16th EDITION OF THE PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
Compendium
Of The Cases Cited
On Behalf of the Applicant in the matter of
Mr.Pakshi ……………Applicant
Versus
Fisheries Department , State of Periyarnadu
And Ors ……………….Respondent
16th EDITION OF THE PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
Goa Foundation vs Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 435 OF 2012
Bench: A.K. Patnaik, Surinder Singh Nijjar, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla
On the cogent reading of Section 14 with Section 2(m) and Section 20 of the NGT Act, likely
damage to environment would be covered under the precautionary principle, and therefore,
provide jurisdiction to the Tribunal to entertain such a question. The applicability of
precautionary principle is a statutory command to the Tribunal while deciding or settling
disputes arising out of substantial questions relating to environment. Thus, any violation or
even an apprehended violation of this principle would be actionable by any person before the
Tribunal. Inaction in the facts and circumstances of a given case could itself be a violation of
the precautionary principle, and therefore, bring it within the ambit of jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, as defined under the NGT Act. By inaction, naturally, there will be violation of the
precautionary principle and therefore, the Tribunal will have jurisdiction to entertain all civil
cases raising such questions of environment. Such approach is further substantiated by the
fact that Section 2(c), while defining environment, covers everything. Section 2(m) brings
into play a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation as contemplated
under Section 5 of the Environment Act as being substantial question relating to environment
These provisions, read with Section 3(1) and Section 5 of the Environment Act, which place
statutory obligation and require the Government to issue appropriate directions to prevent and
control pollution, clearly show that the legislature intended to provide wide jurisdiction to the
Tribunal to deal with and cover all civil cases relating to environment, as stated by the
Supreme Court.
Vimal Bhai & Ors vs Uoi & Ors on 7 November, 2012, APPEAL NO. 7/2012
Bench : Justice A.S. Naidu (Acting Chairperson) Dr. G.K. Pandey (Expert Member)
It is well settled law that while interpreting a Statute effort should be made to give effect
to each and every word used by the Legislature. It should be always presumed that the
Legislature inserted every word in the Statute for a purpose and legislative intention is
that every part of the Statute should have a meaningful effect. A construction which
attributes redundancy to the Legislation should not be expected, except for
compelling reasons such as obvious drafting errors (see State of U.P. and others Vs. Vijay
Anand Maharaj : AIR 1963 SC 946)
20. In the case of P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 378, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"Where the language of the Statute leads to manifest contradiction of the apparent
purpose of the enactment, the Court can, of course, adopt a construction which will carry
16th EDITION OF THE PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
out the obvious intention of the Legislature. In doing so "a judge must not alter the
material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases".
On the touchstone of the legal position enunciated above and admitted facts, we proposed
to answer the question posed, i.e. whether an Appeal lies against the impugned order
passed by the MoEF granting in principle Stage - I Forest Clearance.
Right of appeal is statutory, and no one inherits it. When conferred by statute it becomes
a vested right. In this regard there is essential distinction between right of appeal and right
to suit. Where there is inherent right in every person to file a suit and for its
maintainability it requires no authority of law, appeal requires so.
21. Section 2(A) of the FC Act as well as Section 16(e) of the NGT Act clearly stipulates
that an order or decision made by the State Government or other authority passed under
Section 2 of the FC Act 1980 can be assailed by filing an Appeal before this Tribunal.
However, a party cannot be remediless, a person who is aggrieved by the
Approval/Clearance granted by the Central Government has to avail an opportunity to
assail the same.
M.C.Mehta vs University Grants Commission, 1992 AIR 382, 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 378
Bench: Misra, Rangnath (Cj)
Nexus between the dispute raised before the Tribunal for determination and the
environment has to be direct. When the framers of law use the expression 'substantial
question relating to environment', it clearly conveys the legislative intent of ensuring that
the disputes determinable by the Tribunal have to relate to environment and not allied
fields thereto. In the case of Goa Foundation (supra), the Tribunal clearly held that the
disputes arising for decision or settlement before the Tribunal should arise out of
substantial question relating to environment. The violation must be with regard to
environment and it is not a generic term used by the Legislature enabling the Tribunal to
expand its jurisdiction beyond the true construction of Section 14 of the NGT Act. The
character of the proceeding is clearly not in reference to the relief that the Tribunal could
grant, but upon the nature of the right violated and the appropriate relief which could be
claimed.
