near different river ghats in Prayagraj after the Kumbh Mela, which will effect the public at large given the monsoon season which is about to begin. Should the water level reach the area and ghats concerned, it will cause irreparable loss and harm to the society and public at large and hence this petition has been filed.
3. Allegations have been made regarding there being no proper waste disposal in the Triveni Ghat at Jhunsi. In the Sangam Ghat it was also found that plastic waste bags were left unattended, garbage was unsegregated and standing and untreated water had accumulated causing foul odour and insect breeding. With regard to the Balua Ghat, it was found that no designated waste disposal areas were present which resulted in scattered, unattended garbage and plastic waste. Around the Koteshwar Mahadev Mandir similarly absence of designated waste disposal areas is leading to unsegregated waste scattered across public spaces and riverbanks. In the Dashashwamedh Ghat no designated area for waste disposal was found, leading to scattered and unsegregated garbage. It is stated that dumped malwa (debris), pillars and left over temporary infrastructure would obstruct the river flow and drainage. Untreated organic waste would lead to nutrient overload in water which foster algal overgrowth, block sunlight and depletes oxygen, thereby creating a hostile aquatic environment.
4. The petitioners further contend that the National Green Tribunal principal Bench at New Delhi, disposed of an Original Application No. 310 of 2022 (Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.) giving several directions, but those directions are not being followed. The petitioners have relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7812 of 2022, Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs Vs. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla & Ors to contend that alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain this writ petition.
5. Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground that under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NGT Act‘), the petitioners has an efficacious alternative remedy by approaching the Tribunal. He contends that this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. The aforesaid argument has also been adopted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sewage Treatment Plant Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. Civil. (Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC-LKO.8930-DB).
6. In the opinion of the Court, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to the maintainability of the present petition in view of the statutory alternative remedy provided under the NGT Act, appears to be correct. Under Section 14 of the NGT Act, the tribunal has jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved, such questions arise out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Schedule-I to the NGT Act includes (1) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and (2) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
7. A perusal of the writ petition itself reveals that violation of various provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and that of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is alleged. The NGT Act itself provides for a complete mechanism to hear the disputes arising from such question and to settle such disputes and pass orders thereon. The Tribunal can grant relief, compensation and restitution under Section 15 of the NGT Act and the person responsible for damage to any property or environment as a result of adverse impact of an activity or operation or process under any enactments specified in Schedule-I, shall be liable to pay such relief or compensation under all or any of the heads specified in Schedule II of the NGT Act. The awards, orders or decisions of the Tribunal are executable by the Tribunal as a decree of civil court and for that purpose the Tribunal has all the powers of a civil court. The Tribunal also has powers to punish with imprisonment or impose fine on failure to comply with its orders. Offences by companies or the Government departments are covered by Section 27 and 28 of the NGT Act respectively.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the rights which the petitioners claim infringement, including the rights under the aforesaid Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, can be adequately and efficaciously dealt with under the NGT Act. As a matter of fact, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, the Supreme Court has relied upon its own judgment in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of H.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771, in which, it is also mentioned that when a right is created by statute, which itself provides the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedy is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.
9. In our opinion, therefore, since the Tribunal under the NGT Act has jurisdiction under Section 14 and it can speedily and efficaciously deal with the matter being sought to be raised by the petitioners, we deem it fit to dispose of this petition leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal under the NGT Act for redressal of the grievances.
Order Date :- 27.6.2025
A. V. Singh/Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh, J.) (Jayant Banerji, J.)
[ad_2]
Source link