ORDER MR. N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR AND MR. P. DEVADASS, JJ. 1. These WPSRs are posted before this Court at the instance of the Registry to decide as to whether the writ petitions are maintainable against the orders of the National Green Tribunal, Southern Bench, Chennai, which was constituted under the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved about the order passed by the Green Tribunal, Southern Region, Chennai, wherein they have challenged the order of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, dated 29.7.2013. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Registry entertained doubt as regards maintainability of the writ petitions by stating that the statutory provision viz., Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, enables any person aggrieved by any award, decision or order of the Tribunal to file an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on any or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 CPC within 90 days of the communication of the award, decision or order of the Tribunal, and raised a question regarding maintainability of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders of the Green Tribunal, Southern Region, Chennai. The learned counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme court reported in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125 : (1997) 3 SCC 261 wherein the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the Tribunals were constituted under Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution of India, still jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, and the decision of the Tribunal can be challenged before the High Court at the first instance before the Division Bench and the parties need not be forced to file SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that an identical provision viz., The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, enables the party to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing appeal under Section 30 against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, still the Uttaranchal High Court in W.P.168(SB)/2012 dated 25.5.2012 entertained the writ petition, challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that an identical provision viz., The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, enables the party to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing appeal under Section 30 against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, still the Uttaranchal High Court in W.P.168(SB)/2012 dated 25.5.2012 entertained the writ petition, challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The learned counsel also relied on the order of the Calcutta High Court made in W.P.C.T.No.196 of 2012 etc., wherein the Calcutta High Court entertained the writ petition challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal by following the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)No.13360 and 13367 of 2009 dated 26.4.2011. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court referred above, wherein a detailed order was passed relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1 : 2010 (5) Scale 514 : LNIND 2010 SC 495 : (2010) 4 MLJ 734 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (supra),and various other decisions. The Delhi High Court also relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Joby Varghese v. Armed Forces Tribunal 2010 (4) KLT 611 and held that writ petitions are maintainable against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal before the High Court, though appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Act. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.6927 of 2011 dated 25.1.2013 entertained writ petition against the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal and granted relief to the affected person. Again the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.6991 of 2012 dated 12.4.2013 entertained writ petition challenging the orders of the Armed Forces tribunal. 5. The above said Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.4.2011 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)Nos.27886-27887 of 2012 and by order dated 27.8.2013 the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following interim order: “Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that constitutional history relating to Articles 136(2), 227(4), 33 and 310 of the Constitution of India is required to be shown for consideration of the question whether High Court’s power of judicial review in the matters arising from the Armed Forces Tribunal is impliedly excluded. Obviously detailed arguments of this nature cannot be heard in a miscellaneous matter on a non-miscellaneous day. Obviously detailed arguments of this nature cannot be heard in a miscellaneous matter on a non-miscellaneous day. We are in the circumstances left with no option but to grant leave. Leave granted. Hearing expedited. To be listed for final hearing within one year from today. Interim order to continue in the meanwhile. It is made clear that pendency of the special leave petitions shall not be an impediment for the High Courts to entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal.” The learned counsel relying on the said orders, particularly the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 27.8.2013, submitted that the writ petition filed against the orders of the National Green Tribunal, Southern Region, Chennai, is maintainable and the Registry is not justified in raising maintainability issue. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the Green Tribunal contended that Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in W.P. (C) No. 94 of 2013 and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The learned counsel cited the decision reported in Cellular Operators Association of India v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 899 : (2003) 3 SCC 186 : LNIND 2002 SC 822 and tried to distinguish the judgments of the Delhi High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Calcutta High Court and Uttaranchal High Court. 