NGT Should Not Impose Stringent Procedures of CPC When Citizens Seek Redressal for Grievances: Supreme Court
Case Title: Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay v. The Additional Chief Secretary
Case No: Civil Appeal Diary No. 9637 of 2023
Decided on: 4th January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Facts of the Case
An application alleging the filling up of a waterbody/pond was summarily dismissed without conducting any inquiry. The NGT based its decision solely on certain photographs, a move criticized by the Apex Court.
The appellant submitted specific photographs along with the application. However, in its contested order, the NGT argued that these images failed to demonstrate the presence of a waterbody, as water was not apparent in them.
Issues
What approach is to be contemplated by NGT when a citizen approaches the NGT with a grievance that a water body is being filled in?
Court’s analysis and decision
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) handling of a case. It has noted its discontent with the NGT’s approach, emphasizing that when a citizen brings forward a grievance regarding the filling of a water body, a more nuanced approach is expected from the NGT. The court emphasized that the NGT should not rigidly adhere to the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in such environmental matters. Instead, it should adopt a different approach that takes into account the unique nature of environmental concerns and citizen complaints.
The Supreme Court clarified, stating that if a water body has already been filled in, it is evident that water would not be visible in the photographs. The court emphasized the need to consider the context and recognize that the absence of water in the images does not negate the possibility that a water body had existed and had been filled in.
Considering the presented facts and circumstances, the Court expressed the view that the National Green Tribunal had not fulfilled its responsibility. Consequently, the Court decided to send the matter back to the Tribunal. In this remittance, the Court directed the Tribunal to initiate a new inquiry into the aforementioned application.
Before concluding, the Supreme Court made it clear that the remarks provided are specifically confined to the remand order and should not be construed as the court’s definitive findings on the matter.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Afshan Ahmad