JUDGMENT : J.B.PARDIWALA, J. 1 In the Special Civil Application No.21189 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the respondent -CPCB (at Annexure-T hereto) and also further be pleased to direct respondent No.2 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner – company and/or its directors; (A-1) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the respondent – GPCB (at Annexure-Y hereto); (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the respondent – GPCB (at Annexure-T hereto) and also further be pleased to direct respondent No.2 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner – company and/or its directors; (B-1) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the respondent – GPCB (at Annexure-Y hereto); (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;” 2. In the connected matter i.e. the Special Civil Application No.6432 of 2020, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned notices dated 21.01.2019, 22.08.2019, 12.02.2019, 06.09.2019 (at Annexure-M (colly.) hereto) as well as notice dated 04.10.2019 (at Annexure-Y hereto) and the letter / email dated 27.12.2019 received from the respondent – GPCB (At Annexure – BB hereto) and direct the respondent – GPCB to accept the action plan submitted by the petitioner and direct respondent to renew CCA for further period of 5 years; (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned notices dated 21.01.2019, 22.08.2019, 12.02.2019, 06.09.2019 (at Annexure-M (colly.) hereto) as well as notice dated 04.10.2019 (at Annexure-Y hereto) and the letter / email dated 27.12.2019 received from the respondent – GPCB (at Annexure- BB hereto); (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. As the issues involved in both the writ applications are the same and the parties are also the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. 4. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.21189 of 2018 is treated as the lead matter. 5. We may clarify that the Special Civil Application No.6432 of 2020 has not been notified today in the cause list. However, as our attention has been drawn in this regard by the learned appearing for the parties, we called for the papers of the said matter and have treated the same to be on today’s cause list. 6. It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicant – VECL is engaged in the conveyance and discharge of industrial waste water through the 55 kilometers long channel which carries the trade effluent of the industries of the GIDC – Nandesari, Petrochemical Complex as well as various other industries located adjacent to the channel. The writ applicant appears to be catering around 36 industries including two CETPs of the District : Vadodara and Bharuch respectively. The writ applicant appears to be catering around 36 industries including two CETPs of the District : Vadodara and Bharuch respectively. Out of the total length of 55 kilometers of the channel, 23.48 kilometers has been replaced with a pipeline over a period of time in different vulnerable stretches. 7. It appears from the materials on record that the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (‘GPCB’ for short) had issued CCA-AWH-105482 to the writ applicant upto 31st March 2021. 8. It further appears that the Board issued a closure order under Section 33A of the Water Act, 1974 dated 13th December 2018 and the same was to take effect after the expiry of 30 days. 9. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the GPCB submitted that the writ applicant had submitted a time bound action plan along with the bank guarantee of Rs.55 Lakh and they also paid the Environment Damage Compensation (EDC) to the tune of Rs.10 Lakh. In such circumstances, the Board thought fit to revoke its earlier closure order and keep it suspended upto 31st March 2021. Later, various communications / notices were also issued by the GPCB. In a recent incident in the first week of April, 2021, two workers lost their lives and one is in hospital in a critical condition. As on date, the GPCB has issued a closure order which shall take effect after 30 days and has also levied interim Environment Damage Compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lac. 10. The picture that emerges as on date is that the GPCB is not satisfied with the functioning of the writ applicant. The writ applicant has been causing extensive damage so far as the environment is concerned. 11. Mr. Mihir Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ applicant would submit that his client is not an industry. His client is engaged into the conveyance and discharge of industrial waste water and that too without the obligation to treat the same through a channel as referred to above. According to Mr. Joshi, the case of the writ applicant is that the GPCB has time and again found fault with the conveyance and discharge of the trade effluent by the writ applicant. In other words, the conveyance and discharge of the trade effluent is not in accordance with the fixed statutory parameters. Mr. According to Mr. Joshi, the case of the writ applicant is that the GPCB has time and again found fault with the conveyance and discharge of the trade effluent by the writ applicant. In other words, the conveyance and discharge of the trade effluent is not in accordance with the fixed statutory parameters. Mr. Joshi finds fault with all other industries who pump their trade effluent into the plant of the writ applicant without appropriate treatment as prescribed under the law. 12. This writ application is of the year 2018. We are of the view that at the threshold, this writ application should not have been entertained as the writ applicant has an alternative efficacious remedy of going before the National Green Tribunal under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Although Mr. Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel made a gallant effort to convince us that he may not be relegated to go before the Tribunal and this writ application may be entertained having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, yet we are not inclined to accept such submission. In fact, the order passed by a Coordinate Bench dated 11th January 2019 itself makes it clear that the issue of maintainability of the petition on the ground of alternative remedy was in the mind of the Court from day one. The order dated 11th January 2019 reads thus: “1. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2- GPCB has objection against the maintainability of the petition on the ground that alternative remedy in view of 5.15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is available. The said objection is kept alive and will be considered after reply is filed. 2. Mr. Shah, however, also clarified that the respondent No.2GPCB will take necessary and appropriate action by ensuring that a situation whereby inflow continuous but outflow is closed will not be created. 3. So as to enable respondent No.2-GPCB to file affidavit, time is granted. 