JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Shastri, J. 1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:- A Be pleased to direct respondents and respondent MoEF in particular to place on record of this Hon'ble Court the steps taken towards implementation of Order dated 18/09/2015 and be further pleased to direct the respondent MoEF to place it on record reports, plans and schemes submitted by respective respondent and expert body pursuant to the order dated 18/09/2015 and the consequential preventive, protective, corrective and remedial environmental measures and steps initiated and implemented upon; B. In the event of non-implementation or partial implementation of the Order dated 18/09/2015 and the consequential measures taken towards protection and prevention of the environment, Be Pleased to direct Respondent and respondent MoEF to implement the Order dated 18/09/2015 at Annexure-A in its true spirit and entirety and take all consequential preventive, protective, remedial and corrective environmental measures based on the reports, plans and schemes given by the respondent respective agencies and expert body as directed in the Order dated 18/09/2015; C. Be pleased to Direct respondents and respondent Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in particular to provide petitioners with the Action Taken Report along with all the documents including report submitted by respective respondents and other agencies and expert body with regard and respect to every directions given in para. 15 of the Order dated 18/09/2015 passed by respondent MoEF at Annexure-A; D. During the pendency and/or final disposal of this petition, be pleased to grant interim or ad- interim relief in terms of para. 11(A) and/or 11(B) and/or 11(C); E. To pass any other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper and in the interest of Justice and Equity. 2. The background of facts which has given rise to filing of present proceedings is that petitioners are stated to be permanent residents of Mundra Taluka in District Kutchh- Bhuj. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are fishermen of village Luni, whereas petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are farmers and businessmen residing in Mundra within geographical area of respondent No.6. Petitioners have stated that majority of them have attended public hearing for environmental clearance of the project of Waterfront Development and/or for Special Economic Zone. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are fishermen of village Luni, whereas petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are farmers and businessmen residing in Mundra within geographical area of respondent No.6. Petitioners have stated that majority of them have attended public hearing for environmental clearance of the project of Waterfront Development and/or for Special Economic Zone. Petitioners as such are not only concerned but also adversely affected by any industrial growth in the area, especially on account of respondent M/s. APSEZL undertaking certain industrial activity which are stated to be hazardous to the environment and antithetic to the sustainable development principle. According to petitioners, the basic grievance is that order dated 18.9.2015 appears to have not been implemented in true letter and spirit to protect the environment against hazardous activities of respondent M/s. APSEZL. 3. It is the case of the petitioners they are fishermen and are unable to carryout fishing activity even if they possess licenses because of the activities undertaken by 6th respondent M/s. APSEZL which is hazardous to the environment. Project in question is for developing Waterfront Development which includes North Port, South Port, West Port and East Port at Mundra, District Kutchh and authority has extended the Environmental Clearance initially to M/s. Mundra Port and SEZ Ltd. (now, M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd.). Same was extended by issuance of notification of Environmental Impact Assessment and under Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 for Waterfront Development Project on 12.1.2009. Said clearance was extended to the respondent with specific conditions which are stipulated in it and narrated by petitioners in paragraph 4.3 of the petition. In addition to such conditions, on 19.1.2009, an Addendum was issued by respondent MoEF, Government of India with respect to EIA and CRZ clearance accorded on 12.1.2009. 4. On account of such situation, initially petitioners were constrained to file proceedings in the form of Special Civil Application No.9309 of 2008 inter alia praying to appoint a committee of eminent environmentalists of public spirited persons to ascertain the damage done to the Coastal zone of Mundra Taluka villages including farmers and fishermen and to waterfront area on the basis of plants available and also to take satellite photos of the area which was also taken by ISRO and sought for consequential reliefs which are narrated in paragraph 4.5 of the petition memorandum. Said petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No.9309 of 2008 was disposed of vide order dated 2.7.2010 and while disposing of the said petition, certain observations have been made by the Court which are extracted in paragraph 4.5 of the present petition and same is reproduced hereunder:- “(i) It is understood and undertaken by Respondent No.9 that no creeks will be filled-up and bio-diversity present along the coastal area will not be permitted to be destroyed by their action. Thus the first grievance of the petitioners stand redressed. (ii) It is undertaken by the respondents that licensed fishermen for their fishing activities, as is permissible by the authorities, no impediment will ever be created by the respondent no.9 company. Therefore, the second grievance of the petitioners are also redressed. iii) We are informed that by order of the Government, Ministry of Environment & Forests dated 12/1/2009 and 31/3/2009 requisite permissions have already been granted and it is agreed and confirmed by the counsels for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Union of India and counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 company states that this can be adhered to in its true letter & spirit. 