High Court of Bombay at Goa Considers Challenge to MoEF Notification Transferring NGT Jurisdiction Over Goa Matters to Delhi Principal Bench. The Court Examines Legality of Transfer Without Public Consultation and Lack of Alternative Arrangements Under NGT Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Goa took suo motu cognizance on 21st August 2017 upon learning of a notification by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change that transferred the jurisdiction over Goa-related cases from the National Green Tribunal's Western Zone Bench in Pune to its Principal Bench in Delhi. This notification, dated 10th August 2017, had been issued without any public consultation, despite a prior proposal for a Circuit Bench in Goa due to the high volume of filings. Multiple public interest petitions were filed challenging this transfer. The petitioners, including The Goa Foundation, argued that the transfer was arbitrary and inconvenient, while the State of Goa contended that a Circuit Bench was not feasible due to unsuitable locations and that the Delhi bench was less inconvenient than Pune. The Union of India maintained that it acted on the State's proposal after the NGT chairperson failed to respond to the Circuit Bench suggestion. The Court, after hearing amicus curiae and all counsel, expressed concern over the lack of stakeholder consultation and noted that a Circuit Bench would be optimal. However, it acknowledged that it could not direct the establishment of such a bench. The judgment's final decision is not included in the provided excerpt.

Headnote

A) Environmental Law - National Green Tribunal - Jurisdiction Transfer - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 14 - The notification transferring environmental matters from NGT Western Zone Bench to Principal Bench was challenged for being issued without public consultation. The Court noted the absence of consultation and the existence of a Circuit Bench option. (Paras 2-9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the MoEF notification dated 10th August 2017 transferring the territorial jurisdiction of the NGT Western Zone Bench over Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli to the Principal Bench in Delhi is valid and lawful?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • NGT Act
  • Section 14
  • territorial jurisdiction
  • arbitrary transfer without public consultation
  • suo motu PIL jurisdiction
  • Circuit Bench concept
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 117

PIL Writ Petition No. 22 of 2017 along with PIL Writ Petitions No. 21, 23, 778, 783, 787 of 2017 and Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 1 of 2017

2017-10-11

G.S. Patel and Nutan D. Sardessai, JJ.

2017:BHC-GOA:2899-DB

SD Lotlikar (Amicus Curiae), SS Kantak, Norma Alvares, Yogesh Nadkarni, Nigel Costa Frias, Ryan Menezes, C. Ribeiro, Kashinath J. Shetye (for Petitioners); MB Da Costa, S. Halankar, V. Rodrigues (for Intervenors); Mahesh Amonkar (for Union of India); Dattaprasad Lawande, Advocate General, with P. Dangui, Amogh Prabhudesai, P. Bhandari, R. Shivolkar, P. Kalangutkar (for State of Goa).

The Goa Foundation and Other Petitioners (in connected PILs)

Union of India (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) and State of Goa

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Public interest litigation challenging the notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forests transferring the jurisdiction over Goa-related environmental cases from the NGT Western Zone Bench (Pune) to the Principal Bench (Delhi).

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought to quash the notification and restore the jurisdiction to the Western Zone Bench or to establish a Circuit Bench in Goa.

Filing Reason

The notification was issued without public consultation, causing inconvenience to litigants and stakeholders from Goa, and allegedly in an arbitrary manner.

Issues

Whether the MoEF notification dated 10th August 2017 transferring the territorial jurisdiction of the NGT Western Zone Bench over Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli to the Principal Bench in Delhi is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the NGT Act and principles of natural justice.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners contended that the impugned notification was issued without public consultation and would cause grave inconvenience to litigants from Goa. The State Government submitted that while a Circuit Bench would be ideal, the proposed locations were unsuitable, and as an alternative, the Delhi Principal Bench was less inconvenient than Pune. The Union of India stated that it acted on a proposal from the State Government after the NGT chairperson did not respond to the proposal for a Circuit Bench.

Judgment Excerpts

The MoEF acted on this and it did so without any form of public consultation with other ‘stake holders’, including litigants. It seems to be common ground that a Circuit Bench in Panaji is an optimal solution. The notification constituting the Western Zone Bench is dated 17th August 2011.

Procedural History

On 21st August 2017, the High Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter after seeing news reports about the transfer notification. Subsequently, several public interest litigations were filed challenging the notification. The court consolidated all petitions and issued Rule. The matters were heard together, with the court appointing an amicus curiae. The hearing was concluded on 4th October 2017, and judgment was pronounced on 11th October 2017.

Acts & Sections

  • National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Considers Challenge to MoEF Notification Transferring NGT Jurisdiction Over Goa Matters to Delhi Principal Bench. The Court Examines Legality of Transfer Without Public Consultation and Lack of Alternative Arrangements Und...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Amendment in Specific Performance Suit at Appellate Stage — Scope of 'Any Other Relief' Under Section 22(1)(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court held that the expression 'any other relief to which he may be entitled' ...