Statutory appellate jurisdiction before the National Green Tribunal cannot be expanded to permit leapfrog appeals or unwarranted judicial review.

The National Green Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction is confined to the routes expressly created by the Water Act, the Air Act and the National Green Tribunal Act. A direct appeal against the original order of the Pollution Control Board was held not maintainable where the statutory first appeal remained pending, and the Tribunal could not bypass that sequence. Directions under Section 31A of the Air Act, including composite orders containing them, were also held not appealable to the Tribunal because the Air Act provides no corresponding appellate route. The Tribunal likewise could not invoke necessity or general judicial review to assume jurisdiction over a Section 18 Water Act order, as it has no free-standing writ-like power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the National Green Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain direct appeals against the original orders of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the State Government when the statutory first appeal had not been decided; (ii) whether directions issued under Section 31A of the Air Act and the composite orders containing such directions were appealable to the National Green Tribunal; (iii) whether the National Green Tribunal could invoke a doctrine of necessity or general judicial review to assume jurisdiction over an order passed under Section 18 of the Water Act.

Issue (i): Whether the National Green Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain direct appeals against the original orders of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the State Government when the statutory first appeal had not been decided.

Analysis: The appellate structure under the Water Act and the Air Act is statutory and sequential. An appeal to the National Green Tribunal lies only from the order of the appellate authority under the Water Act or the Air Act, not from the original order of the Board. The pending appeal before the statutory appellate authority could not be bypassed by filing a direct appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction is confined to the situations expressly covered by the National Green Tribunal Act and the parent enactments.

Conclusion: The direct appeal before the National Green Tribunal against the original refusal of consent was not maintainable, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to set aside that order.

Issue (ii): Whether directions issued under Section 31A of the Air Act and the composite orders containing such directions were appealable to the National Green Tribunal.

Analysis: The Water Act expressly provides an appeal to the National Green Tribunal against directions under Section 33A, but the Air Act does not confer a corresponding appellate route for directions under Section 31A. The statutory scheme could not be altered by treating directions as if they were appealable orders, nor could composite orders be split to create appellate jurisdiction where none existed. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, cannot enlarge its own jurisdiction by treating an unappealable direction as a quasi-judicial order under the appellate provisions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against directions issued under Section 31A of the Air Act, and composite orders containing such directions were not rendered appealable on that account.

Issue (iii): Whether the National Green Tribunal could invoke a doctrine of necessity or general judicial review to assume jurisdiction over an order passed under Section 18 of the Water Act.

Analysis: An order under Section 18 of the Water Act is not an appellate-order route contemplated by Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act. The Tribunal does not possess a free-standing power of judicial review comparable to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Where the statute does not confer appellate jurisdiction, the Tribunal cannot assume it on equitable or pragmatic grounds, and non-constitution or non-functioning of an appellate authority does not create a leapfrog appeal. An administrative order does not become void on its face and can be challenged only in proceedings competent to examine it, namely a suit or writ jurisdiction, not before the National Green Tribunal.

Conclusion: The National Green Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction over the Section 18 order on the basis of necessity or general judicial review, and its interference with that order was without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments of the National Green Tribunal were set aside for want of maintainability and jurisdiction. The orders challenged before the Tribunal were restored to force, and the parties were relegated to pursue appropriate writ remedies before the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate tribunal can exercise only the jurisdiction expressly conferred by statute, and a direct leapfrog appeal cannot be entertained unless the governing enactment specifically provides for that route of appeal.

---