A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice AA Nakkiran, said the court cannot assume that the arguments advanced by the petitioner before the tribunal NGT would not be considered.
“In the considered opinion of the court, the objection raised by the Registry is sustainable. In the result, the plea is rejected as not maintainable and the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the NGT [South Zone],” the bench added.
The petitioner, AK Subramani, had challenged the impugned communication of the District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB, Erode District, issued on August 16, 2018, in this regard. His counsel had submitted that in light of the fact that the twisting of yarn unit does not require any consent, the impugned proceedings passed by the Environmental Engineer was unsustainable, and wanted the court to ignore the order.
But the High Court Registry had raised an objection on the maintainability of the plea, as the subject was related to Environmental Protection Act. As per Notification No.26 of 2013, no case under the provisions of the NGT should be entertained by the High Court.