SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.

1. These four writ petitions are taken up before the Hon’ble Division Bench in view of the fact that by an earlier Order of the Hon’ble Single Bench, the matters were directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Division Bench since the said matters are in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (in short “PIL”).

2. The said writ petitions concern an issue relating to the environment and each of the petitioners, except in WPA/287/2019, claim a Writ of Mandamus to be issued upon the respondent authorities seeking withdrawal of the requirement imposed by the respondent authorities calling upon each of the writ petitioners to submit applications for obtaining post-facto CRZ Clearance (Coastal Regulation Zone Clearance). It would be appropriate for this discussion to quote the relevant paragraphs pleaded in each of the writ petitions, except in WPA/287/2019, which read as follows:

“Being aggrieved by the order dated 9th February, 2022, whereby the respondent authorities asked the writ petitioners to submit application to obtain post facto CRZ clearance again, the petitioners beg to move this writ application on the following amongst other”

Grounds

3. The respondents therefore, in each of the writ petitions have impleaded, in addition to the Islands Administration represented by the Lieutenant Governor, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, the Andaman and Nicobar Pollution Control Committee, the Andaman and Nicobar Coastal Zone Management as well as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Port Blair.

4. Each of the writ petitioners claims to be running resorts in the Islands and, as recoded above, are aggrieved by the imposition of the requirement to obtain post-facto CRZ Clearance.

5. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Learned Counsel representing the respondents/ the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, on the ground that each of the matters pertains to environmental issues which can be only decided by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) or, its respective Regional Benches, as constituted by the NGT Act, 2010.

6. Taking this Court to the pronouncement in an unreported decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Madras, in WP No.5995 of 2020 ( K.S.Radhakrishnan vs. The Union of India and others), Learned Counsel submits that a similar issue was redirected by the Hon’ble Court to the NGT. While holding such, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to rely upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 326.

7. Relying on the aforesaid pronouncement of law, the respondents take the categorical stand that an environmental issue such as the requirement of post-facto CRZ clearance lies in unambiguous terms within the domain of the NGT and/or, its Regional Benches. Since the issues raised primarily relate to the environment, it is submitted that the Ministry of Law and Justice has already notified the different Benches of the NGT and the Eastern Bench at Kolkata is jurisdictionally competent to take seisin of environmental issues which pertain to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It is clarified that in the event any of the Regional Benches are not available, the aggrieved persons may apply before the Principal Bench of the NGT at Delhi.

8. It is pointed out that in other pollution related matters involving the same resorts, who are the present petitioners before this Court, the said resorts have approached the NGT, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata bearing the Appeal No.06/2017/EZ. It is therefore concluded that the present petitions are not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court.

9. Arguing to the contrary, Learned Counsel for the petitioners represented by Ms. Anjili Nag and Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, argue that the NGT Act specifies the nature of civil disputes which can be adjudicated by the NGT.

10. It is stated that relief, compensation and restitution which can be granted by the NGT as well as the governing principles to be applied by the NGT while passing its award are provided, inter alia, primarily in Sections 15 and 20 of the NGT Act, 2010. For the benefit of this discussion, the provisions of Section 15(1), as relied upon by Learned Counsel, may be quoted and read as follows:

“Section 15(1) Relief, Compensation and restitution

– (1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide, -

(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);

(b) for restitution of property damaged;

(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas.

(2) ...... .....”

(3) ..... ....

(4) ..... ....

(5) ..... ....”

Provision of Section 20 may be also quoted and read as follows;

Section 20. Tribunal to apply certain principles.- The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decision or award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principles and the polluter pays principle

11. Relying on the authority of the law pronounced In Re: Techi Tagi Tara vs. Rajdendra Singh Bhandari and others at paragraph 16 decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 22.09.2017, it is submitted that as a matter of course all disputes purporting to relate to environment shall not be referable to NGT since the Writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India is not denuded of its inherent power to provide efficacious and complete justice. In this connection, reliance is also placed on the principles laid down for the Writ Court to exercise its prerogative jurisdiction as held in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and others.

12. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Learned Counsel, additionally argues that the issue in WPA/287/2019 concerns the freedom of visitors, tourists and local inhabitants to access all the beaches of Swaraj Dweep Islands. It is contended that the action of one of the resorts has the effect of curtailing the access of ordinary individuals, both locals and tourists, to some of the beaches in the said areas on account of construction made by a particular resort which has blocked such access.

