NGT Cannot Transfer Their Adjudicatory Operations To The Expert Committee: Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivathan Trust Vs State Of Gujarat

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
21/01/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND JUSTICE MS. BELA M. TRIVEDI

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: KANTHA VIBHAG YUVA KOLI SAMAJ PARIVARTHAN TRUST AND OTHERS
RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court of India on 21/01/2022 ruled that an administrative Expert Committee can’t take over the adjudicatory powers of a quasi-judicial entity like the NGT.

OVERVIEW

1. So basically, in July 2014, environmental groups and individuals submitted an original application over the disposal of non - segregated unprocessed and completely ruined and untreatable municipal garbage from the plant at an outdoor landfill area in the Surat region.
2. Occasionally, numerous decrees were issued to into it. When the case came to the notice of NGT's Principal Bench on September 28, 2018, the Original Application was dismissed on the grounds that the NGT had widely recognizable and popular Apex, Regional, and State Level Committees to supervise the execution of the SWM Rules in another Original application.
3. As a result, the Original Application was discharged with the option of representing the case and airing all complaints before the relevant committee.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 15(1) of the NGT Act, Hanuman Laxman Aroskarv Union of India

ISSUES

• Whether the NGT's Principal Bench was proper in directing the petitioners to seek one of the NGT's Committees instead of continuing with the Original Application’s procedures?

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

1. After hearing both the sides, the Court stated that neither of the petitioners' requests were of a character that the NGT was not able to approve in compliance with its authority within Section 15(1) of the NGT Act.
2. From August 2014, the Original Application had been constantly heard by the NGT's Western Zone Bench, which had already been granted major temporary directives.
3. From the first circumstance, the Court distinguished between expert committees established by courts/tribunals and those created by the government in the exercise of executive powers or under a specific act.
4. It was then pointed out that the courts/tribunals established its expert committees due to the fact that the process for collecting evidence and proofs in many cases was very difficult, technological, and to an extent inefficient as well.
5. The NGT, which is a specialised body comprising legal and professional experts, was entrusted with adjudicatory powers under Sections 14 and 15.
6. Judicial individuals brought their case-handling expertise to the table whereas expert members, on the other side, brought technical information about environmental concerns to decide regarding the issues.
7. The court cited Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v Union of India, in which the judges stated that the NGT was an expert adjudicatory body on environmental matters and that the NGT did not lack any kind of expertise.
8. The court held that the NGT had relinquished its jurisdiction and delegated judicial authority to an expert committee specialising in administration.
9. The expert committee was able to help the NGT by conducting an operation for finding evidence and proof, however the NGT made the final decision.
10. It was not a task that could be delegated. As a result, the Court stated that the order in question cannot be upheld.
11. The Court then ordered that the challenged judgments had to be quashed keeping in mind the issues and stated that it was regrettable that more than 3 years had passed, but a postponement that could have been prevented had the NGT adjudicated on the matters before it.

CONCLUSION

Justice Mr DY Chandrachud and Justice Ms Bela M Trivedi noted that all these committees were established based on their technical knowledge and experience, and their findings were accessible to judicial review in front of the bench when decisions were being made solely based on these findings, pertaining to judicially identified constraints. Hence, the court stated that it must be cautious in dismissing these committees' opinions except if they discover their judgement to be patently arbitrary or mala fide.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement