HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. 6677/2011 PETITONER Raigarh Coal Benefication Pvt. PLAINTIFF Ltd. Co. (Constitutsd and incorporat€d under the Companiss Act, 1956) Registered Address Chakradhar Nagar near P.H.E. Odice, Raigarh, Tahsil and Dismct Raigarh (C.G.) Through Director, Bharat Agrawal S/ o Shri Vijay Agrawal, aged about 3O yams. Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Chhattisgarh Environment DEFENDANTS Protection Board, Through Member Secretaxy, Chhattisgarh Environment Protection Board, ’I‘ilak Nagar, Shiv Mandir Chowk, Main Road, Avanti Villar, Raipur, Tahsil 8r, District Raipur (C.G.). Regional Onicer, Chhattisgarh Environment Protection Board, Regional Raigarh, Tahs‘if Office & ’I‘.V Dismal: Tower Raigarh Road, (C.G.). 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector (Mining), Raigarh (C.G.). {O WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ($3 :Hon’bie Mr. T.P.Shaxma, J.) Present:— Shri Sanjay K, Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushi] Dubey, GA. for the State/respondents ORDER (Passed on 16/11/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 12/9/2011 passed by District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 14/ 2010 reversing the order dated 14/5/20 10 passed by First Civil Judge Class-1, Raigarh in civil suit No. 2A] 20 10 whereby First Civil Judge ClaSSvl, Raigarh has granted temporary injection in favour of the petitioner against respondents. By reversing the order District Judge, Raigarh has dismissed the application for grant of injunction on the ground of absence of prima—facie case for grant of temporaly injunction. Shn’ Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shn’ Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner and Shn' Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/ respondents are heard. Order impugned and other documents including document in question dated 7/ 4/ 2O 10 perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that direction dated 714/2010 has been issued under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short ‘the Act’), same is not hppealable in terms of Section 28 of the Act therefore, civil suit was not barred under Section 58 of the Act but District Judge, Raigarh has misconstrued that civil suit was barred and reversed the order passed by First Civil Judge Class-1, Raigarh and thereby committed an illegality. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents opposed the petition. and submits that District Judge, Raigarh has rightly reversed the order in absence of prima— facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Section 33A of the Act, gives power to authority to give direction and it should be Within the ambits of the Act the power to give direction is controlled by words “but subject to the provisions of this Act, 1". Order dated 7/4/ 20 10 clearly reveal that petitioner was operating Coal Washry without obtaining environmental clearance from MOEF/and consent to operate which was within the ambits of Section 25 of the Act. By issuing direction dated 7/4/2010 Regional Authority has not passed absolute order but has passed conditional order and has granted 15 days time to file objection i.e. has provided opportunity of hearing to the parties but reasons best ”E known to the petitioner instead of making submission before the authority it has immediately filed civil suit, subject matter of property was well within the jurisdiction of Court situated at Kharasiya but petitioner has tiled civil suit before the First Civil Judge Class-1, Raigarh by making valuation of claim as Rs. 25,100/- although plaintiif is at liberty to value its claim but. it should not be in arbitrary manner and must be reasonable especially it should not be for the purpose of “forum shopping”. Considering all aspect District Judge, Raigarh reserved the order passed by First Civil Judge Class-1, Raigarh. The action taken by authority Was within the ambit of Section 25 of the Act, appealable under Section 28 of the Act even otherwise it was not hnal order and opportunity was provided by the authority to petitioner. By reversing the order on the ground of absence of ptima facie case District Judge, Raigarh has not committed an illegality or jurisdictional error requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim application stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge