Nirma Limited vs Moef Ors on 16 September, 2014

Showing the contexts in which principal bench appears in the document

Change context size Current
Importantly, the proviso to the Notification dated 17th August,
2011 itself states that, 'the aggrieved persons may file
petitions before the NGT at Delhi'. In other words, Principal Bench of the NGT at
Delhi had jurisdiction in relation to all such States where Bench had not been
established as on the date of issuance of Notification and till establishment.
This Notification did not provide for automatic transfer of cases to such Benches
from the Principal Bench or other Benches.
The power transferring cases to a Bench is exclusively vested with the Chairperson.
The order dated 13th August, 2013 was an order passed to transfer cases
under the jurisdiction of Western Zonal Bench of NGT in compliance to other
orders. It may be noticed that a case which was directed to be heard by
the Principal Bench by the Chairperson would continue to be heard by the Principal
Bench. A larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case
of Wilfred J. v. MoEF 2014 ALL (I) NGT REPORTER (2) (DELHI) 137, while discussing
the scope and ambit of the powers of the Chairperson
with reference to the provisions of the NGT Act, held as under:

128. Rule 11 of the Rules of 2011 itself carves out an exception

that depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, it
could be filed at another ordinary place of sitting as well. For instance,
the Notification of 17th August, 2011 itself says that other Benches which may
not have become operative, their cases could be filed at the Principal Bench.

If the framers of the Rules of 2011 intended to totally restrict filing of cases at
any other place, then it could not have used the expression 'ordinarily'.
"Ordinarily" in its common parlance would mean 'usually' or with no special or
distinctive features. The Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, explains the word
'ordinary', as occurring in the regular course of events, normally, usually. The
expression 'ordinarily' with its connotations should be understood as opposed to
'solely' or 'required' or 'primarily'. The first of these expressions ex facie
attract the rule of liberal construction, while others have a greater element of
being mandatory. It is unreasonable to think that the word 'ordinarily' does not
admit of any inbuilt expansion and has to be construed in prohibitory terms.
It has to be presumed that the rule framing authority was aware of all the
relevant considerations,
including the fact that there are alternative words available to the word
'ordinarily'.
Once the legislature uses such word, it cannot be said that the word has been used
without a purpose and intendment,
particularly when the language used is unambiguous, clear and admits no confusion.
The expression 'ordinarily' has to be understood
keeping in view the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed there-under and is not
to be 125 understood in isolation.
The view finds due support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Sarma Rao, (2007) 2 SCC 159.
In this case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the meaning of the expression
'ordinarily' under Section 195(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In terms of Section 195(4),
a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which the appeals
ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court,
or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decree no appeal ordinarily lies, to the
Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction
within whose local jurisdiction such civil court is situated. The Supreme Court
held as under: -
It appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court. We say so for the reason
that for the entire period of one year, no steps were taken by Respondent
No. 5 to file an application for transfer of the case. Furthermore, the appellant
who is dominus litus of the present proceedings,
as well as all other Respondents do not join the said Respondent No. 5 in making a
request for the transfer of the case.
On the contrary, they seriously oppose the same.

Furthermore, the matter has been heard at length by the Principal Bench on
different occasions.
The Expert Members of the Principal Bench are part of the Bench that is hearing the
matter and who inspected the site in terms of the orders dated
28th May, 2013 and 6th June, 2013. Thus, this Bench would be in a better position
to deal with the rival contentions raised by the respective parties
rather than the Western Bench. It is obvious from the record that it was on the
joint request of the parties that the present case has been retained
before the Principal Bench.

Stand over to 18th December, 2012."

From the above order, it is clear that there will be no Bench at Pune (Western Zone
Bench) which can hear the present appeal even if,
it is transferred to that Bench. As per necessity, this case would have to be
heard by the Principal Bench.
Only if the applicant would have taken the care to read the order sheet of the
case which contained the above order the occasion
for filing such a frivolous application would not have even arisen.