Ms.Betty.C.Alvares Vs State of Goa, APPLICATION NO.63 OF 2012
Bench: Shri Justice V.R. Kingaonkarv and Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande
In the Tribunal’s opinion, violation of CRZ Notification, or environment obligation under the
statute, including Regulation pertaining to Municipal Laws, or pertaining to parameters of the
16th EDITION OF THE PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
constructions by which the community at large is affected, would come within ambit of
Section 2(m) (i) (A) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Kehar Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter, Delhi 556
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.D.
Salvi (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Hussain (Judicial Member)
The NGT Act is a specific Act with a specific purpose and object, and therefore, the cause
of action which is specific to other laws or other objects and does not directly relate to
environmental issues would not be 'such dispute' as contemplated under the provisions of
the NGT Act. The dispute must essentially be an environmental dispute and must relate to
either of the Acts stated in Schedule I to the NGT Act and the 'cause of action' referred to
under Sub- section (3) of Section 14 should be the cause of action for 'such dispute' and
not alien or foreign to the substantial question of environment. The cause of action must
have a nexus to such dispute which relates to the issue of environment/substantial
question relating to environment, or any such proceeding, to trigger the prescribed period
of limitation. A cause of action, which in its true spirit and substance, does not relate to
the issue of environment/substantial question relating to environment arising out of the
specified legislations, thus, in law cannot trigger the prescribed period of limitation under
Section 14(3) of the NGT Act.
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal ... vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc on 13 February,
1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)
Upon considering the facts and findings of this case, Judges ruled that the industries will have
to deposit the penalty, as ordered by the Court vide its judgment dated 11 April 1997, along
with compound interest. Since 11 April 1997, the respondent industries have intentionally
failed to comply with the court’s directions. A significant amount of residents have already
been seriously impacted as there have so far been no effective corrective measures taken. The
respondent industries have accomplished in their strategy with respect to refusing to comply
with the decision of the court by maintaining the case going on for more than fifteen years by
submitting interlocutory requests that were absolute without any substance and therefore,
were subsequently rejected with costs.
As a result, following 11 April 1997, the respondent industries were ordered to pay Rs.
37,385,000 INR together with a compound interest of 12 percent per annum until the sum
would have been fully paid or compensated. In addition to this, the respondent industries
were mandated to pay the litigation fees for deliberately wasting the court’s time and
resources, as the case was carried on for nearly fifteen years, long after the Court’s final
decision and for all these years the applicants were forced to carry on the case. Taking into
account the sum total of the facts and findings of the case, regarding both the interlocutory
applications, the court ordered the respondent industries to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000 INR as
costs. This sum of money would also be used, under the direction of the respective
authorities, for performing corrective actions around the Bichhri village and neighbouring
regions within the Udaipur district, Rajasthan, India.
16th EDITION OF THE PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
Basically, the court implemented the concept of polluters pay, which implies, as per the court,
that if an activity carried out, is of a harmful nature, then the individuals conducting these
very activities will be required to compensate to make up for the damage caused to any other
person irrespective of whether appropriate precautionary measures were taken or not while
carrying out such an activity.
While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology
or by causing wide spread environment destruction and violation, at the same time the
necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other
developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words,
there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa but there
should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment.
Union Of India And Anr vs Paras Laminates (P) Ltd on 17 August, 1991 AIR 696,
1990 SCR (3) 789
Bench: Thommen, T.K. (J)
There is no doubt that the Tribunal functions as a. Court within the limits of its
jurisdiction. It has all the powers conferred expressly by the statute. Further- more, being
a judicial body, it has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to
make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. Certain powers are recognised
as incidental and ancillary, not because they are inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its
jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the legislative intent that the power which is
expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully
exercised. [794F-G] 1.1 Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the
power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its
execution.
Aradhana Bhargav Anr vs Moef Ors on 12 August, 2013, Application No. 11/2013
(P.B.46/2013 THC)
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Chockalingam (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. Ajay
A. Deshpande (Expert Member)
Specific allegations have been made by them stating that they are aggrieved individually
and collectively, directly and indirectly by the loss of ecology and by environmental
degradation and that injury, harm and damage were caused to them and all whom they
represent in view of the violations of all environmental law and for which they are also
entitled for damages and compensations. Hence, there cannot be any impediment for the
applicants to bring to the notice of the legal forum the activities which are violative of the
provision of the said enactments apart from seeking direction in respect of the discharge
of the obligations and duties by exercise of powers vested on the authorities under the
said enactments. They can seek the enforcement of all the rights relating to environment.
The Tribunal is vested with the original and appellate jurisdiction which is wide.
