Dismissed

Subhas Datta v. Department of Environment

NGT4 Mar 2025IA No. 30/2025 in Original Application No. 198/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal East Zone Bench dismissed an original application filed by Subhas Datta seeking directions for operation of Remote Sensing Devices. The court held that the Supreme Court was seized of the same controversy and reliance on precedents established that NGT proceedings should be quashed when the High Court is in seisin.

What did the court decide?

Original Application No.198/2024/EZ dismissed; I.As. stood disposed of; No order as to costs.

Subhas Datta vs Department of Environment — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.07

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.198/2024/EZ (I.A. No.30/2025/EZ)

¶6

In the matter of:

¶7

Subhas Datta,

¶8

Son of Late Baneswar Datta, 25/1, Guitendal Lane, P.O. + P.S. + District- Howrah, Pin code- 711101, West Bengal

¶9

……..Applicant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. Department of Environment, (Notice through the Principal Secretary), Govt. of West Bengal, Environment Department, 5^th Floor, Pranisampad Bhawan, Block LB-II, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Bidhannagar, Kolakta-700106;

¶12

2. West Bengal Pollution Control Board, (Notice through the Member Secretary), Paribesh Bhawan, 10A Block L.A., Sector-III, Salt Lake, Bidhannagr, Kolkata-700106;

¶13

3. Department of Transport, (Notice through the Secretary), Paribahan Bhawan, 12 R N Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001;

¶14

4. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH), Govt. of India, Through Member Secretary

¶15

……..Respondent(s)

¶16

Date of hearing: 04.03.2025

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶18

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Subhas Dutta, in person (in Virtual Mode)

¶19

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudip Kumar Dutta, Advocate for State Respondents, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate for R-2, Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate for R-4 Mr. Arkodeb Sinha, Advocate in (I.A. No.30/2025/EZ)

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Affidavit dated 03.03.2025 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3; the same is taken on record.

¶23

The Applicant, appearing in person, has filed this Original Application stating that in W.P. No. 4183(W) of 2005 (Subhas Datta vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta had vide order dated 17.06.2010 directed the State to procure three Remote Sensing Devices (RSD) and the State Government had submitted before the Court that they had already made operational one Remote Sensing Device (RSD) and the device is being used for testing Auto Emission Level at different places in four districts on four different weekdays. The order of the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:

¶24

“The learned Advocate General states that Mobile Remit Sensing Device (R.S.D.) has already been made operational and that the device is being used for testing the auto emission level at different places in four districts on different week days.

¶25

In the meantime, the respondent-authorities shall continue to operate the Mobile Remit Sensing Device already available for all the four districts as indicated in the aforesaid order dated 3rd June, 2010 of the Additional Chief Secretary of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal. It is clarified that the above direction is providing for minimum one Mobile Remit Sensing Device for each district and it would obviously not preclude the authorities from employing more that one Mobile Remit Sensing Device in one district.”

¶26

We are informed by Mr. Subhas Dutta, the Applicant in person, as well as Mr. Sudip Kumar Dutta, learned Counsel for the State Respondents, Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, West Bengal Pollution Control Board and Mr.

¶27

¶28

Ashok Prasad, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, that the issue which is involved in the present Original Application is already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No.13029/1985, M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. The orders dated 26.07.2024 and 24.02.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been placed before us.

¶29

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4522-4524 of 2022, The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.) , has held as under:-

¶30

7. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that when the High Court of competent jurisdiction was already in seisin of the matter, the learned NGT could not have entertained a lis with regard to the same cause of action. He submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice of the learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the interim order dated 6^th May 2022, which was in conflict with the order of the High Court dated 16^th December 2021.

¶31

8. Dr. Singhvi submitted that NGT is a Tribunal, which is subordinate to the High Court in so far as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. He, therefore, submitted that the very continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT is not sustainable in law.

¶32

9. Shri Balaji Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the appellant has acted in gross breach of the order dated 16^th December 2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. He submitted that the construction is rampantly going on in blatant violation of the order of the High Court. Contempt petition has already been filed before the High Court, wherein the High Court after taking cognizance of the blatant violation, issued notice on 4^th May 2022.

¶33

¶34

10. This Court, in the case of Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others, has observed thus:

¶35

“12. The government departments are no exception to the consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Violation of the orders of the Court would be its disobedience and would invite action in accordance with law. The orders passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No Court or Tribunal and for that matter any other authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. This Court also expressed the view that it had become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. [Ref. East India Commercial Companies Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors. [(2008) 10 SCC 1]”

¶36

11. In any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. A reference in this respect was also made to the

¶37

¶38

judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others.

¶39

12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to continue with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned 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. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.

¶40

13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings the learned NGT for the same cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the interest of justice.

¶41

14. We, therefore, quash and set aside the proceedings pending before the learned NGT in O.A. No.361 of 2021.”

¶42

Mr. Subhas Dutta, applicant also states that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the same controversy, the present Original Application may be dismissed.

¶43

In the light of the above, we dismiss this Original Application.

¶44

I.As. if any, stand disposed of.

¶45

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶47

….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶48

March 04, 2025, Original Application No.198/2024/EZ (I.A. No.30/2025/EZ) MN

¶49

Subhas Datta v. Department of Environment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhas Datta v. Department of Environment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peter Coutinho vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Reagan Rodrigues Represented by His Poa Rousseau Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Ia No. 29/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 8/2025 of Kulwinder Singh Sandhu vs Ram Murti

Dr Bina Basnett vs State of Sikkim

News Item Titled 7 Flamingos Spotted Near Dps Lake Wetland Killed Activists Blame CidcoS Development Plan Appearing in the Indian Express Dated 28.04.2024 vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests H.O.O.F. Maharashtra

Bhoori Singh vs District Magistrate

News Item Titled High-Rise Construction Near Ambazari Lake Raises Concerns Amid Flood Worries Appearing in Nagpur Today Dated 21.05.2024 vs the State of Maharashtra through Nagpur Municipal Corporation through Its Director

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 45/2024 in Original Application No. 66/2024 of Pooja Phillo vs State of Odisha

Z Estates Private Limited vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Odisha

Mohammad Ilyas vs State of Jharkhand Represented through Additional Chief Secretary

Subhas Datta vs Department of Environment

Jadavpur Silicosis Akranto Sangrami Shramik Samity vs State of West Bengal

Subhas Dutta vs State of West Bengal (Notice through the Chief Secretary)