Writ jurisdiction and forum conveniens: constitutional review survives NGT appeal, but the High Court may still decline entertainment.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not excluded by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and an appellate remedy under Section 22 does not oust constitutional judicial review, so a challenge alleging lack of jurisdiction may be examined by the High Court. Material facts connected with the petitioner's unit and registered office in Maharashtra were treated as part of the cause of action, satisfying territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2). However, even where jurisdiction exists, the High Court may decline to entertain the petition on forum conveniens and alternate remedy grounds when another High Court is the more appropriate forum and parallel proceedings are pending elsewhere.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the orders of the National Green Tribunal was maintainable before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; (ii) Whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court; (iii) Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition in view of the doctrine of forum conveniens and the availability of an alternate statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the orders of the National Green Tribunal was maintainable before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction of the High Court remains unaffected by the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The existence of an appellate remedy under Section 22 does not oust the constitutional power of judicial review. A challenge alleging lack of jurisdiction in the impugned proceedings could therefore be received and examined by the High Court.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

Analysis: The impugned orders operated upon the petitioner's manufacturing unit and registered office within Maharashtra, and the substance involved in the incident originated from the petitioner's unit. These facts formed a material and integral part of the cause of action sufficient to attract Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition in view of the doctrine of forum conveniens and the availability of an alternate statutory remedy.

Analysis: Although territorial jurisdiction existed, the dispute substantially arose from an incident in Surat and parallel proceedings concerning the same occurrence were pending before the Gujarat High Court. In these circumstances, the Gujarat High Court was the more appropriate forum. The availability of an appeal under Section 22 also weighed against discretionary entertainment of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The Court left the parties to work out their remedies elsewhere and did not proceed to adjudicate the writ on merits, while clarifying that its jurisdictional finding on suo motu cognizance did not amount to a decision on the substantive disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not excluded by the National Green Tribunal Act, but even where territorial jurisdiction is made out, the High Court may refuse to entertain the petition on forum conveniens when another High Court is the appropriate and more convenient forum.

---