National Media Centre Co Operative House Building Society Limited v. State Of Haryana And Others
CWP No. 15090 of 2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 15090 of 2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 23.05.2025 Pronounced on : 26.05.2025 National Media Centre Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
Present :
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sangram Singh Saron, Advocate, Mr. Karman Singh, Advocate, Ms. Anisha Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Pradeep S.Chauhan, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Ashna Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Randeep S.Rai, Senior Advocate and Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate, Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate, Ms. Shejali, Advocate, for respondent No.7.
****
The instant petition invoking writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashment of Annexure P-10, which is environmental clearance granted in favour of respondent No.7 by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority-respondent No.2, for the purpose of
CWP No. 15090 of 2025 (O&M) 2 expansion of Shopping/Commercial Building on 32.36 acres of land situated in DLF City Phase-III, Sector 25-A, Block V, (DLF Downtown formally known as Mall of India) Gurugram, Haryana.
Further prayer has also been made for relocation of 24-Diesel Generator Sets of 67,500 KVA to a different location to prevent causing severe health problems and hazards due to pollution caused by operation of Diesel Sets. 2.
We have heard Shri Gurminder Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Randeep S.Rai and Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocates, on behalf of respondent No.7 on advance notice.
3.
Since the issue raised herein essentially pertains to the field of environment, this Court raised a query as to why remedy under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short 'NGT Act') is not being invoked by the petitioner.
3.1 In response to the query raised by this Court, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has essentially contended that the issue raised herein does not squarely fall within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal or any other authority under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Act of 1981'). For this purpose, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a three Judges Bench decision rendered in Rajeev Suri vs. Delhi Development Authority and others (2022) 11 Supreme Court Cases 1, and relied upon paras No. 514, 515 and 516 of this judgment, which for ready reference and convenience are reproduced hereinbelow: - "
CWP No. 15090 of 2025 (O&M) 3
!
"# $
% & '("( )
'("( &
* +
,
$% -
.
& . /// )*
$
% & '("(
,
)0
* & "12#)'1"12#*3 ///
-
$% '("(&
!
"45"1
, !
'(
,
+ -
.
CWP No. 15090 of 2025 (O&M) 4
56
!
'(6
7
,
$% '("(&
!
$%
'("(& !
"# ,
$%
6
, ,
)0
*& "12#$%
,
7
8 9 &6:8 9 &6 ;
+ )'("1*"<!=(">
,
$% $%
+
+
$%
,
, 5
,
??????)
* 3.2 By relying upon the aforesaid paragraphs of the said judgment in
(supra), it is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that Section 20 of the NGT Act, limits the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to three aspects? sustainable development, precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
CWP No. 15090 of 2025 (O&M) 5 3.3 By relying upon Section 20 of the NGT Act, it is urged that the National Green Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') is prohibited from exercising any power or jurisdiction beyond the pale of the aforesaid three principles and since the issue of location of Diesel Sets does not fall within any of the said three aspects, the Tribunal would not be an efficacious alternative forum available to the petitioner. It is further contended that fundamental right of the petitioner is being violated due to wrong location of Diesel Sets which aspect cannot be looked into by the Tribunal.
4.
Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.7 has relied upon various decisions rendered by Apex Court as well as other High Courts to emphasize alternative statutory remedy of approaching the National Green Tribunal available to the petitioner but yet not availed, which are to the following effect:?
* @
% @ &
!
)'(''*"A!=("3
* BC 6 B !
&0D
& 0 8 9
D +DE "1#<'4A3
* D 0 !
D
0
8 9
D+DE"""'<#'3
* @ 0
!
;
D
8 ;
'('A!F
;
"A=3
* @G!6 B6 !
H 6
H 6 8 I0 $ "A#AG'('')%@(@@5!*DFD5(=(4'(''3
* @
!
% ;
+
)!
*I
0
)*$"A22'('(DFD-A((#'('(3
* !
D
8 ;
+ D
& 08 '("()A#*BB)
*#='3
CWP No. 15090 of 2025 (O&M) 6 5.
After having heard learned counsel for the rival parties on the question of admissibility of this petition, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Tribunal against an environmental clearance granted to any industry/operation/process (as granted to respondent No.7 vide Annexure P?10) for the reasons infra:? 5.1 Section 16 of the NGT Act affords statutory remedy to any person aggrieved by an order of grant of environmental clearance to any industry/operation/process to approach the Tribunal in an appeal filed within thirty days which period is extendable not beyond 60 days. 5.2 However, the period of limitation prescribed in Section 16 of the NGT Act and its proviso is to be counted from the date the aggrieved person is communicated or gains knowledge of the order of environmental clearance (against which the appellant is aggrieved) granted in favour of some other person.
6.
In the present case, the order of environmental clearance granted in favour of respondent No.7 (Annexure P?10) was passed on 09.04.2023 but the petitioner may very well explain the delay while preferring an appeal before the National Green Tribunal that the order of environmental clearance which has given a cause of action to prefer an appeal was communicated late to the petitioner.
7.
The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the violation alleged in the petition is of fundamental right of the petitioner and therefore, remedy of appeal before the Tribunal is not efficacious is heard to be rejected at the very outset. Reason being that the Tribunal while hearing appeals under Section 16 of the NGT Act or exercising original jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act can very well adjudicate upon the
CWP No. 15090 of 2025 (O&M) 7 question of violation of fundamental rights relating to the issues connected with environmental pollution.
8.
In view of the above, this Court finding the issue involving herein being exclusively relating to environment and the cause of action arising from breach of various provisions under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, deems it appropriate not to entertain this dispute and relegate the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy available under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 in accordance with law. 9.
Nothing said hereinabove be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the lis in hand.
10.
With these observations and liberty, the petition stands disposed of.
(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 26.05.2025 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No