Madras High Court stays office order mandating that suo motu "pan-India" matters are to be heard only by NGT Principal Bench

The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an office order issued by the Registrar General of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had stated that suo motu matters having pan-India or inter-state implications will henceforth be listed before the Principal Bench of at least three members (Meenava Thanthai KR Selvaraj Kumar v. National Green Tribunal Principal Bench and anr)..While passing its interim order in a petition by NGO Meenava Thanthai challenging the office order, the Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that the office order appeared to be contrary to the NGT Act and Rules..PIL in Madras High Court challenges NGT Office Order mandating suo motu matters of "pan-India" implications to be heard only by Principal Bench ."... the Officer Order of June appears to be contrary to Section 4 of the Act on at least three counts...it is necessary to stay such order pending the disposal of the petition. However, in the event the NGT seeks to be represented, it will have leave to apply for vacating this order upon due notice to the petitioner herein," the Court ordered on Tuesday..As to the three counts on which the office order was found to be prima facie contrary to the NGT Act and Rules, the interim order highlights the following:1. Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act states that in composition of a Bench there shall be an equal number of judicial members and expert members: The petitioner had pointed out that by the office order, matters having pan-India implications were to be heard by a Bench of three members, which was not possible if an equal number of judicial and expert members are to be maintained on every NGT Bench.The Court acknowledged that Rule 5 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 may be anomalous, in that it empowers the NGT Chairperson to specify cases which may be heard by Benches comprising more than two members. The Court, however, added that the Act would have an overriding effect, notwithstanding this anomaly."... prima facie, the said Act when read with the Rules does not permit a bench consisting an odd number of members", the Court proceeded to opine. As such, the Court said that to such an extent, the challenged office order seems to be an anomaly itself.2. Territorial jurisdiction of NGT Benches have been defined: The Court acknowledged that Rule 6 of the 2011 Rules permits the NGT to sit in any place other than the place it ordinarily sits, if the judicial member of the tribunal is satisfied that there are circumstances rendering it necessary, and with the previous approval of the NGT Chairperson. All the same, it went on to observe that when the territorial jurisdiction of NGT Benches has been defined and the places of sitting fixed, it may not be permissible, at least without a Central government notification, for even the Principal Bench to take up matters pertaining to any other Bench, regardless of whether the Chairperson ordinarily presides over the Principal Bench.3. NGT does not appear to have suo motu authority: The Court noted that while the NGT has various powers while adjudicating on civil disputes concerning environmental laws, it is evident that an application has to be filed before a Tribunal can grant relief, compensation or restitution. "There does not appear to immediately be any provision under which the tribunal may assume suo motu authority", the Court said. The Court added that when it comes to exercising judicial authority conferred on judicial members by the NGT Act, the NGT Chairperson, as a judicial member, does not have any greater authority than other judicial members. All appeals from NGT orders have to be carried to the Supreme Court, as per Section 22 of the Act, the High Court further noted..The matter will be heard after five weeks..After Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan sought more time to file a response, the Central government has been asked to file its counter affidavit in four weeks' time. The Court has also observed that it is necessary to serve a copy of the petition to the NGT at its Principal Bench if it has not been already done..Advocate Ritwick Dutta appeared for the petitioner today. .On a related note, another Division Bench of the Madras High Court had recently observed that while the NGT Bench at Delhi for the Northern Zone is referred to as the "Principal Bench", it does not imply that the NGT at Delhi has superior powers over other NGT Benches..While staying the transfer of a case from the Southern to the Northern Zone Bench, the Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and T Thamliselvi had added in their order:"Each Bench will have jurisdiction over a specified area and there is no superior power to any Bench...The decision given by any Bench of National Green Tribunal, dealing with any issue, will have Pan India effect and it cannot be said that only if the issue is decided by the Bench at Delhi, it will have Pan India effect.".Orders of all NGT Benches apply pan India, reference to NGT Delhi as 'Principal Bench' a misnomer: Madras High Court.[Read Order]