NEW DELHI: Why cannot the National Green Tribunal (NGT) take the accountability and supply “some solace” to victims of air pollution associated issue if there isn’t a formal utility earlier than it, mentioned the Supreme Court on Wednesday whereas analyzing the issue of whether the tribunal has the power to take cognisance of a matter on its personal.
The apex court docket, which mentioned it will hear arguments on August 25 on the side of whether the NGT which was established in 2010 to cope with instances pertaining to environmental points has the power to take suo motu cognisance, noticed that objective and intent behind the provisions of NGT Act has to stored in thoughts whereas coping with the matter.
“Here, there’s widespread man, victims of air pollution associated points. Now, why the tribunal can’t take the accountability and resolve that and supply some solace to these victims if there isn’t a formal utility,” a bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna noticed.
The apex court docket made the statement after senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, showing for one of the events within the matter, argued that there has to be a dispute earlier than the tribunal which implies there has to be an applicant earlier than it.
The bench, which was listening to a batch of petitions relating to the issue relating to NGT’s power to take suo motu cognisance, mentioned there could also be selection of causes for not submitting purposes.
“Accepting that argument can be just about curbing the powers of an authority which has received very important and essential powers,” the bench mentioned, including that points like nature, operate, power and obligation conferred upon the tribunal have to be appeared into.
Nadkarni informed the bench that senior advocate Anand Grover, who was appointed as an amicus curiae to help the apex court docket within the matter, has agreed that NGT has no suo motu power. “You agree together with his submission that the tribunal has no suo motu power?,” the bench requested the amicus.
Grover mentioned he agree with the opinion of Nadkarni on this. Nadkarni informed the bench that he would flow into the judgements which he would refer in the course of the arguments and his submissions within the matter. “We usually are not saying that NGT doesn’t have the jurisdiction. The issue is does the tribunal has suo motu power,” he mentioned.
The bench, which mentioned that events might file their written submissions on the purpose of suo motu jurisdiction of the tribunal, posted the matter for listening to on August 25. The NGT had earlier taken suo motu cognisance on the issue pertaining to strong waste administration in Maharashtra and imposed value of Rs 5 crore on the municipal company.
The apex court docket was earlier informed that the Bombay High Court was already monitoring the issue of strong waste administration in Maharashtra and the NGT mustn’t have taken cognisance on its personal within the matter.