Hindalco Industries Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi High Court · 25 Oct 2018
Vibhu BakhrU
W.P.(C) 11468/2018
2018:DHC:8836
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that writ petitions challenging environmental protection orders under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 are barred by the availability of an alternate remedy before the National Green Tribunal and granted a temporary stay to enable the petitioner to approach the NGT.

Full Text
Translation output
ii- HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(C^ 11468/2018 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED Petitioner
Through; Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr.
Advocate with Mr Ashish Prasad, Ms Mukta Dutta, Mr Rohit Sharma and
Mr Rohan Roy, Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Ms Supama Srivastava, CGCS with Ms Sanjna Dua and Ms Nehul
Sharma, Advocates for R-1.
AND
W.P.(C) 11469/2018
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ashish Prasad, Ms Mukta Dutta, Mr
Rohit Sharma and Mr Rohan Roy,^ Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Ms Supama Srivastava, CGCS with Ms Sanjna Dua and Ms Nehul
Sharma, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
25.10.2018 CM No.44382/2018 in W.P.(C) 11468/2018
CM No. 44388/2018 in W.P.(C) 11469/2018
ORDER

1. Allowed, subject to alljust exceptions. W.P.(C) 11468/2018 & CM No.44381/2018 2018:DHC:8836

2. The petitioner has filed the present petitions impugning separate orders dated 14.09.2018 passed under Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as well as separate orders of the same date passed under Section 5ofthe Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

3. At the outset, Ms Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the petitionerhas an equally efficacious remedy ofan appeal before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) against any order passed under Section 5of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. She further states that the orders passed under Section 19 of the said Act (which are impugned in the present petitions) are consequential orders.

4. It IS not disputed that the petitionerhas an alternate remedy before the NGT m.respect of the orders passed under Section 5of the Environmern (Protection) Act, 1986. In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed ofby directing that the impugned orders passed under Section 19 of the Environmern (Protection) Act, 1986 shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from today. This is to enable the petitioner to avail their appellate remedies before the NGT. It is clarified that this would be subject to further orders that may be passed by the NGT.

5. It IS further clarified that all rights and contentions ofthe parties are open. The parties are at hberty.

6. All pending applications are disposed of. OCTOBER25,2018/MK VIBHU BAKHRU, J