TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
TALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 383-384 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s.4(4)(c) – National Green
Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 – Amendment in r.3
– By notification, a proviso was inserted in r.3 of the 2011 Rules,
which allowed the constitution of a single member Bench in
exceptional circumstances – The said notification was challenged
– Before the Supreme Court on 11.01.2018, the Attorney General
of India assured that the rule which is under challenge shall be
rectified in consonance with the 2010 Act – However on 29.01.2018,
a single member of the NGT dismissed an application for
condonation of delay, which was filed by the appellant – On
31.01.2018, Supreme Court in the petition challenging the validity
of the government order directed that the Chairperson of the NGT
shall not constitute a single member Bench and each bench shall
consist of one judicial member and an expert member – Appellant
preferred an application for recall of the order of the single member
dated 29.01.2018 and condonation of delay – The Tribunal dismissed
both the applications by an order dated 16.07.2021 – On appeal,
held: The single member of the NGT who dismissed the application
for condonation of delay submitted by the appellant on 29.01.2018
had, in other cases, abstained from passing any judicial order on
the ground that there was a stay on the composition of a single
member bench – Propriety warranted that a consistent course of
action should have been followed by the NGT, once the assurance
which was held out before Supreme Court by the Attorney General,
was brought to its knowledge – The phraseology of the order that
the Supreme Court dated 31.01.2018 intended that there be an
interdict on the constitution of single member benches constituted
in purported exercise of the power conferred by the rule – The
assumption of jurisdiction by a single member Bench clearly stands
vitiated – The Single member could not have passed an order in
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 126
126
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
view of the proviso to s. 4(4)(c) of the Act – The impugned order
dated 16.07.2021 and original order of NGT dated 29.01.2018 set
aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The single member of the NGT who dismissed
the application for condonation of delay submitted by the appellant
on 29 January 2018 had, in other cases, abstained from passing
any judicial order on the ground that there was a stay on the
composition of a single member bench. Similar orders were passed
on the same day in other cases as well. However, the single member
dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the
appellant though he did not pass any order in the other cases in
view of the assurance that was made by the Attorney General
before this court. The order of this court on 11 January 2018
notes the assurance of the Attorney General that the rule under
challenge would be rectified to bring it in accord with the Act and
the judgments of this court. True, the order of this Court does
not specifically record a direction for stay. This must however,
be understood in the perspective of the fact that the Attorney
General had placed a solemn assurance before the Court that
the rule would be rectified to bring it in conformity with the parent
enactment and the decisions of this Court. Implicit in this is the
settled principle that delegated legislation must be in conformity
with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making.
A rule cannot rise above the source of power. Propriety warranted
that a consistent course of action should have been followed by
the NGT, once the assurance which was held out before this court
by the Attorney General, was brought to its knowledge. The order
of this Court on 31 January 2018 directed that “in the meantime,
the Chairperson shall not constitute a Single Member Bench….”.
The phrase “in the meantime’ elucidates that during the time the
executive deliberates on the dissonance of the Rule with the Act
and judgments, there shall be a restraint on its implementation.
Thus, it is evident from the phraseology of the order that this
Court intended that there be an interdict on the constitution of
single member benches constituted in purported exercise of the
power conferred by the rule. The assumption of jurisdiction by a
single member Bench cl

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