C/SCA/3442/2015                                  JUDGMENT




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3442 of 2015



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI


and


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

================================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
      the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
      to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
      made thereunder ?




           ASHOKKUMAR RAMAVTAR CHAUDHARY....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)

================================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAD D BUCH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH BHATT, AGP for the respondent No.1
================================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.



                                  Page 1 of 3
         C/SCA/3442/2015                                             JUDGMENT



                     VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
                     and
                     HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

                                     Date : 26/02/2015


                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)

1. We have heard Mr.Niraj D.Buch, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Parth Bhatt, learned AGP for the respondent No.1.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.12.2014, by which, the certain directions have been issued under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing an appeal challenging this order before the National Green Tribunal, Western Bench at Pune under Section 33(B) of the said Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, this petition may be maintainable in view of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that three grounds have been provided for entertaining a Writ Petition even if there is an alternative remedy available.

4. We are not inclined to entertain this petition on the ground that the principles of nature justice has been violated for Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/3442/2015 JUDGMENT the reasons that the special tribunal has been provided in view of the directions contained in paragraphs 35 and 39 of the decision in the case of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 326.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that since the petitioner has a statutory remedy for filing an appeal before the National Green Tribunal, Western Bench at Pune, this petition stands dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Ashish Tripathi Page 3 of 3