Debakanta Buragohain and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1172940
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided OnJan-21-2014
Case NumberPIL No.5 of 2014
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A. M. SAPRE & UJJAL BHUYAN
AppellantDebakanta Buragohain and Others
RespondentThe Union of India and Others
Excerpt:
a.m. sapre, cj. none appears for the petitioners. heard mr. k. n. choudhury, learned additional advocate general, assam, assisted by mr. b. j. talukdar, learned govt. advocate, assam and mr. p. j. phukan, learned standing counsel, pcfba. this is a pil. we have perused the contents of the petition and find that the proper remedy of the petitioners would be to approach the national green tribunal, new delhi, for adjudication of their grievances for which this pil is filed because they have relied upon an earlier order passed by the tribunal on 07.09.2012 in application no.38/2011, rohit choudhury vs. union of india and others on somewhat similar issues impugned in the writ petition (pil). in view of the above and having regard to the nature of controversy sought to be raised by the petitioners in this petition and also keeping in view the similar issues already decided by the tribunal by its order dated 07.09.2012 in the aforementioned case, we are of the considered opinion that these petitioners can approach the tribunal, if advised, for vindication of their grievances raised herein rather than to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction of pil under article 226 of the constitution of india. it is with these observations and liberty, we decline to entertain this writ petition and accordingly this pil is dismissed being misconceived so far as this court is concerned. no cost.
Judgment:

A.M. Sapre, CJ.

None appears for the petitioners.

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam and Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, PCFBA.

This is a PIL. We have perused the contents of the petition and find that the proper remedy of the petitioners would be to approach the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, for adjudication of their grievances for which this PIL is filed because they have relied upon an earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 07.09.2012 in Application No.38/2011, Rohit Choudhury vs. Union of India and others on somewhat similar issues impugned in the writ petition (PIL).

In view of the above and having regard to the nature of controversy sought to be raised by the petitioners in this petition and also keeping in view the similar issues already decided by the Tribunal by its order dated 07.09.2012 in the aforementioned case, we are of the considered opinion that these petitioners can approach the Tribunal, if advised, for vindication of their grievances raised herein rather than to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction of PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is with these observations and liberty, we decline to entertain this writ petition and accordingly this PIL is dismissed being misconceived so far as this Court is concerned.

No cost.