Broad construction of 'person aggrieved' upheld, with jurisdiction and suppression objections rejected in an environmental appeal.

Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the impugned environmental clearance and the appellate authority were located in Delhi, and forum non conveniens was not made out absent a clearly more convenient forum or a real risk of conflicting adjudication. The plea of suppression also failed, as the other pending proceedings were not material to the limited issue before the Court and no intent to mislead or gain unfair advantage was shown. Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was construed broadly, so an organisation actively concerned with the project's environmental impact qualified as a person aggrieved and could maintain the appeal. The appellate authority's contrary view was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Court should decline jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens and pendency of connected proceedings in another High Court; (ii) whether the petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts; and (iii) whether the petitioner was a "person aggrieved" entitled to maintain the appeal before the National Environment Appellate Authority.

Issue (i): whether the Court should decline jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens and pendency of connected proceedings in another High Court.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction existed because the impugned clearance and the appellate authority were located within Delhi. The doctrine of forum non conveniens could be applied only when another court was shown to be clearly more convenient for all parties and where parallel proceedings were so intertwined that conflicting decisions were likely. The proceedings in the other High Court were by a different party and arose from a different cause, while the present challenge was confined to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority. No sufficient ground was shown to refuse jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The proceedings in Chhattisgarh were not material to the limited issue in the present petition. Their non-disclosure was not shown to be intended to gain any unfair advantage or to mislead the Court in a manner warranting dismissal of the petition.

Conclusion: The plea of suppression was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the petitioner was a "person aggrieved" entitled to maintain the appeal before the National Environment Appellate Authority.

Analysis: Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was construed broadly. An organisation working in the area concerned and actively following the environmental impact of the project fell within the expression "person aggrieved". On that construction, the petitioner had locus to prefer the appeal, and the appellate authority's contrary view could not stand.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to maintain the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The order of the appellate authority was set aside and the appeal was remitted for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "person aggrieved" in the relevant appellate statute must receive the widest permissible construction, and jurisdiction otherwise available need not be declined under forum non conveniens unless another forum is shown to be clearly more appropriate and a real risk of conflicting adjudication exists.

---