Madras HC stays NGT's order centralising powers
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an administrative order of the National Green Tribunal in New Delhi, which inter-alia held all matters taken up on its own and having pan-India or inter-state implications will be listed before its principal bench having three members.
The first bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P D Audikesavalu stayed the order issued on June 12 this year of the Registrar-General of the NGT in New Delhi.
The bench was passing interim orders on a PIL petition from a fishermen's association.
According to the petitioner, the NGT office-order would adversely affect those who approach its southern bench here for the enforcement of their statutory right under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as well as the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The zonal benches have been established under the NGT Act, 2010 for the purpose of providing a forum for redressal of grievances of citizens with respect to the environment.
The impugned order would adversely affect the rights of all citizens, especially those of fishermen for the reason that henceforth a citizen has to approach and travel to the principal bench in the national capital.
Hence, the order is unsustainable, non-est and void ab initio.
Each NGT bench deals with matters related to natural resources such as rivers, forests, which cover multiple states and have downstream and upstream effects owing to movement of air, water and animals.
By the impugned order, the NGT benches, apart from the principal bench at New Delhi, have all been ousted from taking cognizance of issues that arise within their territorial jurisdiction.
Thus, the impugned order is wholly contrary to the scheme of NGT Act, the petitioner contended.
Moreover, it is in essence an administrative one and not a legislative order.
Hence, it cannot run counter to the legislative order.
It is trite law that executive instructions that whittles down the effect of the main statute should be struck down, petitioner further contended.
