STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.) (MANU/SC/0760/2022)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.) (MANU/SC/0760/2022)

Citation	MANU/SC/0760/2022
Date of Judgment	1ST June 2022
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Civil Appeal Nos. 4522-4524 of 2022
Appellant	State of Andhra Pradesh
Respondent	Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.)
Bench	B.R. Gavai & Hima Kohli, JJ
Referred	Cases-Priya Gupta and Anr. v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. (MANU/SC/1093/2012)L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.(MANU/SC/0227/1995)

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru, is a Member of Parliament from Andhra Pradesh. He was constructing a resort at Rushikonda Hill, near Visakhapatnam. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the construction, alleging that it was in violation of environmental laws. The High Court granted an interim order staying the construction.

The appellant challenged the High Court’s order in the Supreme Court. He argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant the stay order, as the matter was pending before the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

• December 8, 2021: The State of Andhra Pradesh filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the construction of a resort by Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru at Rushikonda Hill, near Visakhapatnam.
• May 6, 2022: The High Court granted an interim order staying the construction.
• May 20, 2022: The NGT issued an order staying the High Court’s order.

ISSUES

• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the stay order?
• Whether the NGT is subordinate to the High Court?

ARGUMENTS

Appellant-

• Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that when the High Court of competent jurisdiction was already in seisin of the matter, the learned NGT could not have entertained a lis with regard to the same cause of action. He submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice of the learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the interim order dated 6th May 2022, which was in conflict with the order of the High Court dated 16th December 2021.
• He further submitted that NGT is a Tribunal, which is subordinate to the High Court in so far as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. He, therefore, submitted that the very continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT is not sustainable in law.

Respondent-

• Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the Appellant has acted in gross breach of the order dated 16th December 2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. 
• He submitted that the construction is rampantly going on in blatant violation of the order of the High Court. A contempt petition has already been filed before the High Court, wherein the High Court after taking cognizance of the blatant violation, issued notice on 4th May 2022.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the stay order. The Court found that the NGT is a statutory tribunal and that it is subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned.

The Court also held that the NGT’s order was not binding on the High Court. The Court found that the NGT’s order was an interim order and that it was not a final order. The Court held that the High Court was free to consider the merits of the case and to grant or refuse a stay order, even if the NGT had already granted a stay order.

To come to this decision, the Supreme Court relied on the case of Priya Gupta and Anr. v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors (MANU/SC/1093/2012) and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (MANU/SC/0227/1995).

The Supreme Court’s decision, in this case, is a significant decision that clarifies the relationship between the High Court and the NGT. The decision makes it clear that the High Court has jurisdiction to grant stay orders in cases that are pending before the NGT. This decision is likely to have a significant impact on the way that environmental cases are litigated in India. The decision also has implications for the relationship between the judiciary and statutory tribunals. The decision makes it clear that statutory tribunals are not immune from the scrutiny of the judiciary. The judiciary will be able to review the orders of statutory tribunals to ensure that they are in accordance with the law.

However, in my opinion, the judgment could lead to delays in environmental cases. The NGT is a specialized tribunal that was set up to hear environmental cases quickly and efficiently. If the High Court is now able to review the orders of the NGT, it could lead to delays in the resolution of environmental cases. I am also concerned that the judgment could set a precedent for other cases. The judgment could be used to challenge the orders of other statutory tribunals. This could lead to a decrease in the efficiency of the judicial system.

Overall, I believe that the judgment is a positive development. The Supreme Court clarified the relationship between the High Court and the NGT. The NGT is a statutory tribunal, but it is not immune from the scrutiny of the judiciary. The judiciary will be able to review the orders of the NGT to ensure that they are in accordance with the law.

REFERENCE

https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop

This Article is written by Bejita Banerjee of Birla Global University, an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.