Whether NGT had jurisdiction

1) Substantial question of law involved.

1.a) Direct violation of statutory obligation.
1.a.i) community at large
1.a.ii) gravity of damage
1.a.iii) damage to public health
1.b) consequence relates to specific activity or a point source of pollution.

2) Matter is in schedule 1.
ISSUE: I WHETHER THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS MAINTAINABLE
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
It is contended that the case filed by the Applicants is maintainable before the Hon’ble
National Green Tribunal as [I.1] the Tribunal has the Jurisdiction to hear the instant case,
[I.2] the Applicant has the locus standi to file a Application before this Tribunal, [I.3] the
Application is not barred by limitation.
[I.1] That the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the current matter
It is contended that under Section 14 of the National Tribunal Act 2010 (Hereinafter, the
Act), the Tribunal has the right to administer a case in which the rights enshrined by the Act
has been violated by the Respondent. The jurisdiction of the court thus depends on two
factors: (a) the presence of substantial question relating to environment and (b) the issues
raised substantially arise from the Acts mentioned in the Schedule I of the Act.1
(A) The presence of substantial question relating to environment

The Term ‘substantial question relating to environment’2 is defined under the Act which
refers to firstly, a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a person
because of which the community at large is affected or a severe substantial damage to the
environment or property or to public health. In this present case, the following reasons
amounts to sustainable damage to the environment.
Secondly, the environmental consequence should relate to specific activity or a point which is
source of pollution

(B) The issues raised substantially arise from the Acts mentioned in the Schedule I of
the Act.
The provision of the Sec.149 has been construed by the Apex court and it is laid down that
environmental issues and matters covered under N.G.T Act schedule I should be understood
and litigated before the NGT only.
In a landmark case,16 the judge mentioned that preamble of the Act, is an indicator of the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal and by using the words “for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto” in the preamble it has expanded its jurisdiction

[I.2] That the Applicants have the Locus Standi to approach the Tribunal with the
application
It is contended that cause of action is not restricted to 'in personam' but is an action available
to any person in terms of Sec. 14 of the Act20.Every citizen is entitled to a clean and decent
environment in terms of Art.21 of the Constitution. In a case before NGT it was held that if
any person can raise environmental dispute regardless of whether he is personally affected
due to the wrongful act of wrong doer/polluter or violator of environmental Law/Norms.”

The "any person aggrieved"24 specified in the Act is not referable to any person aggrieved by
any kind of order as such, but may be a person aggrieved due to loss of environment, breach
of environmental norms or like causes.25 In another case, Court held that the expression
'aggrieved person' denotes a flexible, and to an extent, an indefinable concept.26 Only barrier
is that his action shall not be baseless, ill-motivated or that outcome of vendetta.27 In instant
case all the Applicants are interested in protecting environment; therefore they have locus
standi to maintain application as there no material record to show that Application was ill-
motivated. The Respondent’s argument that Applicant 2 is backed by foreign interests does
not stand because it operates in over 25 countries and is working with Radava Mehel, which
is the action council of Dorado therefore it could be said that their sole interest is towards
protecting the environment and saving in from destruction.
In Goa Foundation and Peaceful Society v. Union of India, 201428 it was held that state is
under a statutory obligation to protect environment and to guarantee that they are not
damaged so as to harm public or environment at large
29It is not individual or a person centric but is socio-centric, as any person can raise a
question relating to environment. Thus, dispute as understood to be raising a claim and being
controverted by the other party is not apparently the sine qua non to invocation of Tribunal's
jurisdiction under the scheme of Sections 14 to 16 of the Act.30 Therefore the Applicants
have the Locus Standi to approach the tribunal.

These terms have been very liberally interpreted by the NGT at various instances. It held that
where matter is civil in nature and has affected or is likely to affect or damage environment
falls under substantial question of environment11 and that to approach this Tribunal, it is not
required that person should be directly or personally affected by such damage but just be able
to prove that such matter affects environment can be ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 14.
RESPONDENT
However, in Major General Shri Kant Sharma's case (2015-4-L.W. 1), though it pertains to
the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, in paragraph 34, it has been observed that the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be
circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, but due regard has to be given to the
legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Act and Courts would exercise their
jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act.
Shri Kant Sharma's case (supra) intended is, to make a distinction between exercise of
appellate jurisdiction before the quasi judicial forums and judicial forums subordinate to the
High Court in a sense and in respect of a remedy of appeal before the Honourable Supreme
Court. It is, thus, submitted that if this distinction is kept in mind, the principles would
equally apply to all the Tribunals, where such an appeal is provided for directly to the
Honourable Supreme Court.