RATNAGIRI NAGAR PARISHAD versus GANGARAM NARAYAN AMBEKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 06-05-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
303
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 303
303
RATNAGIRI NAGAR PARISHAD
v.
GANGARAM NARAYAN AMBEKAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2412 of 2020)
MAY 06, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010:
s.29 – Bar of jurisdiction of civil court – To cases relating to
environment – Held: After the establishment of the Tribunal under
the Act, civil court is not competent to entertain a suit relating to
environmental issues, in view of s. 29 and the dictum in *Bhopal Gas
Case – Such cause/ action ought to be transferred to the Tribunal
for adjudication.
Specific Relief Act, 1963:
s.41(f) – Injunction – Refusal of – Held: In view of s. 41(f),
injunction cannot be granted to prevent, on the ground of nuisance,
an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance
– In the present case, the civil court was moved challenging the
Project when the Project was at nascent stage.
s. 41(h) – Injunction – Refusal of – Held: When equally
efficacious relief can be obtained by any other usual mode of
proceeding, an injunction cannot be granted – In the present case,
the cause of the plaintiffs could have been addressed to the competent
authorities concerned with the Project.
Relief:
Permanent injunction – Suit for permanent injunction –
Against State authorities – Seeking restraining them from starting
solid waste disposal project – Held: The plaintiff did not challenge
any of the decisions of the competent authority taken with regard to
the Project nor any declaratory relief was sought – Relief of
permanent injunction simpliciter was not enough – Suit should have
been rejected at the threshold – Injunction.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
Evidence:
Burden of proof – to prove actionable nuisance – Held: Initial
burden of proof to substantiate the cause of actionable nuisance is
on the plaintiff – Weakness in the defence cannot be the basis to
grant relief to the plaintiff and to shift burden on the defendants.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The present suit was filed prior to 2.6.2010
and 18.10.2010 i.e. the dates when the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010 came into force and the date of establishment of National
Green Tribunal (NGT) respectively. However, it was pending
before the civil court even after the establishment of the Tribunal.
The trial court has not even adverted to the express provision in
the form of Section 29 regarding bar of jurisdiction of the civil
court. On perusal of the tenor of the plaint and the subject matter
of the present suit, it is indisputable that the case plainly involved
substantial question relating to environment including
enforcement of legal right relating to environment. That cause
was the foundation for the relief of permanent injunction sought
by the plaintiffs. By virtue of Section 29 and in particular the dictum
in the *Bhopal Gas case, the civil court ought not to have
continued with the suit. It is a different matter that the trial court
chose to dismiss the suit on the finding that the plaintiffs had
failed to substantiate the case set up by them in the plaint. Once
the suit was barred by law, the civil court could not have proceeded
with the suit and at best, the parties could have been relegated
before the NGT, the special forum created by the 2010 Act. Indeed,
the trial court did not have the benefit of the reported decision of
this court. For, the said decision was rendered on 9.8.2012.
However, it is intriguing that even the first appellate court and
the High Court did not think it necessary to advert to the effect
of Section 29 of the 2010 Act and in particular, the decision of
this Court in *Bhopal Gas case. [Para 13][322-B-F]
*Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 326 : [2012] 12
SCR 947 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
305
1.2 The fact that the suit was filed in earlier point of time,
does not mean that the civil court could have continued with the
action (in the present case, first appeal before the first appellate
Court and the second appeal before the High Court being
continuation of the suit) concerning the substantial question
relating to environment including enforcement of legal right
relating to environment. In any case, there remained no tittle of
doubt after the exposition of this Court that such pending cause/
action ought to be transferred to the NGT for adjudication thereof.
As a concomitant of this conclusion, the findings and conclusions
rende

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.