TUSHAR KANTI DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered into a development agreement with a developer. By virtue of the said agreement, a G+6 residential building was to be constructed within three years from the date of execution of the development agreement. However, in the month of June, 2023, the petitioner learnt from his developer that the District Magistrate, Malda, vide Memo No.118/0 dated April 20, 2023 had directed the District Registrar, Malda not to execute any deed in respect of five mouzas in the English Bazar Police Station, including the mouza where the petitioner's property is situated. The petitioner further learnt that the said direction was issued by the District Magistrate purportedly in compliance of an Order dated March 22, 2023 passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone in OA 30/2023/EZ (Subhash Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal and others). The present writ petition has been filed against the said order of the District Magistrate, seeking quashing of the same as well as the proceeding before the NGT.

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the availability of an appeal before the Supreme Court under Sec. 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the 2010 Act'), the said remedy is not an absolute bar to prefer a writ petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated November 28, 2022 in WPA (P) No.380 of 2022 and WPA (P) No.442 of 2022 [Arunava Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal and others] where a Division Bench of this Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw a public interest litigation challenging a judgment of the NGT with liberty to file proper petition under Article 226 or 227 raising personal grievance before the appropriate Bench. In the said judgment, the Division Bench placed reliance on Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and another Vs. Union of India and another, reported at 2022 SCC OnLine SC 639. In the said judgment, it is argued, the Supreme Court categorically laid down that the remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the NGT under Sec. 22 of the 2010 Act is not a bar to a challenge before the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.