5. It is the case of petitioners that a very renowned environmental activist Mr. Bharat Patel, General Secretary of Machchhi Mar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan has raised an issue about violation of conditions of Environmental Clearance and CRZ clearance by respondent, on account of which according to petitioners, a site visit was made on 15.12.2010, resulted in submission of a report by Dr. Senthilvel, Additional Director of MoEF, who in turn issued a show cause notice with direction to respondent M/s. Mundra Port and SEZ Ltd. (now M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd.). The show cause notice has pointed out alleged violation of conditions whereby 6th respondent was directed vide communication dated 23.2.2011 not to take any reclamation activity and not to initiate any construction activity in CRZ area and according to petitioners, afore-mentioned notice dated 15.12.2010 was issued upon physical and spot verification. However, respondent M/s. Mundra Port and SEZ Ltd. was consciously violating every undertaking given to this Court which came to be recorded in an order dated 2.7.2010. However, respondent M/s. Mundra Port and SEZ Ltd. was consciously violating every undertaking given to this Court which came to be recorded in an order dated 2.7.2010. A Writ Petition (PIL) No.194 of 2011 was constrained to be filed before this Court alleging development within the area of respondent M/s. Mundra Port and SEZ Ltd. in particular and in abject violation of Environmental Impart Assessment Notification, 2006. Hon’ble Court in its judgment has indicated that without environmental clearance granted to SEZ, no individual industrial unit can start the work of developing the area being one of sub-leasees of the developer of SEZ. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that violation of the conditions was continued to be an act of the respondent, on account of breach of the environmental norms and conditions of environmental clearance, it has resulted in blockage of creeks, large scale destruction of mangroves, unprecedented reclamation of land and bundling within the CRZ area besides violation of directions issued by respondent MoEF, Government of India. In the backdrop of such situation, a committee came to be constituted under the chairmanship of Ms. Sunita Narain with certain broad terms to be examined which are stated in paragraph 4.9 in the later part. The Committee so appointed submitted its report on 18.4.2013 and said report was received based upon inspection which was undertaken of M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd., Mundra dated 18.4.2013. After inspection based on satellite images and with help of the reports prepared by the department of Forest and Environment, Government of Gujarat as well as respondent- MoEF, Government of India and after hearing the villagers and residents of the area within SEZ at Mundra and also based upon the representatives and experts of respondent M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd., a categorical finding was given to the effect that there has been a large scale blocking of creeks including Kotdi creek. It has also resulted into rampant destruction of Mangroves and also mismanagement of fly ash utilization and its disposal and it was also observed that there is a serious lack of commitments in adhering to the terms of environmental and CRZ clearance. 7. It is further case of petitioners that on account of such situation, a show cause notice with a direction came to be issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on 30.9.2013. 7. It is further case of petitioners that on account of such situation, a show cause notice with a direction came to be issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on 30.9.2013. But, according to petitioners, in the form of show cause notice, an order came to be passed by respondent MoEF, Government of India after accepting the report of Ms. Sunita Narain Committee. Directions came to be issued under Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 to respondent M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. to comply. Same are stated in bracketed portion in paragraph 4.11 of the petition. On account of this clearance granted, North Pole was kept in abeyance since there appears to be a violation of conditions. Since this was the situation, according to petitioner, Writ Petition (PIL) No.21 of 2013 came to be filed seeking complete prohibition of any development activity within SEZ at Mundra by the developer and sub-leasee holding individual plots for industrial plants in the absence of Environmental Clearance accorded to respondent M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. By virtue of judgment dated 13.1.2014 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.21 of 2013, Hon’ble Court indicated a complete apprehension on any development activities by developers or sub-lessee within SEZ Mundra till environmental clearance is granted by respondent MoEF, Government of India, i.e. respondent No.1. It is further case of the petitioners that M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. had already an independent environmental clearance granted way back in 2009, even though respondent M/s. M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. is one and the same entity. The judgment as such was confined to the area of SEZ. Said judgment passed by the Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.21 of 2013 was challenged by individual plot holders, who had already established their industrial plots since long, and respondent M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order