Sl.

No.

Date
1. April 16, 2014

Forum

Particulars

NGT

NGT orders interim stay on mega-project

2 May 7, 2015
NGT
Penalty of Rs. 117 Cr. And 22.5 Cr
.
Respondent 9 and 10.
Project Proponent preferred an appeal against the order
3. May 20, 2015
Supreme Court
Disposed the appeals.
Said order read as follows, Matter was
heard on preliminary issues and no
arguments were advanced on merits of the
dispute. It would be more appropriate for
the appellant to file an application before
the NGT with the prayer to recall the
order and decide the matter afresh.
Counsel for appellants would file the
application within a week. Till application
is decided, there shall be stay for payment
of penalty.
NGT has allowed the appellants to
proceed with construction only on
payment of penalty.
4. May 2015

NGT

5. June 2015
6. September 2015

7. September
2015

NGT

11

8. October 2015

NGT

9. April 6, 2016

NGT

NGT establishes committee to look into

extent of ecological impact and damage at
Agara and Bellandur lakes
Two separate groups stage protests for and
against the project
NGT flays expert committee over
inspection report; directs members to visit
the site afresh
During second visit, security personnel at
project site allegedly stop committee
member and snatch GPS device
NGT drops contempt case after Mantri
MD apologises.
Applicant filed MA No. 596/2015 and
603/2015 praying:
1) Order dated May 7, 2015 be
recalled.
2) Opportunity be granted to be heard
Applications were disposed off.

These applications have been filed on

behalf of R. 9 and 10. It is not necessary
for us to refer any other details in view of
issuing directions.
NGT would hear the parties primarily on
the
imposition
of
Environmental
Compensation.

10. May 7, 2016

NGT

11. May 12, 2016

Supreme Court

Passed detailed directions

Recorded the operative part of the
judgement
Judgement Disposed off Original
Application No 222/2014 (Forward
Foundation Vs. SOK.
The Supreme Court stayed the Rs 117
crore penalty imposed on real estate
developer Mantri Techzone Pvt Ltd by the
National Green Tribunal for encroaching
water bodies in Bengaluru

PRESENT STATUS OF THE DISPUTE

Presently, the Supreme Court has stayed the Rs 117 crore penalty imposed on real estate
developer Mantri Techzone Pvt Ltd by the National Green Tribunal for encroaching water
bodies in Bengaluru. A bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice R Banumathi directed
maintenance of status quo and asked all the builders not to raise constructions within 75
metres from the lake and 50 metres from the storm water drain in the city, in keeping with the
NGTs May 4 direction.
CASE SUMMARIES ON JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (NGT)
1. Baijnath Prajapati v. Ministry of Environment and Forests
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Decided On: 20.01.2012
This case is an Appeal challenging the orders granting environmental clearance in favor of
M/s Moser Baer Power & Infrastructure Ltd for a coal based thermal power plant. After a few
months, the Appellant filed an application seeking the withdrawal of his Appeal on the
ground that after careful consideration, he has come to the conclusion that the present
developmental project is necessary for the region and he does not oppose it. It is claimed that
the decision to withdraw the application has been made voluntarily without any undue
influence. The NGT emphasized that it has been constituted for strengthening environmental

protection and the conservation of forests and other natural resources by referring to the
Statements of Objects and Reasons of the NGT Act, 2010. The NGT cautioned future litigants
against invoking its jurisdiction for frivolous litigation that unnecessarily consumes the time
of the tribunal without serving the intended purpose.
The NGT also affirmed that it does not have the power to prevent the withdrawal of the case
and also does not have suo motu powers to proceed with the case. However, the NGT
imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Appellant to be paid to the Respondent in order to prevent
such frivolous litigations arising in the future.
2. Rajeev Suri v. Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Ors
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Decided On: 19.04.2016
In this case, the Applicant sought restitution/ restoration (under Section 15 of the NGT Act)
of Kushak Nala running through Defence Colony, New Delhi following the Reverse
Environment Impact Study conducted by an independent body authorized by the tribunal.
The Applicant contends that the DDAs work on the drainage system has caused adverse
environmental impacts and hazards to human health and safety. This case only deals with the
maintainability of the present suit and does not adjudicate on the merits. The Respondents
contend that the present application is barred by limitation because of a delay of more than
six months as per Section 14 of the NGT Act. The NGT held that even assuming that the
construction of the drain started much earlier, the ill effects of the construction could not have
been manifest from the moment of starting the project. Ill effects gradually mounted with the
progress in the construction project. Hence, at every new stage, fresh and distinct cause of
action arose. Essentially, the NGT held that the principle of recurring cause of action would
be applicable and each such cause of action would have its own limitation period and would
not be barred by the limitation imposed by the earlier act. Hence, the Respondents
contentions were dismissed and the application was held maintainable.
3. Wilfred J. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Decided On: 17.07.2014
The present case was instituted by an Application filed by a group of fishermen against
Vizhinjam Port Project on the grounds that it had adverse environmental impact and also had
an adverse effect on their livelihood. The issue to be decided was whether the NGT had
jurisdiction to hear the matter. It was held that as per the scheme of the NGT Act, the Tribunal
has complete independence to discharge judicial functions and any question relating to the

