Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya DECISION
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The present challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against an order whereby the National Green Tribunal passed a direction on the State Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection and find out whether the Rice Mill run by the present petitioner is still operating without necessary approval from the concerned authorities. There are certain observations made in the said impugned order.
2. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, a remedy is provided under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for an appeal to the Supreme Court against such order of the National Green Tribunal. It is provided categorically in the said Section that such an appeal would be available on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby putting the standards on the same footing as a second appeal, to be heard for admission before a Division Bench of this Court.
3. There are certain grounds on which, this Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.
4. First, even if a second appeal had been preferred before a Division Bench of this Court, this Court, sitting singly, would not have the jurisdiction/determination to take up the said second appeal for admission hearing. Since the provision of appeal under Section 22 of the 2010 Act is akin to that of second appeal, on similar logic, judicial propriety demands that this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order.
5. Secondly, since the impugned order does not reflect ex facie any jurisdictional error sufficient to justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there could be no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same under the said Article.
6. Thirdly, since a superior forum, being the Supreme Court, has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the said order, it would be providing an additional forum of challenge to the parties if the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entertained, against an order passed in which a Special Leave Petition can, in any event, be preferred to the Supreme Court, thereby increasing one forum of appeal de hors the provisions of the statute itself.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at MANU/WB/0363/2019 : (2019) 1 CAL LT 580 (HC) (M/s. Universal Consortium of Engineers (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors) which primarily lays down that mere availability of equally efficacious alternative remedy cannot always be a bar in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said decision was rendered in connection with an order passed under the Consumer Protection Act. Although learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that Section 23 of the said Act also provides for an appeal before the Supreme Court, it is evident that the yardsticks of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not inbuilt in Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as opposed to Section 22 of the 2010 Act.
8. In such view of the matter, judicial propriety demands t........