Dismissed

Suresh Bisen v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Secretory Revenue Department

NGT3 Jul 2026Original Application No. 143/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT addressed an application regarding a polluting rice mill where the issue was already pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Relying on precedents regarding the hierarchy of constitutional courts over tribunals and the doctrine of res sub judice, the Tribunal held its proceeding was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Original Application No.143/2026 stands disposed of as not maintainable.

Suresh Bisen vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Secretory… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.04

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶3

Original Application No.143/2026(CZ)

¶4

Suresh Bisen & Ors. Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 03.07.2026

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): Mr. Varnan Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner are that the Applicants, who are residents of Village Patherwada, , Tehsil Katangi, District Balaghat and are directly affected by the illegal establishment and continuous operation of a highly polluting rice mill namely M/s Sant Jairamdas Rice Mill, operated by Respondent No.7.The said rice mill has been constructed and is being operated in a densely populated residential locality without complying with environmental norms and without obtaining the mandatory Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The said industrial unit emits harmful smoke, fine grain dust, noise and waste materials which are causing serious environmental pollution and adversely affecting the health and safety of nearby residents.

¶12

The matter was filed before the Competent Magistrate Katangi, District, Balaghat, District Balaghat and direction was issued that the unit will

¶13

¶14

O.A. No.143/2026(CZ) Suresh Bisen & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶15

not be operational and will be closed till the consent conditions are not complied with.

¶16

A case was filed before the Divisional Magistrate Katangi, as Case No. 001/2017-2018 and vide order dated 28.12.2020 a direction under section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code was passed by the Competent Magistrate directing the Project Proponent not to operate the mill until the environmental conditions are fulfilled and further to ensure that there should not be any pollution.

¶17

In a 3^rd application and remedy, the Applicant filed a writ petition number 6657–2021, and vide order dated 05.04.2021 Hon’ble the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed an order as follows: -

¶18

“From perusal of the averments made in the petition and hearing the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that the writ of mandamus is being sought directing the authority to take appropriate action against Respondent No.7 who is running a rice pollution.

¶19

According to the petitioners, if the said mill is allowed to be continued, it may cause serious health problems to the residents of nearby areas.

¶20

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents/State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have already raised their grievance before the competent authority and said authority i.e. Respondent No.2 inspected the spot and prepared the report observing therein that the said rice mill is not following the mandatory requirements and causing serious damage to the environment as the rice mill of Respondent No.7 is polluting the environment of the area where the mill is situated and causing great damage to the public at large residing in the area.

¶21

We are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of directing the petitioners to approach Respondent No.2 raising their grievance and to show them the orders already passed by the authority against Respondent No.7. If the same is done, Respondent No.2 shall consider the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate action thereof.

¶22

¶23

O.A. No.143/2026(CZ) Suresh Bisen & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶24

It is made clear that if any adverse action is being taken against Respondent No.7, he may also be given proper opportunity of hearing.

¶25

It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The authority shall consider the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate decision thereof in accordance with law.

¶26

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.”

¶27

A 4^th matter was filed before Hon’ble the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Jabalpur Bench vide contempt petition, civil number 2590 or 2021. And Hon’ble the High court, vide Order dated 6th of May, 2022, passed an order as follows: -

¶28

i. This petition has been filed on the ground that the order dated 05.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.6657 of 2021 has been disobeyed. In terms whereof, the Respondent No.2 was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action with regard to the Mill in question.

¶29

ii. A reply has been filed. Learned Counsel submits that action has been taken and a closure order has been passed by the Respondent. That the said closure has been challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.7115 of 2022.

¶30

iii. In view of the compliance of the order passed by this Court, we do not find that any contempt has been committed. Hence, petition is dismissed.

¶31

Contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant are that in Contempt Petition No.2590 of 2021, he was not impleaded as a party.

¶32

¶33

O.A. No.143/2026(CZ) Suresh Bisen & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶34

On perusal of the copy of the Order, it is evidence that the present Applicant has been impleaded as an Applicant No.1.

¶35

In this order Hon’ble the High Court has mentioned that order issued by the State PCB has been challenged before the High Court in writ petition No.7115 of 2022. If the Applicant has not been arrayed as a respondent in this writ petition, then he may approach to the appropriate forum for impleading as a party.

¶36

It is settled law that when the matter is pending before the Higher Court, it is desirable not to proceed by the other Courts except Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶37

In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru d ecided on 01^st of June, 2022, it was held that when the matter has been taken by the Higher Court/Constitutional Court, then in that case precedence of Constitutional Courts over the statutory Tribunals like - NGT, in the matter of territorial jurisdiction prevails.

¶38

He has further relied on following precedence: -

¶39

"i. Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (2013)

¶40

11 SCC 404: This case underscored that government departments are not exempt from complying with court orders. It emphasized that orders from higher courts hold paramount authority, and lower tribunals must adhere to them to maintain legal coherence and respect for the judiciary.

¶41

ii. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 400: A Constitutional Bench judgment that established the hierarchy and jurisdictional boundaries between different judicial bodies, reinforcing that statutory tribunals like the NGT are subordinate to High Courts within their territorial jurisdiction. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893: This case highlighted the necessity for administrative bodies to follow higher court directives to ensure consistency and predictability in judicial

¶42

¶43

O.A. No.143/2026(CZ) Suresh Bisen & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶44

decisions. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1: Reiterated the indispensability of obeying higher court orders to preserve the integrity and functionality of the judicial system. These precedents collectively reinforced the principle that higher courts' orders supersede those of statutory tribunals, ensuring a unified legal framework.

¶45

Jurisdictional Hierarchy: The High Court holds territorial jurisdiction, making its orders binding over any subordinate tribunal operating within the same jurisdiction, such as the NGT.

¶46

Conflict of Orders: When contradictory orders are issued by the High Court and NGT on the same matter, the higher court's directive takes precedence to prevent legal ambiguity. Constitutional Authority: Referencing Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Court emphasized that the law declared by a higher court is binding on all lower courts and - tribunals.

¶47

Administrative Sanity: Maintaining a clear hierarchy ensures O.A. No.154/2025(CZ) Nitin Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶48

predictable and consistent application of the law, which is essential for administrative efficiency and public trust in the legal system.

¶49

By applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the NGT had erred in continuing proceedings that conflicted with the High Court's jurisdiction and order."

¶50

A legal doctrine of res sub judice prevents the same dispute from being adjudicated in multiple Courts simultaneously to avoid conflict in judgements.

¶51

In view of the above facts, the proceedings before the Hon’ble

¶52

High Court will be taken precedence and will be resolved in accordance with the decision taken by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶53

If any matter and issue remain, the Applicant is at liberty to file

¶54

a fresh.

¶55

¶56

O.A. No.143/2026(CZ) Suresh Bisen & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

¶57

The matter raised in this application has been directly and substantially raised in other proceedings quoted above and have been heard and decided and a proper order has been passed.

¶58

The unit is now closed; thus, no further action is required to be initiated by this Tribunal.

¶59

However, since the matter of closure has been challenged before Hon’ble the High Court and the matter is pending, it would neither be just nor reasonable for this Tribunal to intervene in the matter.

¶60