HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR


                  Writ Petition No : 3842 of 2015 (PIL)

                                   Kishore Dua
                                     - V/s -
                             State of MP and others.


Present :             Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon,
                      Acting Chief justice; and,
                      Hon'ble (Smt) Justice Anjuli Palo.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya for the petitioner.

              Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate,
              for the State/respondents 1 to 3.

              Shri Arpan Shrivastava, for respondent No.4.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whether approved for reporting:                             Yes / No.


                                    ORDER

09/01/2017 Petitioner claiming to be a public spirited person has filed this writ petition and has brought to the notice of this Court pollution being caused into River Narmada in the District of Dindori, by permitting flow of 11 'Nalas' (drains) situated in the District to merge with the River in question.

2- Interalia contending that 11 'Nalas' situated in the District of Dindori are discharging their water and effluents into River Narmada and, therefore, causing pollution, this writ petition has been filed and the relief claimed is to direct the respondents to take appropriate action for preventing merging of contaminated or polluted water of the 11 'Nalas' into River Narmada; and, to implement the Sanitation Plan of the Urban 2 Writ Petition No:: 3842/2015 (PIL).

Kishore Dua Vs. State of MP and others Administration Department, for preventing pollution of the River in question.

3- Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Government Advocate, invites our attention to various provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2010'); meaning of the word 'Environment' as defined in section 2(c); 'hazardous substance' as defined in section 2(f); and, various provisions of the Act of 2010; the jurisdiction and powers available to a Tribunal to settle disputes as are contemplated under section 14; the relief and compensation that can be granted by the Tribunal under section 15; provision for appeal under section 18; and, argues that as the issue in question being canvassed in this writ petition pertains to environment, including enforcement of a legal right relating to environment; and, implementation of certain statutory provisions as are contemplated in Schedule I, of the Act of 2010, the writ petition is 'not maintainable'. 4- Learned Government Advocate invites our attention to Schedule I, of the Act of 2010, and argues that in the matter of prevention and control of pollution of water, air and environment as all the statutory provisions applicable are contemplated in Schedule I, this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

5- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we find much force in the preliminary objection raised by Shri Swapnil Ganguly.

6- Section 2(c), of the Act of 2010, defines 'environment' to include water, air and land and the inter-relationship that exists amongst them and between them; so also, the inter-relationship between human beings and other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property. That apart, the question involved in the matter pertains to environment and pollution, if any, being created by the waste effluents being released into River Narmada, is covered by the statutory provisions like Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and, section 14 clearly provides jurisdiction to a Tribunal constituted under sections 3 and 4, of the Act of 2010, to deal with civil cases, wherein specific question 3 Writ Petition No:: 3842/2015 (PIL).

Kishore Dua Vs. State of MP and others relation to environment and enforcement of legal rights relating to environment are involved.

7- That being so, it is a dispute where the jurisdiction to deal with the matter rests exclusively with the National Green Tribunal, constituted under the Act of 2010; and, it is not appropriate for this Court to usurp jurisdiction and deal with the matter. 8- Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of approaching the Tribunal by raising an appropriate dispute as contemplated under section 14, of the Act of 2010, we dispose of this writ petition.

9- With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition stands disposed of.

         ( RAJENDRA MENON )                  ( SMT. ANJULI PALO )
        ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE                       JUDGE

Aks/-