Environmental Tribunal Cannot Be A Toothless Watchdog… It Must Act Without Waiting For The Metaphorical Godot: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“NGT Not Just Adjudicatory, But Also Preventive & Remedial”, On January 8, 2026, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam) dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s. Sri Kumaraswamy Silica Mines challenging the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), South Zone, which had kept the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the petitioner in abeyance and directed its reconsideration in light of alleged environmental violations and procedural lapses.

The decision in W.P. No. 31066 of 2021 reaffirms the expansive jurisdiction of the NGT under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, including its preventive and remedial powers, and clarifies that the tribunal's orders are not immune from judicial review under Article 226, but High Courts will exercise restraint unless jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice is shown.

“Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar where the challenge is on jurisdictional grounds or violation of natural justice” – High Court upholds maintainability of writ against NGT order

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Kumaraswamy Silica Mines, sought to challenge the NGT’s order dated 15.11.2021 which had kept its EC (granted on 16.04.2020) in abeyance and directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to revisit the clearance on multiple environmental and procedural grounds.

A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents (primarily Respondent No.7, B. Madan Kumar Reddy) contending that an appeal lies under Section 22 of the NGT Act to the Supreme Court and hence the writ petition was not maintainable.

However, the High Court, relying heavily on the principles laid down in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, clarified:

“The existence of the statutory alternative remedy is no bar to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226... The power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine SC 639), the Court reiterated that NGT orders are not beyond the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts. Since the challenge in this case was on the grounds of alleged jurisdictional error and violation of natural justice, and given that the petition had been pending since 2021 with affidavits exchanged, the Court entertained and proceeded to decide the writ petition on merits.

“A resident affected by ecological degradation is a ‘person aggrieved’ under Section 16 NGT Act” – Court Rejects Plea of Lack of Locus

One of the central contentions raised by the petitioner was that the appeal filed before the NGT by the 7th respondent (B. Madan Kumar Reddy) was not maintainable as he was not a “person aggrieved” under Section 16 of the NGT Act.

This argument was roundly rejected. The High Court held:

“The 7th respondent being the resident of the concerned village... if for any mining activity, the EC was issued violating norms, such person will certainly be a ‘person aggrieved’ within the meaning of Section 16 of the NGT Act.”

Citing Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar and Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, the Court underlined that in environmental matters, the threshold for standing is not confined to direct legal injury but also extends to those affected by environmental degradation in their localities.

The Court concluded: “Right to air, water, free of pollution is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21. Infringement thereof gives rise to locus under Section 16.”

“Tribunal rightly exercised jurisdiction by keeping EC in abeyance pending reconsideration” – No Violation of Natural Justice, No Perversity

The petitioner also argued that the NGT had not put it on notice regarding several grounds based on which the EC was kept in abeyance and that this violated the principles of natural justice.

However, the High Court found no merit in this plea. The Court held: “Even if it be taken that the petitioner had no opportunity on certain aspects... since the NGT only kept the EC in abeyance and remitted the matter for reconsideration, the petitioner can raise all relevant contentions before the MoEF&CC.”

The Court observed that the NGT had, in fact, recorded findings on multiple environmental and procedural lapses, including:

• Lack of proper study on ecology and biodiversity in a sensitive area;

• Absence of a replenishment study as mandated by the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016;

• Mechanised mining without sufficient safeguards;

• Non-compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006;

• Inadequate consideration of district survey reports and environmental management plans.

The Tribunal also found that the EC was granted despite these lapses and directed reconsideration after full compliance with applicable environmental standards and the Common Cause and Vanashakti judgments of the Supreme Court.

“Findings arrived at by the Tribunal are based on material on record... the directions to keep EC in abeyance pending consideration are not unsustainable nor do they suffer from any perversity.”

NGT’s Suo Motu Powers Reaffirmed: “The role of the NGT is not simply adjudicatory in the nature of a lis but also preventive and remedial”

The High Court quoted extensively from Ankita Sinha v. Union of India and Mantri Techzone Pvt Ltd. v. Forward Foundation, in which the Supreme Court has affirmed that the NGT can take suo motu cognizance of environmental threats, even beyond what parties plead.

Reiterating this, the High Court noted: “The NGT Act is a beneficial legislation… the Tribunal has legal obligation to provide for preventive and restorative measures. Its role is not confined to adjudication between parties, but includes safeguarding environmental interests broadly.”

Thus, the Tribunal’s consideration of broader environmental aspects – even if not raised specifically by the appellant – was held to be well within its statutory domain under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act.

Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines Apply Beyond Riverbeds

Another key argument raised was that the Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 were only applicable to riverbed sand mining and not to silica sand mines like the petitioner’s.

The Court flatly rejected this interpretation: “A perusal of the Guidelines clearly shows they apply not just to riverbed sand mining but also to other sand sources... The objective is to control unregulated sand mining and restore ecological balance.”

Ex-Post Facto EC Not a Shield When Procedural and Substantive Norms Are Violated

The petitioner had also claimed that since its EC was granted prior to the 2021 notification and was backed by an ex-post facto process, the NGT’s interference was unwarranted.

The High Court again refused to accept this argument, holding: “Even ECs granted prior to the 2021 notification must conform to existing laws and cannot be immune from interference if found violative of established environmental norms.”

On the larger question of ex-post facto clearances, the Court refrained from adjudicating finally, observing that the issue is best left to the MoEF&CC during reconsideration of the EC in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in CREDAI v. Vanashakti (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2474).

The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the NGT’s directions in full. The MoEF&CC and other authorities were directed to reconsider the grant of EC in light of the NGT’s observations, the latest Supreme Court judgment in CREDAI v. Vanashakti, and after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and the 7th respondent.

“We do not find any jurisdictional error or any improper exercise of jurisdiction by the NGT so as to call for our interference under writ jurisdiction.”

Date of Decision: January 8, 2026