4. Stand over to 16.01.2019. 5. It is clarified that we have not passed any order which would restrain the GPCB in any manner from acting in accordance with orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or learned Tribunal.” 13. 3. So as to enable respondent No.2-GPCB to file affidavit, time is granted. 4. Stand over to 16.01.2019. 5. It is clarified that we have not passed any order which would restrain the GPCB in any manner from acting in accordance with orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or learned Tribunal.” 13. The National Green Tribunal Act has been enacted to provide for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including the enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to the persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and which Act came into force on18th October 2010. It provides for the establishment of a Tribunal, its composition and more particularly in terms of Section 16 that it shall have the appellate jurisdiction in respect of any direction issued on or after the commencement of the said Act under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in terms of clause (g) thereof. This read with the Schedule I and Section 29 would clearly indicate that it is the National Green Tribunal alone which would have the jurisdiction to deal with and decide the matters in connection with any order or direction passed under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 14. In Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and others vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 8 SCC 326 , the Apex Court held at paragraphs no. 40 and 41 as below: “40. Keeping in view the provisions and scheme of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short the ‘NGT Act’) particularly Sections 14, 29, 30 and 38(5), it can safely be concluded that the environmental issues and matters covered under the NGT Act, Schedule 1 should be instituted and litigated before the National Green Tribunal (for short ‘NGT’). Such approach may be necessary to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders between the High Courts and the NGT. Thus, in unambiguous terms, we direct that all the matters instituted after coming into force of the NGT Act and which are covered under the provisions of the NGT Act and/or in Schedule I to the NGT Act shall stand transferred and can be instituted only before the NGT. Thus, in unambiguous terms, we direct that all the matters instituted after coming into force of the NGT Act and which are covered under the provisions of the NGT Act and/or in Schedule I to the NGT Act shall stand transferred and can be instituted only before the NGT. This will help in rendering expeditious and specialized justice in the field of environment to all concerned. 41. We find it imperative to place on record a caution for consideration of the courts of competent jurisdiction that the cases filed and pending prior to coming into force of the NGT Act, involving questions of environmental laws and/or relating to any of the seven statutes specified in Schedule I of the NGT Act, should also be dealt with by the specialized tribunal, that is the NGT, created under the provisions of the NGT Act. The Courts may be well advised to direct transfer of such cases to the NGT in its discretion, as it will be in the fitness of administration of justice.” 15. In M/s. Diana Buildwell Limited vs. Goa Coastal zone Management Authority and others [Writ Petition No.335 of 2016], the writ applicant challenged the revocation of the provisional permission granted by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the submissions that the petitioner had an alternate remedy, both against the revocation of the permission as also against the order dated 9th February 2016 and that he could not justifiably question the order dated 9th February 2016 in a Writ Petition, in view of the availability of a statutory remedy of an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the Act. In that context the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the Judgment of the Apex Court in Cicily Kallarackal vs. Vehicle Factory [ (2012) 8 SCC 524 ] where it was held at paragraph 3 that so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right that the High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter against the order of the Commission. The Division Bench further considered the observations in Nivedita Sharma Vs. The Division Bench further considered the observations in Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others [(2011) 14 SCC 337] which reads thus: “However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” The Division Bench also considered the Judgment in Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana and Others[ (1985) 3 SCC 267 ] where the Apex Court has restated the principles, when a writ petition can be entertained, without exhausting the alternate remedy and finally held that the petition was not tenable and dismissed the same. 16. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums vs. Union of India [2016-3 L.W. 11], the Madras High Court had considered the directions issued by the Apex Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India [ (2012) 8 SCC 326 ], which came to be stayed in Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Union of India (SLP No.27327/2013) and which was subsequently withdrawn giving effect to the said directions. Latha Ramesh vs. Union of India and others [2016 SCC online Kar 6239], was a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus. However, in view of the enactment of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 empowering the Tribunal with the jurisdiction over all civil cases, where a substantial question relating to environment is involved, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court deemed it appropriate that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy and in that view of the matter disposed off the petition reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal for necessary orders. 17. 17. In Canara Plastics Manufacturers and Trades Association and others vs. The State of Karnataka [Writ Petition Nos.14314-14402 of 2016], the challenge was to the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of the power conferred under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 imposing a ban on the manufacture, supply, sale and use of plastic carry bags, plastic banners, plastic buntings, flex, plastic flags, plastic plates, plastic cups, plastic spoons, cling films and plastic sheets used for spreading on dining table etc. in the State. A plea was taken by the learned Advocate General that the Writ Petitions were not maintainable as an alternative efficacious remedy was available under Section 5 of the Act, while it was submitted to the contrary on behalf of the petitioners. The Division Bench observed that when there was an alternative efficacious remedy before the Competent Tribunal constituted under a Statute, i.e., National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, it was desirable that the matter be placed before the National Green Tribunal for consideration and accepting the preliminary objection of the learned Advocate General, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that there exists an alternative and efficacious remedy before the National Green Tribunal. 18. In Abdul Jabbar vs. State of Kerala [WP(C) No.30809 of 2015(A)], the challenge was to the environmental clearance and various permits issued to the respondents No.7 to 9 respectively for extracting sand/ ordinary earth/ minerals from the area referred in the environmental clearance, permit, licence etc. situated in Kunnathunadu Village of Arackapady Taluka of Ernakulam District. An interim order was initially granted which was later modified permitting the respondents No.7 to 9 to extract minerals, strictly following the environmental clearance and which was challenged in the Writ Petition. Here again a plea was taken on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were having an alternative remedy to challenge the environmental clearance before the National Green Tribunal and that the petition was filed without any bonafides. The Kerala High Court held that if there is any substantial issue related to the environment, it is a matter to be taken up before the National Green Tribunal and therefore the Court was of the view that the petitioners were free to approach the National Green Tribunal challenging the environmental clearance. The Kerala High Court held that if there is any substantial issue related to the environment, it is a matter to be taken up before the National Green Tribunal and therefore the Court was of the view that the petitioners were free to approach the National Green Tribunal challenging the environmental clearance. Since there was an efficacious alternative remedy for the petitioners, there was no scope for interference in the matter and dismissed the petition. 19. In the Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.C. [Civil Appeal No.1281 of 2016], the Apex Court observed that it was the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by the party, especially when the law stands well settled. It earlier observed that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in the Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [ 2014(1) SCC 603 ]. The appeal assailed an interim order passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, staying the further proceedings at the stage of Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). In that context, the Apex Court observed that the SARFAESI Act was a complete Code in itself, providing for expeditious recovery of dues arising out of loans granted by financial institutions, the remedy of appeal by the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by a right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the respondent and that the writ petition ought to have been rejected at the threshold on the ground of maintainability but the Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the respondent and that the writ petition ought to have been rejected at the threshold on the ground of maintainability but the Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same. The Two Judge Bench considered the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation [AIR 1995 SC 22], and held that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum was not sustainable in law. 20. Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [1999 AIR (SC) 22], the Supreme Court held that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a Writ Petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain the restrictions one of which is that if an effective & efficacious remedy is available, the High Court should not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely (1) where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or (2) where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or (3) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. The jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. From a discussion of the Judgments in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan, M/s. Diana Buildwell Limited, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums, Latha Ramesh, Canara Plastics Manufacturers and Trades Association, Abdul Jabbar and Authorised officer of State Bank of Travancore (supra), it is borne out that where a issue pertains to an order or direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal should be invoked as a matter of course. However, the judgment in Whirlpool (supra), holds that even in instances where an alternative efficacious remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked in the three contingencies referred to above. It is therefore to be seen whether in the circumstances of the case the writ applicant has been able to show that his case falls within the ambit of any of these three predicates/ contingencies culled out in the Whirlpool (supra) or conversely whether the petition would stand barred in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available before the NGT. 21. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, we are of the view that the writ applicant has failed to bring his case within all the three of the contingencies namely (1) that there was a breach of principles of natural justice or (2) that there was a violation of fundamental rights or (3) that the order under challenge was without jurisdiction for this Court to entertain this petition particularly when it has an equally efficacious, alternative remedy before the NGT. 22. In view of the aforesaid, without going into the merits of this litigation or without expressing any opinion on any of the issues involved in the present litigation, we dismiss this writ application with liberty to the writ applicant to initiate appropriate proceedings before the National Green Tribunal under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. 22. In view of the aforesaid, without going into the merits of this litigation or without expressing any opinion on any of the issues involved in the present litigation, we dismiss this writ application with liberty to the writ applicant to initiate appropriate proceedings before the National Green Tribunal under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Since the writ applicant thought fit to avail the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the matter has been pending before this Court past almost three years, the issue of limitation, if at all arises before the Tribunal, the same may be looked into accordingly. Notice stands discharged. 23. The connected writ application being the Special Civil Application No.6432 of 2020 filed by the very same writ applicant is also ordered to be dismissed with liberty to the writ applicant to avail alternative efficacious remedy before the National Green Tribunal under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.