permitting the individual industrial units which were in operation since long to continue with their activity. Said order passed in SLP (Civil) No.1526 of 2014 dated 27.1.2014 is attached to the petition memorandum. Later on, according to the petitioners, Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a further order on 14.7.2014 calling upon respondent MoEF, Government of India to take decision on the issue of grant of environmental clearance or rejection of the application made for the said purpose of respondent M/s. APSEZL. Later on, according to the petitioners, Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a further order on 14.7.2014 calling upon respondent MoEF, Government of India to take decision on the issue of grant of environmental clearance or rejection of the application made for the said purpose of respondent M/s. APSEZL. In between Lok Sabha election was scheduled somewhere in the month of May 2014 and pursuant to which, change of Government took place at the Center and then according to petitioners, issues related to environmental clearance have been altered and then, petitioners have allegedly stated that environmental clearance is a matter of course granted environmental clearance on 14.7.2014 to SEZ section of respondent M/s. APSEZL. In the process of such grant of environmental clearance to respondent M/s. APSEZL for SEZ section, all violations committed earlier in point of time have been kept aside and ignored and environmental clearance was granted on 14.7.2014 subject to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in pending petition arising out of judgment and order passed by the Court on 13.1.2014 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.21 of 2013. 8. It is further case of the petitioners that environmental and CRZ clearance to M/s. APSEZL was granted for desalination, seawater intact, outflow facility and pipeline for the proposed multi-product SEZ to the extent of area of 6641.2784 Hectare of land. Specific conditions have been stipulated in the environmental clearance granted on 15.7.2014 which are enumerated in paragraph 4.16 of the petition memorandum. 9. Petitioners appear to have reverted back then to submit that earlier show cause notices together with inspection report, whether can be brushed aside or not and based upon such material, whether environmental and CRZ clearance can be granted or not. In fact, according to petitioners, all the authorities, including MoEF, are closing their eyes towards violation and have accorded clearance since respondent was a influential entity in the new Government and as such has alleged violations and decisions in the grant of environmental clearance is based upon extraordinary exercise of power. According to petitioners, decisions are in violation of the provisions of Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 read with CRZ Notification 2011 and EIL Notification, 2006. According to petitioners, decisions are in violation of the provisions of Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 read with CRZ Notification 2011 and EIL Notification, 2006. Even on 18.9.2015, further directions were issued to undertake an inquiry and investigation and report besides implementation of conditions of the Environmental Clearance and to ensure that extent of damage allegedly caused by M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. be assessed again and remedial measures be taken and by referring to said order dated 18.9.2015, a reference has also been made to the provisions contained in communications dated 15.12.2010 as well as 30.9.2013. Petitioners have stated that on account of this situation, effect at the ground level is that respondent M/s. APSEZL is horizontally and vertically expanding its activities at the cost of environment and people and at the same time, respondent is appointing committee after committee and just not taking any stringent steps and have remained mute spectators. 10. According to the petitioners, even though three years have lapsed, it appears that nothing is placed on the website of respondent MoEF, Government of India nor any information is provided with regard to implementation of the directions given in the order in question and its compliance by 6th respondent and as such, petitioners were constrained to serve a legal notice seeking further information and providing particulars related to compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 18.9.2015, but no response of whatsoever nature was given despite reminders having been sent from time to time and as such lastly, on 21.11.2018, legal notice was issued. Even an independent application was also submitted under the provisions of the Right to Information Act about seeking information relating to compliance of the directions issued by order dated 18.9.2015. Said application was submitted on 22.11.2018. According to petitioners, there was no response by the respondents, as indicated above and it was found that there is lack of will on the part of the authority to implement the directions in true letter and spirit. This has also resulted in couple of writ petitions being filed before this Court on the ground of violation of Environmental Law involving different subject matters, particulars whereof having been provided as indicated by petitioners, and hence in this factual situation, left with no alternate, petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. 