THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.)

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 01-06-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.)
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4522-4524 of 2022)
JUNE 01, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Arts. 32, 226 and 323 B – Territorial
jurisdiction of High Court – On facts, as regards, construction
activities in the area, National Green Tribunal-NGT prohibited the
appellant from undertaking any further construction, when the High
Court was already in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim
order permitting the construction – Thereafter, NGT rejected the
application seeking vacation of stay imposed on construction – On
appeal held: Tribunals would be subordinate to the High Court
insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned
– On facts, it was not appropriate on the part of the NGT to have
continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was
pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had
passed an interim order permitting the construction – Conflicting
orders passed by the NGT and the High Court would lead to an
anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a
difficulty as to which order they are required to follow – In such a
situation, the orders passed by the constitutional courts, would
prevail over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals –
Continuation of the proceedings before the NGT for the same cause
of action, which is seized with the High Court, not in the interest of
justice, thus, the proceedings pending before the NGT quashed and
set aside – High Court to consider all facts and pass appropriate
orders striking a balance between the development and the
environmental issues – Tribunals – Appeal against orders of statutory
bodies – Cause of action.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others (1995)
1 SCC 400 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 261 – followed.
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 810
810
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
811
Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others
(2013) 11 SCC 404 : [2012] 12 SCR 818 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 12 SCR 818
referred to
Para 10
[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 261
followed
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4522-
4524 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2022 of the National
Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), at New Delhi in Original Application
No.361 of 2021 and Order dated 20.05.2022 in I.A. Nos.117 and 118 of
2022 in O.A. No.361 of 2021.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advs., Mahfooz
Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya
Bhaskar Reddy, K. V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee,
Ms. Akhila Palem, Abhishek Sharma, Sahil Raveen, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
Permission to file appeal without certified/plain copy of impugned
order is granted.
Issue notice.
Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf
of the sole respondent, and as such, we have heard the matter finally.
1. The appellant challenges the order dated 6th May 2022 passed
by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the “NGT”) in O.A. No.361 of 2021, vide which it prohibited
the appellant from undertaking any further construction. The appellant
also challenges the order dated 20th May 2022 passed by the learned
NGT in I.A. Nos. 117 and 118 of 2022 in O.A. No. 361 of 2022, vide
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA
RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
which the application seeking vacation of stay imposed vide order dated
6th May 2022 was rejected.
2. The appellant was already running a resort at Rushikonda Hill,
near Visakhapatnam. According to the appellant, after obtaining the
necessary permission, it has demolished the existing resort and is re-
constructing the resort at the same place with additional facilities.
3. A writ petition being W.P. (P.I.L.) No.241 of 2021, challenging
the said construction, has already been filed before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. In the said writ petition, the Division
Bench of the High Court has passed the following order on 16th December
2021:
“In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied
activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall
be strictly in accordance with the permission a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.