environment, falling within the Scheduled Act would have to be examined by the Tribunal,
subject to the provisions of relevant Acts and the Tribunal would have to examine on merits
whether areas in question, would have require some protection or preservation within ambit
and scope of environmental jurisprudence. Hence, the impugned application was held to be
maintainable because the Tribunal adopted a wide and comprehensive definition of
environment and held that it had jurisdiction to entertain all such matters pertaining to the
environment as per environmental jurisprudence and purposive construction of the NGT Act.
4. P. Sundararajan and Ors. v. The Deputy Registrar National Green Tribunal and
Ors.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided On: 07.07.2015
This case dealt with the issue of the validity and exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the
NGT under the NGT Act. The Court relied extensively on the case of Union of India and
others v. Major General ShriKant Sharma and another 2015 (3) Scale 546 in coming to its
conclusions. The main conclusions derived from the said judgment are as follows:

The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the
basic essential features of the Constitution and any legislation including Armed
Forces Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Refer: L. Chandra and S.N. Mukherjee).

The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32
though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, they will
certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the
Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act.
(Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd.)

When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition
should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita
Sharma).

The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an
effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under
which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for
redressal of grievance. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma).

5. Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 09.08.2012
In this case, the Supreme Court essentially dealt with the issue of whether the job of
overseeing various Committees involved in the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research
Centre ('BMHRC') and Bhopal Memorial Hospital Trust (BMHT/Trust') (which was
constituted for purposes of providing healthcare for affected victims of the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy) was to be transferred to the appropriate High Court. The Court also expressly
limited the jurisdiction of the NGT in the present matter. The Court held that since the present
caser does not involve any complex or other environmental issue, and primarily requires
administrative supervision of the orders of the Courts, it is appropriate to transfer it to the
Madhya Pradesh High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction to better serve the ends of
justice.

6. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided On: 07.04.2016
This case discussed the genesis of environmental regulatory authorities in India and
specifically addressed the issue of whether the Loss of Ecology Authority (LoEA) should be
wound up and replaced by the NGT. The Court concluded in the affirmative and issued the
following orders:
The LoEA as a permanent body is dismissed.
All the claims pending investigation/ enquiry on the file of the LoEA shall stand
transferred to the Chennai branch of NGT.
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 14(3) and Section 15 (3) or
Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, will not apply to the claims so
transferred from the LoEA, in view of the fact that those claims were entertained by
an Authority which had jurisdiction to entertain them, at the time when they were
taken on file and also in view of the fact that the period of limitation prescribed in the
National Green Tribunal Act could not be made applicable to cases transferred from
another Authority.
The prescription regarding court fee contained in Rule 12 of the National Green
Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules 2011 shall not apply to the claims
transferred from the LoEA, since they are transferred under orders of court, after the
abolition of an Authority.
In view of the huge volume of claims now getting transferred to the National Green
Tribunal, the Central Government shall constitute, at least one additional Bench at
Chennai, as undertaken by the learned Additional Solicitor General, for the present.
The Central Government shall examine the constitution of another additional Bench,

within six months, so that the Tribunal does not crush under the weight of such a huge
volume.
The Union of India shall consider rehabilitating the employees of the Loss of Ecology
Authority whose particulars are furnished in paragraph 79 above by absorbing them
into the National Green Tribunal.