1 Nagar Palika Parishad thr its Chief Municipal Officer v. State of M.P and Ors.
                                                                      WP.193.2017

11/1/2017
          Shri Ankur Mody Advocate for the petitioner.
          Shri. N.S. Kirar Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs:-

"The petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and further the impugned order dated 29.11. 2016 and further consequential orders passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice."

2. The petitioner being Municipal Council, Guna has approached this court against the interlocutory order dated 29.11. 2016 vide P-1 by which the Bhopal Bench of the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 336/2014 (CZ) Mamta Devi v. State of M.P, and Ors, and three more MAs has directed thus:

Learned Counsel Shri Ayush Bajpai appearing on behalf of the Municipal Board Guna, submits with instructions that despite there being a dispute with regard to the territorial jurisdiction between the revenue officials of the State Government and the Municipal Authority as to which of the two is responsible for removal of the encroachments and the cleaning of the river Gunia/Nigri they undertake that in accordance with the directions issued by this tribunal they would take all necessary steps for the aforesaid act of removal of the encroachments and cleaning of the river.

One month time is allowed to do the needful, failing which the PCB, RO shall take steps in accordance with the Water Act 1974 for prosecution of the concerned persons including the Chairman and the CMO of the Municipal Board.

The SDM who is present today is directed to inform the Collector to provide all necessary assistance for the aforesaid task including police protection and other assistance in this behalf to the Municipal Authority.

Let the matter be listed on 6th of January, 2017.

3. The bare perusal of the above impugned order reflects that despite the counsel for the petitioner appearing before the 2 Nagar Palika Parishad thr its Chief Municipal Officer v. State of M.P and Ors.

WP.193.2017 Tribunal being in the know of dispute of territorial jurisdiction between the State Government and the municipality in regard to removal of encroachment and cleaning of the river in question, undertook that the Council shall take all necessary steps for removing the encroachment as directed by the Tribunal for cleaning the river. Accordingly, the Tribunal afforded one month time for doing the needful by adding the rider that in case the needful is not done the concerned persons including the Chairman and CMO of the petitioner Council shall expose themselves to the rigors prescribed under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for brevity 'Act of 1974')

4. Learned counsel submits that the area in question which has to be cleaned is not under jurisdiction of the Municipal Council and therefore no effort whatsoever can be made by the Council in compliance of the order of the Tribunal impugned herein.

5. It appears that the Municipal Council instead of approaching the Tribunal by filing appropriate application seeking recalling or modification of the order dated 29.11. 2016 or assailing the said order before the Apex Court u/S. 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for brevity 'Act of 2010') has chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court to interfere in the matter relating to encroachment for which complete code under Act of 2010 is provided.

6. Admittedly the writ jurisdiction of this court is not barred by the Act of 2010 for interfering in environmental matters but once a distinct mechanism prescribing special courts and authorities are constituted under the special enactment of the Act of 2010, this court refrains from exercising it's writ jurisdiction unless a case of grave failure of justice is made out which cannot be looked into by statutory forums constituted by 3 Nagar Palika Parishad thr its Chief Municipal Officer v. State of M.P and Ors.

WP.193.2017 law for the said purpose.

7. This court thus declines interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and therefore the present petition stands dismissed.

                 (Sheel Nagu)                          (S.A. Dharmadhikari)
                   Judge                                      Judge

ar