In the affidavit, in reply to the O.A filed by the first respondent-applicant, the petitioner herein specifically contended that the O.A should have been heard by a bench of the Southern Zone or the Western Zone of the NGT as the cause of action, to proceed against the “purported” illegal construction in the State of Telangana or Maharashtra, was beyond the boundaries of the territories over which the Principal Bench at New Delhi exercised jurisdiction. If that be so, the jurisdiction of the Judicial Member of the Northern Zonal Bench would not extend to his entertaining the O.A, if the cause of action had arisen substantially within the territorial limits of the Southern Zonal Bench of the NGT at Chennai, and partly within the territorial limits of the Western Zonal Bench of NGT at Pune. Despite the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction being urged and argued, the NGT failed to consider them. It is only if the NGT had examined these contentions, and had recorded its prima-facie finding that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application, could it have, thereafter, considered the application for grant of interim relief. Since the objection to the jurisdiction of the NGT, to entertain the O.A, was taken at the first instance itself, failure of the NGT to decide this question of territorial jurisdiction, cannot result in denial of relief to the petitioner merely because the NGT has chosen to decide the application, for grant of interim relief, on its merits. If the order is of a Court/Tribunal having no jurisdiction, it