11. From record, it appears that petition has been entertained by issuance of notice on 18.4.2009 and then after hearing on 22.8.2019, a detailed order came to be passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and after narrating the submissions and perusal of the record, Coordinate Bench was of the opinion that keeping aside the issue of maintainability of writ petition, Union of India has to submit a fresh site inspection report in this regard and also directed to submit reply since it was found that all other respondents were ready with the matter, except Union of India. Based upon such specific order, it appears that reply has been filed by Union of India and during passage of time, an order came to be passed by the Coordinate Bench on 18.6.2021 in Special Civil Application 21189 of 2018 and as such, learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik representing the petitioners was asked to go through the same by order dated 2.7.2021. Then, matter has come up for consideration before this Court, in which learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik has represented the petitioners, whereas Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General, with Mr. Parth Bhatt learned counsel represented Union of India- respondent No.1, Rutvij S. Oza, learned counsel has represented respondent No.7, whereas learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi has represented respondent No.6 with assistance from Singhi & Company. 12. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 has raised at the outset a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present petition itself and has requested to consider and deal with such preliminary objection at first instance. Mr. Joshi has submitted that present petition is not in the form of Public Interest Litigation and as such in what manner, petitioners are prejudiciously affected is not spelt out in the petition. How and in what manner their personal right or legal right is infringed is not indicated at all and to that effect, there are no averments in the petition. How and in what manner their personal right or legal right is infringed is not indicated at all and to that effect, there are no averments in the petition. It has been further contended that apart from that, petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Statute if there is any violation of the order as alleged and as such, in view of this statutory alternative remedy being available, petition may not be entertained and apart from that, learned senior advocate has further contended that respondent No.6 has not violated any of the conditions, on the contrary substantially complied with the same and if that fact is being disputed, petition is in the realm of disputed questions of fact which may not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and as such, Mr. Joshi has requested to examine and decide the preliminary issue first. To substantiate his contentions, Mr. Joshi has referred to certain judgments and it has been further contended that petitioners have no locus standi to bring this petition in the present form in the absence of proper pleadings, hence, exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is not called for and petitioners cannot be allowed to conduct roving inquiry which otherwise is the domain of authority created under the Statute. 13. Learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik appearing on behalf of petitioners has vehemently contended that respondent has violated the terms and conditions not only of environmental clearance but also has violated the conditions engrafted in the order dated 18.09.2015. According to him, the major issues related to right of fishermen as well as the grazing land have been utterly not taken care of and no specific action plan to protect livelihood of fisherman is also framed. Apart from that though there was an agreement of returning grazing land, same has also not been acted upon by respondent No.6 and as such when the activity of respondent No.6 is in utter violation of interest of environment in the area, the reliefs prayed for deserves to be granted. 14. Apart from that though there was an agreement of returning grazing land, same has also not been acted upon by respondent No.6 and as such when the activity of respondent No.6 is in utter violation of interest of environment in the area, the reliefs prayed for deserves to be granted. 14. By pointing out the particulars from the chart which has been prepared by him, a contention is raised that bocha island is ecologically sensitive having geomorphological features and areas in island and creeks around the island will have to be declared as conservation zone and action plan for its conservation must be prepared and for that purpose M/s APSEZ should provide necessary financial assistance. 15. Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate has further submitted that there are certain violations of specific condition of all environmental clearance and CRZ clearances and as such stringent steps deserves to be taken. On the contrary, a comprehensive and integrated conservation plan including detailed bathymetry study and protection of creeks / mangrove area including buffer zone, mapping of coordinates, running length, HTL, CRZ boundary will have to be put in place and preservation of entire area is the need of hour so as to see that proper environmental protection can be maintained. 16. In addition to this, Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate has further submitted that there should not be any development area when restricted by the High Court of Gujarat and for that purpose APSEZ shall abide by the outcome of earlier public interest litigations and the orders passed thereupon and APSEZ will have to submit a specific action plan to protect the livelihood of fisherman along with a budgetary provision. By raising multiple contentions touching the core issue of environment, Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate has tried to submit at length on controversies reflecting on the record and thereby has submitted that reliefs prayed for deserves to be granted as same is in essence for implementation of the order dated 18.09.2015. Hence, he has submitted that relief as prayed for be granted. Several other contentions canvassed before us but since the issue involved in the present proceeding is at stage of the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel, without entering into merit of other contentions, the Court would be examining the preliminary issue about maintainability of petition. Hence, without discussing much on merits of contentions raised by Mr. Several other contentions canvassed before us but since the issue involved in the present proceeding is at stage of the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel, without entering into merit of other contentions, the Court would be examining the preliminary issue about maintainability of petition. Hence, without discussing much on merits of contentions raised by Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate the preliminary issue is being dealt with. 17. At this stage, we must mention that learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 has categorically and vehemently submitted that two major issues which have been raised by Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate about the availability of gauchar land and for taking interest of fisherman in the area, according to Mr. Joshi, learned senior advocate the same have been taken care of adequately and said fact has also be taken note of by MOEF Committee in the month of April, 2013. The gist of the same is pointed out from page 221 onwards of petition compilation and has submitted that respondent No.6 has not violated the conditions stipulated but on the contrary has substantially complied with almost all terms of the clearance granted to them and as such this issue of violation is a seriously disputed version which requires detail adjudication. But apart from that, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate has emphasized on maintainability of the petition issue in view of the fact that ultimate controversy and the grievance is relating to the environmental protection and for that purpose, a specific statutory remedy is available to the petitioners. Hence, the petition may not be entertained. Further, this being not a public interest litigations, the petitioners are under an obligation to justify their remote right if any being violated but since the core issue is relating to the environment and its ill-effect on account of project Mr. Joshi, learned senior advocate has submitted that in view of settled position of law when a specific statute is taking care of such issues the petitioners must approach the said forum created by the statute and not to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues which are seriously in dispute. 18. To this stand of Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate, Mr. 18. To this stand of Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate, Mr. A. J. Yagnik, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there is no embargo on exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if there being a statutory remedy available and has further submitted that here is the case where the background of the fact demands the exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, has requested that petition deserves to be entertained. 19. To justify this stand, Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate has referred to and relied upon few decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are reported in :- (i) In the case of Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . (ii) In the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another versus Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 . (iii) In the case of Hanuman Laxman Aroskar versus Union of India reported in (2019) 15 SCC 401 . (iv) In the case of BDA versus Sudhakar Hegde reported in (2020) 15 SCC 63 . (v) In the case of Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority versus Central Empowered Committee and others reported in (2021) 4 SCC 309 . (vi) In the case of The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others versus M/s Commercial Steel Limited reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 884. 20. On careful consideration of the background of present facts on hand and keeping in view of the proposition aforesaid, we have examined the issue of alternative remedy whether available to the petitioners or not. Perusal of record indicates that respondent No.6 was issued with a show-cause notice under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for violating certain terms of the notification. Said notice right from 15.12.2010 is reflecting on page 99 of the petition compilation. 21. In addition to this, a further fact is also reflecting from the record that based upon response by respondent No.6 there was a constitution of committee for inspection of M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. i.e. respondent No.6. But this exercise appears to be basically from the initial step of Section 5 of Environmental Protection Act, 1986. 21. In addition to this, a further fact is also reflecting from the record that based upon response by respondent No.6 there was a constitution of committee for inspection of M/s. Adani Port and SEZ Ltd. i.e. respondent No.6. But this exercise appears to be basically from the initial step of Section 5 of Environmental Protection Act, 1986. Even from communication dated 18.09.2015 reflecting at page 45, said order is also passed in connection with a notice issued under Section 5 of the Act, 1986 and as such the grievance involved in this petition is around environmental issue and the steps taken in view of Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act, 1986 postulates to give directions whereas Section 5A which has been incorporated by virtue of amendment with effect from 18.10.2010 envisaged an appeal to the Nation Green Tribunal. Since these sections are relevant to the controversy, we deem it proper to extract them. It reads: "5. Power to give directions.