Environmental nuisance claims and solid waste project disputes must proceed before the NGT, not civil courts, absent imminent harm.

Environmental disputes involving a substantial question relating to environment fall within the National Green Tribunal's domain, and once the Tribunal is established, civil court jurisdiction is barred under the NGT Act for matters it can determine. The suit challenging a proposed solid waste project was therefore not maintainable before the civil court. A permanent injunction simpliciter based only on apprehended nuisance also failed, because a quia timet claim requires an imminent, reasonably certain, and serious injury, which was not shown. Injunction was additionally barred where nuisance was not clearly established and where an equally efficacious statutory remedy was available under the Specific Relief Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil suit concerning the proposed solid waste project could continue before the civil court after the establishment of the National Green Tribunal; (ii) Whether a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter based on apprehended environmental nuisance was maintainable and whether injunction was barred under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the civil suit concerning the proposed solid waste project could continue before the civil court after the establishment of the National Green Tribunal.

Analysis: The dispute raised a substantial question relating to environment and the relief sought was founded on alleged environmental harm from the proposed project. Once the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 came into force and the Tribunal was established, Section 29 barred civil court jurisdiction in matters the Tribunal was empowered to determine. Pending proceedings of this nature could not validly continue before the civil court, and the proper forum was the specialised Tribunal.

Conclusion: The civil suit and the connected appellate proceedings were not maintainable before the civil courts and the matter lay within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter based on apprehended environmental nuisance was maintainable and whether injunction was barred under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: The plaintiffs did not seek any declaratory relief against the underlying decision to allot land and proceed with the project. The suit proceeded on an apprehension of future nuisance and environmental injury at a nascent stage of the project, without proof of an actual or reasonably certain nuisance. In such circumstances, a quia timet action required a strong and imminent probability of serious and irreparable harm, which was not established. Section 41(f) barred injunction where nuisance was not reasonably clear, and Section 41(h) barred injunction where equally efficacious relief was available through the ordinary statutory process.

Conclusion: The suit for permanent injunction simpliciter was not maintainable and injunction could not be granted on the pleaded basis.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiffs could not stand. The suit was liable to be dismissed and the civil courts lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the environmental dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental disputes involving a substantial question relating to environment must be pursued before the National Green Tribunal, and a civil court cannot grant injunction on a speculative apprehension of nuisance where the plaintiff has not sought appropriate declaratory relief or established an imminent and reasonably certain injury.

---