<p>The Supreme Court declared on Wednesday that Benches of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot be established in every state. The top court also upheld the validity of the provision that allowed direct appeal to the top court against an NGT order.</p>.<p>A Bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said the seat of the NGT could be located as the need arose in a situation, and that it was not necessary to locate them in every state.</p>.<p>The top court ruling came as it rejected and termed as “unmerited” the petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and others for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur.</p>.<p>It also upheld the validity of Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, which allowed direct appeal to the Supreme Court against the green panel’s judgment. The court said the provision “does not oust the High Court’s (writ) jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227” as it is “a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”</p>.<p>“The right to appeal before the High Court is a creature of the statute and is not an inherent right. The provision for appeal to High Court should not therefore be created by issuing a writ of Mandamus as that would be legislating through judicial order, and would impinge upon the well-founded concept of separation of powers,” the Bench observed.</p>.<p>The petitioners had claimed that instead of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 from the orders passed by the NGT, an appeal mechanism as a matter of right should also be provided before the High Courts concerned. The petitioners also contended that appeal to the Supreme Court was inadequate and unaffordable and therefore inaccessible.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court declared on Wednesday that Benches of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot be established in every state. The top court also upheld the validity of the provision that allowed direct appeal to the top court against an NGT order.</p>.<p>A Bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said the seat of the NGT could be located as the need arose in a situation, and that it was not necessary to locate them in every state.</p>.<p>The top court ruling came as it rejected and termed as “unmerited” the petition filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and others for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur.</p>.<p>It also upheld the validity of Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, which allowed direct appeal to the Supreme Court against the green panel’s judgment. The court said the provision “does not oust the High Court’s (writ) jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227” as it is “a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”</p>.<p>“The right to appeal before the High Court is a creature of the statute and is not an inherent right. The provision for appeal to High Court should not therefore be created by issuing a writ of Mandamus as that would be legislating through judicial order, and would impinge upon the well-founded concept of separation of powers,” the Bench observed.</p>.<p>The petitioners had claimed that instead of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 from the orders passed by the NGT, an appeal mechanism as a matter of right should also be provided before the High Courts concerned. The petitioners also contended that appeal to the Supreme Court was inadequate and unaffordable and therefore inaccessible.</p>