7. Mr. G.Masilamani, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that even if the writ petitions are maintainable against the orders of the National Green Tribunal, Chennai, in terms of the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated supra, since the orders which were challenged before the Green Tribunal, Chennai, were passed by the Karnataka Pollution Control Board, Bangalore, the question is whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions merely because the Tribunal is situated in Chennai. 8. The issue as to whether a writ will lie against the order of the Tribunal where the appellate Tribunal is situated was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Sanjos Jewellers v. Syndicate Bank 2007 (5) CTC 305 : LNIND 2007 MAD 2650 : (2007) 6 MLJ 755 . 8. The issue as to whether a writ will lie against the order of the Tribunal where the appellate Tribunal is situated was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Sanjos Jewellers v. Syndicate Bank 2007 (5) CTC 305 : LNIND 2007 MAD 2650 : (2007) 6 MLJ 755 . In the said decision the order passed by the DRT, Hyderabad was challenged before the DRAT, Chennai and the order of the DRAT, Chennai, was challenged before this Court and jurisdictional issue having been raised, this Court held that the High Court, within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is functioning and where part of cause of action arises, can entertain the writ petition, by following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 (3) CTC 365 : 2004 AIR SCW 2766 : AIR 2004 SC 2321 : (2004) 6 SCC 254 : LNIND 2004 SC 573, and considering the amendment introduced under Article 226 Clause (2). The Full Bench held that the party would have the right to choose the forum i.e., the place where the original authority passed the order or the place where the appellate authority passed the order. Hence the issue raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General has been concluded by the Full Bench decision of this Court. 9. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent in the Tribunal, viz., Cellular Operators Association of India v. Union of India (supra) the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India (supra) was not cited. Further, the issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court against the order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal was neither raised nor argued and decided. Hence the said Judgment has no application to the issue involved in this matter. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India (supra) held that clauses of Article 323A and Article 323B, excluding jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 are unconstitutional. In paragraphs 90 and 91 it is held thus, “90.............. Hence the said Judgment has no application to the issue involved in this matter. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India (supra) held that clauses of Article 323A and Article 323B, excluding jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 are unconstitutional. In paragraphs 90 and 91 it is held thus, “90.............. to hold that all such decisions will be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls will serve two purposes. While saving the power of judicial review of legislative action vested in the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the process of adjudication in the Tribunal. The High Court will also have the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be of use to it in finally deciding the matter. 91. It has also been contended before us that even in dealing with cases which are properly before the Tribunals, the manner in which justice is dispensed by them leaves much to be desired. Moreover, the remedy provided in the parent statutes, by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, is too costly and inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Furthermore, the result of providing such a remedy is that the docket of the Supreme Court is crowded with decisions of Tribunals that are challenged on relatively trivial grounds and it is forced to perform the role of a first appellate court. We have already emphasised the necessity for ensuring that the High Courts are able to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of the Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. In R.K. Jain case (1993 AIR SCW 1899), after taking note of these facts, it was suggested that the possibility of an appeal from the Tribunal on questions of law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It appears that no follow-up action has been taken pursuant to the suggestion. Such a measure would have improved matters considerably. It appears that no follow-up action has been taken pursuant to the suggestion. Such a measure would have improved matters considerably. Having regard to both the aforestated contentions, we hold that all decisions of Tribunals, whether created pursuant to Article 323A or Article 323B of the Constitution, will be subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls.” 11. Section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 deals with bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 / Article 227 are not ousted under the Act. Section 22 provides appellate remedy like Section 30 of The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act deals with transfer of pending cases in any court including High Court, however in The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, there is no provision for transfer of pending cases. Thus, it is evident that The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 is too stringent when compared to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in entertaining cases in High Courts. Still, the Supreme Court permitted the High Courts to entertain writ petition under Article 226 against the orders of the Tribunal. 12. In the above circumstances, we are of the prima facie view that the objection raised by the Registry regarding maintainability of the writ petition challenging the orders of the National Green Tribunal, Chennai, constituted under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is maintainable before this Court, till the issue regarding maintainability of the writ petitions are finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)Nos. 27886-27887 of 2012. Registry is directed to number the writ petitions and post before the Court for admission, if the papers are otherwise in order. Ordered accordingly.