16th EDITION OF THE PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
Speaking on the wide jurisdiction of the Tribunal, both original and appellate, Hon'ble
Justice Shri Swatanter Kumar, Chairperson, (Principal Bench), NGT, New Delhi had an
occasion to consider the power and jurisdiction of the Tribunal in Application No.. The
contents of the application and the prayer thus should firstly satisfy the ingredients of it
being in the nature of a civil case and secondly, it must relate to a substantial question of
environment. It could even be an anticipated action substantially relating to environment.
Such cases would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 14(1). Next, in the light of the
language of Section 14(1), now we have to examine what is the substantial question
relating to 'environment'. Section 2(1)(c) of the NGT Act explains the word 'environment'
as follows:
"'environment' includes water, air and land and the interrelationship, which exists among
and between water, air and land and human being, other living creatures, plants, micro-
organism and property."
Section 2(m) defines the term 'substantial question' relating to environment as follows:
"It shall include an instance where -
(i) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a person
by which, -
(A) the community at large other than an individual or group of individuals is affected or
likely to be affected by the environmental consequences; or (B) the gravity of damage to
the environment or property is substantial (C) the damage to public health is broadly
measurable;
(ii) the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of
pollution."
the legislature, in its wisdom, has defined the word 'environment' in very wide terms. It is
inclusive of water, air, land, plants, micro-organisms and the inter-relationship between
them, living and non-living creatures and property. Similarly, 'substantial question
relating to environment' also in an inclusive definition and besides what it means, it also
includes what has been specified under Section 2(m) of the NGT Act. Inclusive
definitions are not exhaustive. One has to, therefore, give them a very wide meaning to
make them as comprehensive as the statute permits on the principle of liberal
interpretation. This is the very basis of an inclusive definition. Substantial, in terms of the
Oxford Dictionary of English, is of considerable importance, strongly built or made large,
real and tangile, rather than imaginary. Substantial is actual or real as opposed to trivial,
not serious, unimportant, imaginary or something. Substantial is not the same as
unsubstantial i.e. just enough to avoid the deminimis principle. In Inre Net Books
Agreement (1962) I WLR 1347, it was explained that, the term 'substantial' is not a term
that demands a strictly quantitative or proportional assessment. Substantial can also mean
more than reasonable. To put it aptly, a substantial question relating to environment must,
therefore, be a question which is debatable, not previously settled and must have a
material bearing on the cause and its issues relating to environment.
16th EDITION OF THE PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
The essence of legislation, like the NGT Act, is to attain the object of prevention and
protection of environmental pollution and to provide administration of environmental
justice and make it easily accessible within the framework of the statute. The objects and
reasons of the schedule Acts would have to be read as an integral part of the object,
reason and purposes of enacting the NGT Act. It is imperative for the Tribunal to provide
an interpretation to Sections 14 to 16 read with Section 2(m) of the NGT Act which
would disentitle an aggrieved person from raising a substantial question of environment
from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
M/s. Keystone Realtors Vs. Secretary, Environment Department, Government of
Maharashtra & Ors, WRIT PETITION (L) No. 1806 OF 2016
Bench: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. AJAY A. DESHPANDE, EXPERT MEMBER
The connotation or description of category of persons as ‘persons aggrieved’, referred to in
Section 16 and 18 of the NGT Act, must receive large amplitude and shall not be read in
constrictive or restrictive manner and to the detriment of persons who are entitled to benefit of
right. ‘Person
Aggrieved’ was entitled to a ‘very liberal interpretation and shall not be hyper technical to
exclude bona fide individuals to seek redressal at the hands of the Tribunal to protect the
environment in the larger interest of the society .It cannot be interpreted by an acid test or a
straight – jacket formula , keeping in mind the object of the NGT and the liberal legal remedies.
Piedade Filomena Gonsalves vs State Of Goa And Ors on 11 March, 2004, Appeal
(civil) 960-961 of 2002
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan
The Coastal Regulation Zone notifications have been issued in the interest of protecting
environment and ecology in the coastal area. Construction raised in violation of such
regulations cannot be lightly condoned. We do not think that the appellant is entitled to
any relief. No fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court in its impugned
judgment.
Fair Log Warehousing & Trading ... vs Kerala Coastal Zone
Management ... on 30 December, 2013, WP(C).No. 24548 of 2014 (p)
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
The Coastal Regulation Zone notifications have been issued in the interest of protecting
environment and ecology in the coastal area. Construction raised in violation of such
regulations cannot be lightly condoned.
16th EDITION OF THE PRO BONO ENVIRO NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
