Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Maintainability of writ petition — Alternative statutory remedy
Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction where the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. In such cases, the High Court is justified in entertaining the writ petition notwithstanding the existence of an appellate remedy.
(Paras 27–29)
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Compliance with prior judicial directions
When a Court issues a specific direction to a particular statutory authority to consider and decide a representation, only that authority is competent to pass the order. Any order passed by a different authority, even within the same department, is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
(Paras 24–26)
Pollution Control — Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — Consent to Operate — Decision on representation
An order rejecting a representation concerning Consent to Operate, passed by an authority not designated by a prior judicial order, is vitiated for lack of jurisdiction, irrespective of the merits of the environmental compliance.
(Paras 26–27)
Judicial Review — Scope — Decision-making authority
Where the decision-making process itself is vitiated on account of lack of jurisdiction, the Court need not enter into the merits of the controversy and may confine itself to correcting the jurisdictional error.
(Para 27)
Administrative Law — Speaking order — Duty of statutory authority
When reconsideration is directed, the competent authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity to all affected parties.
(Para 30)
Principles governing writ jurisdiction — Exceptions to rule of alternate remedy
The recognised exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy include cases where:
(i) fundamental rights are violated;
(ii) principles of natural justice are breached;
(iii) the order is wholly without jurisdiction; or
(iv) vires of a statute is under challenge.
(Paras 28–29)
Relied on: Radha Krishan Industries; Whirlpool Corporation
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The petitioner challenged the order dated 22-01-2025 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Eluru, rejecting his representation seeking cancellation of Consent to Operate (CTO) granted to the 14th respondent industrial unit.
Earlier, in W.P. No. 14036 of 2024, the High Court had specifically directed the APPCB Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 11-10-2023.
Contrary to that judicial direction, the representation was decided by the Regional Office, Eluru, through its Environmental Engineer. The Division Bench held that:
once the Court had identified the competent authority, no other authority could assume that role;
the order passed by the Regional Office was therefore ex facie without jurisdiction;
in such a situation, the existence of an appellate remedy under the Water Act did not bar the writ petition.
The Court expressly declined to examine the substantive disputes relating to the lease deed, alleged forgery, registration requirement, or compliance with consent conditions, holding that those issues must be examined by the proper authority as per law.
RATIO DECIDENDI
An administrative order passed by an authority other than the one specifically directed by a Court to decide a matter is without jurisdiction, and such jurisdictional defect justifies interference under Article 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment