Read Time: 10 minutes

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Gavai and Hima Kohli today quashed and set aside the proceedings at the National Green Tribunal (NGT) pertaining to the construction of a resort by the Andhra Pradesh government at Rushikonda Hills at Vishakapatnam.

Court held that the NGT was not right in initiating proceedings despite knowing the fact that proceedings pertaining to the same subject matter which is pending before the High Court.

While asking the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to consider the issue, Court directed that no construction be carried out in the area excavated from the hills till the High Court hears the matter.

Further taking note of the undertaken by the State of Andhra Pradesh that it will not claim equity to construct based on this order, Court ordered that the construction will be permitted on the area where the construction already exists or areas which has already been demolished and flat areas.

The petition before the Supreme Court challenged the order of the Principal Bench of NGT whereby the tribunal had granted a stay against the construction works of the proposed tourism project on Rushikonda Hill next to the Visakhapatnam beach.

The State claimed that it was already running a resort at Rushikonda Hill and only after seeking permission of the relevant authorities they have demolished the existing resort and started reconstructing it with additional facilities.

However, a petition challenging this construction has already been filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati and a division bench of the High Court by an order dated December 16, 2021 permitted the construction to go on subject to strict compliance of the permission granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.

During the pendency of the petition before the High Court, Raghurama Krishnam Raju, who is a sitting Lok Sabha MP belonging to the YSR Congress Party from one of the constituencies in AP, addressed a letter to NGT.

Based on the letter, the NGT appointed an experts committee in December 2021 which submitted its report in March 2022. The report revealed that the committee did not find any violation in the construction carried out by the State. However, the NGT again appointed a second experts committee and the report of the second committee is awaited. 

The NGT, without waiting for the report, in an interim order directed that no construction can be undertaken in the said area. The NGT further refused to vacate the interim order despite the State apprising it of the petition before the High Court.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv, appearing for the state submitted that when the High Court of competent jurisdiction is seized of the issue already,  NGT could not have entertained the same.

He contended that the NGT without taking the same into consideration continued with the interim order. He submitted that NGT is subordinate to the High Court so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, therefore, the proceedings before NGT is not sustainable.

The Top Court, on hearing the submissions of the parties, held that no law would be necessary to state that tribunals are subordinate to High Court in so far as territorial jurisdiction. It said that it was not appropriate for NGT to continue proceedings when the High Court is already seized of the issue.

It was further held that conflicting orders passed by NGT and High Court could lead to an anomalous situation, and the authorities would be faced with difficulty.

Court noted in case of conflicting orders between a tribunal and the High Court, it is the orders passed by constitutional courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) that would prevail over orders passed by the tribunal. The court, thus, quashed and set aside the proceedings.

Furthermore, Court noted that though the High Court has permitted the construction to proceed taking into consideration serious allegations, it will be appropriate if all facts are placed before it and the High Court will have to pass appropriate order to strike a balance between development and environment.

Court clarified that though development is necessary, it is equally necessary to safeguard the environment so as to preserve pollution-free environment. The apex court, thus, directed the parties to approach the High Court.

When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, the court had pulled up the National Green Tribunal for constituting a committee based on a letter by an MP. The court had remarked that the tribunal is vested with powers to initiate proceedings only when letters are addressed by people who cannot approach courts.

Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Raghurama Krishnam Raju