13. Therefore, it is submitted that the relief claimed in WPA/287/2019 is not a pure environmental issue requiring to be redirected before the NGT or, its Regional Benches. The issue raised in WPA/287/2019 is of practical importance concerning only the right of access to the beaches of the said areas which have been blocked off by construction carried out by a particular resort. It is submitted that the first respondent in WPA/287/2019 is the local Administration, which must be called upon to verify whether the said resort has transgressed by its construction the right of access by locals and visitors to the some of the finest beaches of Swarajdeep Islands.

14. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view that the pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court at Madras in WP No.5995 of 2020 as decided on 3rdof June, 2020 squarely applies to the facts of these cases except at this stage, to WPA/287/2019. The said Order is quoted below for the benefit of this discussion.

“ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

The issue raised in the present writ petition through a Public Interest Litigation is that the recommendations of two Committees relating to the maintenance of environment in western and eastern ghats in the State of Tamilnadu have not been adhered to nor any steps have been taken, as a result whereof this has taken a call on the environmental impact and atmosphere of that area.

2. In our considered opinion, this Court cannot delve into the question with regard to environmental issues in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 326, the Apex Court has categorically held as hereinunder:-

“40.Keeping in view the provisions and scheme of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short “the NGT Act”) particularly Sections 14, 29, 30 and 38(5), it can safely be concluded that the environmental issues and matters covered under the NGT Act, Schedule I should be instituted and litigated before the National Green Tribunal (for short “NGT”). Such approach may be necessary to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders between the High Courts and NGT. Thus, in unambiguous terms, we direct that all the matters instituted after coming into force of the NGT Act and which are covered under the provisions of the NGT Act and/or in Schedule I to the NGT Act shall stand transferred and can be instituted only before NGT. This will help in rendering expeditious and specialised justice in the field of environment to all concerned.

41.We find it imperative to place on record a caution for consideration of the courts of competent jurisdiction that the cases filed and pending prior to coming into force of the NGT Act, involving questions of environmental laws and/or relating to any of the seven statutes specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act, should also be dealt with by the specialised tribunal, that is, NGT, created under the provisions of the NGT Act. The courts may be well advised to direct transfer of such cases to NGT in its discretion, as it will be in the fitness of administration of justice.”

In the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Bengaluru Development Authority vs Sudhakar Hegde and Others (2020 SCC Online SC 328), the Apex Court has observed as hereinunder:-

“84. ... We clarify that no other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any challenge to the ultimate decision of the SEAC or the SEIAA. Liberty is granted to the parties to approach this Court upon any grievance from the decision of the SEAC or the SEIAA pursuant to the order of this Court.

3. In view of the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, the issue in this appeal can be raised before the National Green Tribunal, as it is squarely an issue relating to environment. We, therefore, decline to entertain the writ petition, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal

4. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.”

15. This Court finds that the issues raised in WPA/166/2022, WPA/163/2022, WPA/165/2022 and WPA/167/2022 are squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as noticed by the Hon’ble High Court at Madras (supra).

16. This Court is of the view that the principles laid down in Re: Techi Tagi Tara. and Whirlpool Corporation do not apply to the facts of this case inasmuch as the ratio in Re: Techi Tagi Tara at Paragraph 16, does not take away the core jurisdiction of the NGT or its Regional Benches to hear environment related matters.

17. This Court is of the further view that each of the writ petitions, excepting WPA/287/2019, relate essentially to environment issues pertaining to CRZ clearance and such issues can only be decided by the NGT and its Regional Benches.

18. WPA/166/2022, WPA/163/2022, WPA/165/2022, WPA/167/2022 stand accordingly disposed of with the above directions.

19. With reference to WPA/287/2019, at this stage, this Court is persuaded to accept the argument of the writ petitioner that a practical issue of physical lack of access to beaches may be required to be first enquired into by the appropriate Administrative Authority. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that the writ petitioner may be a competitor in business of the said particular resort.

20. Accordingly, keeping the question of maintainability of the writ petition open on the ground that no writ petition can be based on commercial interest and/or business rivalry, at the same time, a direction is passed upon the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District to examine the complaint of the petitioner by making a field enquiry upon notice to all the parties and file a Report before the Hon’ble Court on the next date.

21. It will be also open to the respondents in WPA/287/2019 to take the point of lack of maintainability of the writ petition.

22. Let the WPA/287/2019 be listed next before the Hon’ble Division Bench sitting in Circuit, subject to its convenience.

23. Since affidavits to WPA/166/2022, WPA/163/2022, WPA/165/2022, WPA/167/2022 are not invited, all allegations to the contrary are deemed to be denied and disputed.

24. All parties to act on a server copy of this order downloaded from the website of the Hon’ble High Court.

25. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this Judgment and Order be supplied to the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

I Agree.