Case: M/S. Monnet Ispat &amp; Energy Ltd Vs. Jan Chetna

order in Writ Petition (C) No. 8399 of 2009, which was described as a Public Interest Litigation and prayed that order dated 31.12.2008 passed by NEAA may be set aside and a direction be issued to NEAA to decide the appeal on merits. Respondent No.1 claimed that it was a representative body of those affected by the environmental clearance granted in favour of the appellant and, therefore, it had the locus to challenge the decision taken by respondent No.2.8. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellant, several objections were taken to the maintainability of the petition. It was pleaded that in the garb of filing a Public Interest Litigation, respondent No.1 was seeking annulment of the order passed by NEAA and such relief could be claimed only by filing a regular petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is required to be heard and decided by a Single Judge. The appellant also referred to the pendency of Writ Petition(C) No.5534/2007 before the Chhattisgarh High Court and pleaded that the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court was an abuse of the process of the Court. Another plea taken by the appellant was that the entire cause of action for filing the petition had accrued in Chhattisgarh and the Delhi High Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by respondent No.1.9. The Division Bench of the High Court did take cognizance of the objections taken by the appellant but did not deal with the same except the one relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and overruled the same. On merits, the Division Bench relied upon judgment dated 14.9.2009 passed by a coordinate Bench in LPA No.277/2009 Vedanta Alumina Ltd. v. Prafulla Samantra and others wherein it was held that an organisation, which is working in the area and is closely following the issue of setting up of industries and impact thereof on the environment falls in the category of a ‘person aggrieved’ and concluded that NEAA committed serious error by dismissing the appeal of respondent No.1 on the ground of lack of locus. 10. We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. 11. Shri Parikh made strenuous efforts to convince the Court that the hypertechnical objection raised by the appellant should not be entertained and in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Vedanta Alumina Ltd. v. Prafulla Samantra (supra), the special leave petition should be dismissed. 12. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel but have not felt impressed. 13. Chapter 3 Part A of the Delhi High Court Rules contains rules relating to the practice of the High Court in the hearing of causes and other matters. Part B contains rules relating to the jurisdiction of a Single Judge and of Benches of the Court. The relevant clauses of Rule 1 of Part B read as under: “Part BJURISDICTION OF A SINGLE JUDGE AND OF BENCHES OF THE COURT1. Cases ordinarily to be heard by a single Judge—Subject to the provisos hereinafter set forth the following classes of cases shall ordinarily be heard and disposed of by a Judge setting alone:(i) to (xvii) xxx xxx xxx(xviii) (a) Application or petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of any directions, orders or writs in the nature of Mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto or certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India or for any other purpose, except:(i) Petitions where vires of Acts or statutory rules, regulations, or bye-laws are challenged.(ii) Petitions where personal liberty is involved.(iii) Petitions pertaining to all Revenue/tax matters including entertainment taxes, except Municipal Tax.(iv) Petitions arising from the orders of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction/Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction or seeking directions to them; and(v) Petitions pertaining to Public Interest litigation.(vi) Petitions pertaining to the award to Tenders.(vii) Petitions relating to Co-operative Societies.(viii) Petitions being service matters of Armed Forces of the Union.(ix) Petitions arising out of Land Acquisition.(x) Petitions concerning orders passed by the High Court on the administrative side.Provided that as regards pending cases, the learned single Judge may hear the part-heard matters.Explanation: The preliminary hearing for admission and final disposal of applications and petitions pertaining to matters mentioned in clause (i) to (x) of sub-rule (xviii)(a) above shall however be before a Bench of two Judges and before a Single Bench when there is no sitting of Division Bench.” Rule 4, which relates to jurisdiction of a Bench of two Judges, also reads as under: “4. All cases to be disposed of by a Bench of two Judges save as provided by law or by these rules—Save as provided by law or by these rules or by special order of the Chief Justice, all cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.” 14. A bare reading of the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that the petition filed by respondent No.1 for quashing order dated 31.12.2008 could be heard only by Single Bench of the Delhi High Court. However, by disguising the petition as a Public Interest Litigation, respondent No.1 succeeded in getting the same listed before the Division Bench of the High Court. Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not deal with the objection raised by the appellant to the maintainability of the petition filed by respondent No.1 and proceeded to decide the matter on merits which, in our considered view, was legally impermissible.15. We are not suggesting that respondent No.1 had indulged in Bench hunting but it needs to be emphasised that every Bench of the High Court should scrupulously follow the relevant rules and should not violate statutory provisions specifying its jurisdiction, else the sanctity of the rules relating to distribution of causes between the Single, the Division Bench and larger Benches will be lost.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. A bare reading of the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that the petition filed by respondent No.1 for quashing order dated 31.12.2008 could be heard only by Single Bench of the Delhi High Court. However, by disguising the petition as a Public Interest Litigation, respondent No.1 succeeded in getting the same listed before the Division Bench of the High Court. Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not deal with the objection raised by the appellant to the maintainability of the petition filed by respondent No.1 and proceeded to decide the matter on merits which, in our considered view, was legally impermissible.15. We are not suggesting that respondent No.1 had indulged in Bench hunting but it needs to be emphasised that every Bench of the High Court should scrupulously follow the relevant rules and should not violate statutory provisions specifying its jurisdiction, else the sanctity of the rules relating to distribution of causes between the Single, the Division Bench and larger Benches will be lost.