1 2025:CGHC:54991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 630 of 2025 1. Rohit Singhania S/o Lalit Kumar Singhania Aged About 48 Years R/o 15/480, Civil Lines Raj Bhawan Marg Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Environment Forest And Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhawn Aliganj Jorbagh Road New Delhi – 110003 2. State Level Environment Impct Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Through Chairman Secretariate Paryavas Bhawan North Block Sector - 19 Atal Nagar - 490099 District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. State Expert Appraisal Committee (Seac) Through Chairman Secretariate Paryavas Bhawan North Block Sector - 19 Atal Nagar 490099 District - Raipur (C.G.) 4. Collector District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.K. Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General of India For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.11.13 18:46:26 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief:- “i. To direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the Application dated 7th December 2023 filed by Petitioner for grant of Environmental Clearance in a time bound manner overriding objection regarding submission of the Gram Panchayat NOC in regards to Ordinary Sand Quarry Lease granted to the petitioner over an area admeasuring 4.95 Hectare situated at Khasra No.1083 (Part) in Village- Mohmela, Tehsil- Aarang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ii. Pass any other relief/order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel respondent No.2 and 3 raises an objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground availability of efficacious alternate remedy. He submits that according to Section 14 (1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short ‘the Act of 2010’), the National Green Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment is involved. Petitioner by way this petition is seeking a relief that respondent No.2 be directed to consider application made by petitioner for grant of environment clearance. As the relief 3 sought by petitioner relates to environmental issue covered under Schedule-I of Chapter III of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short ‘the Act of 2010’) i.e. the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, petitioner has to avail the alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal. In support of contention, he places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v Union of India, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 326. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2010 is limited to civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the Act of 2010. Present petition does not involve question relating to environment or any of the seven statutes specified in Schedule-I of the Act of 2010 because petitioner is simply praying for a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the application submitted by petitioner for grant of environment clearance, which cannot be issued by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that respondent No.3 in its Minutes of Meeting dated 12.22024 has considered that the quarry lease is having area of 4.95 hectare, which falls under ’B2’ category lease. However, decision is taken that recommendation will be made 4 for environmental clearance only when petitioner – quarry lease holder, would submit ‘no-objection certificate’ before respondent No.2 - State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). Condition as imposed by respondent No.3 is not applicable upon petitioner company being quarry lease holder of B2 Category. Hence, the provisions of the Act of 2010 do not apply to the facts of present proceeding and being so, writ petition is maintainable. In support of his submission, he places reliance on order dated 24.7.2023 passed by the National Green Tribunal in Original Application No.88/2022 (CZ), parties being Shanti Vijay Minerals & ors vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & ors and submit that that the Tribunal in the facts of the case may not entertain the case even if it is filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Grievance of petitioner is primarily of non-grant of environment clearance for want of No Objection Certificate from the concerned village panchayat, within the territory of which land allotted to petitioner for quarry lease is located. Section 14 (1) of the Act of 2010 provides that, Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question 5 arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Relevant provision of Section 14 of the Act of 2010 is extracted below for ready reference:- “(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.” 6. Schedule-I referred to in Section 14 of the Act of 2010 is also extracted below for ready reference:- “1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; 2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; 3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; 4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; 5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.” 7. Serial No.5 of Schedule I relates to the The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act of 1986’) Issue, which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, is non-grant of environment clearance certificate in favor of petitioner for operating quarry lease. 6 8. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986, issued Notification dated 14.9.2006. According to this Notification, prior environmental clearance from the State Leven Environment Impact Assessment Authority is necessary for the projects covered under the Schedule attached to the Notification. Clause 3 of Notification provides for constitution of “State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority’ by the Central Government under sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1986. Clause 5 talks of screening, scoping and appraisal committees. Clause 6 talks of application for prior environmental clearance (EC). 9. Both the parties have relied upon the Notification dated 14.9.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. 10. In the above facts, it is appearing that issue involved in this writ petition and nature of relief as sought for by petitioner is with respect to subject matter of the Act of 1986 and therefore, the Tribunal is having jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act of 2010 to consider the claim of petitioner. 11. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner relying upon decision in case of Shanti Vijay (supra), in the opinion of this 7 Court, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, subject matter which was under consideration before the Tribunal was an application for extension of environment clearance in view of outbreak of corona virus (Covid-19) and lock down situation. 12. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy of filing appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal under the Act of 2010 for redressal of grievance as raised in this writ petition. 13. True it is that High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain petition filed even if the party is having alternate remedy available, but only in exceptional circumstances. In case of Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to its several judgments has laid down that, rule of self-imposed restraint in entertaining writ petition when alternate remedy is available needs to be followed by the High Court and so, when there is statutory forum for redressal of the grievance, writ petition should not be entertained. “11.We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution 8 and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation – L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” (Emphasis supplied) 14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai & ors reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 dealing with issue of maintainability of writ petition in view of availability of alternate remedy has held that alternative remedy not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies; (i) where writ petition has been filed for enforcement of any of fundamental rights; (ii) where there has been a violation of principle of natural justice; and (iii) where the order or proceeding is absolutely without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 9 15. In case of Harbans Lal Sahina Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & ors reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 (Para-7); “7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged [Sess Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and orders, (1998) 8 SCC 11]. The present case attracts applicability of first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & others vs. Commercial Steel Limited, reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 884, following the decision in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) has observed thus: “11.The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The 10 existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights;(ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or(iv) a challenge to the vires of the statues or delegated legislation. 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise preceded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.” 17. In case at hand, during course of arguments learned counsel for petitioner could not able to convince this Court to treat this writ petition to be an exceptional case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to by- pass alternate remedy available to him. 18. For the foregoing discussion and considering that petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy under the Act of 2010, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-