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law but subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under this Act, issue directions in writing to any person, officer or any authority and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such directions. Explanation. .For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power to issue directions under this section includes the power to direct. (a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; or (b) stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service. COMMENTS Prohibition to establish industry Where total prohibition against establishment of industries in an area is in force, the State Government cannot grant exemption to a specified industry located within or attempting to locate itself within such area. Neither can the State direct the State Pollution Control Board to prescribe conditions for grant of No Objection Certificate; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62 . Neither can the State direct the State Pollution Control Board to prescribe conditions for grant of No Objection Certificate; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 SCC 62 . Void lease of land (i) The grant of lease of land belonging to forest area to be used for setting up beneficiation plant which involve dust and water pollution and consequent destruction of adjoining forest and subsequently affecting the environment and ecology of the area and right to life, was declared void; Goa Foundation v. State of Goa, AIR 2001 Bom 318 . (ii) If the Central Government has issued certain directions and notified certain industries as hazardous and stone crushers have not been included then the Board would not be forbidden from exercising its power under provisions of Air Act or Water Act; Bihar State Pollution Control Board v. Hiranand Stone Works, AIR 2005 Pat 62 . 5A. Appeal to National Green Tribunal. .Any person aggrieved by any directions issued under section 5, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, may file an appeal to the National Green Tribunal established under section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in accordance with the provisions of that Act." 22. This Act has invested a clear and sufficient power to the Tribunal to go into violations related to environment issue and can safeguard the same by issuance of appropriate direction and to effectively implement. Even rules have been framed in this connection and as such bare reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that petitioners are not remediless but are having adequate statutory remedy available where the grievance can be effectively adjudicated upon. Hence, we are of the opinion that contention raised by Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel for 6th respondent with regard to maintainability of petition is justified in the background of facts which are complex for which exercise of writ jurisdiction would not be an answer. Hence, on the issue of maintainability of petition, we are inclined to accept the contention. 23. Mihir Joshi, learned senior counsel for 6th respondent with regard to maintainability of petition is justified in the background of facts which are complex for which exercise of writ jurisdiction would not be an answer. Hence, on the issue of maintainability of petition, we are inclined to accept the contention. 23. At this stage, we may quote with benefit the judgment delivered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the issue of alternative remedy where Court has examined the provisions at length and keeping in view the proposition of such issue has opined that this kind of issue relating to environment deserves to be appropriately dealt with in the forum which is created for that very purpose under the Act. The said decision is delivered by Division Bench of this Court on 18.06.2021 in Special Civil Application No. 21189 of 2018 with Special Civil Application No. 6432 of 2020. Since we have considered the same, we deem it proper to extract hereunder the relevant observations from the said decision which reads as under:- "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." 24. The point regarding preliminary objection deserves to be considered first in point of time not only on account of aforesaid proposition of law but on account of the observation made by the earlier Division Bench in the present proceeding itself wherein Mr. The point regarding preliminary objection deserves to be considered first in point of time not only on account of aforesaid proposition of law but on account of the observation made by the earlier Division Bench in the present proceeding itself wherein Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners was requested to go through the aforementioned decision. The said order dated 02.07.2021 passed in the instant petition reads as under:- "Mr. Yagnik, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants prays for some time in this matter. Post it on 30th July 2021. In the meantime, we request Mr. Yagnik to go through a recent order passed by this very Bench in the Special Civil Application No.21189 of 2018 decided on 18th June 20201." 25. A conjoint reading of aforementioned situation which is prevailing on record in juxtaposition of sound proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the clear opinion that preliminary objection raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 is justified in peculiar background of present facts where all minute details deserve attention which disputed version cannot be gone into in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 26. At this stage, Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate has referred to several decisions right from the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) to in the case of The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others (supra) but upon careful considerations of aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that facts in the present background are distinct from those which are reflecting in the said decision and as such applying the principle on proposition of precedent, we are of the view that the said decisions are of no assistance to the petitioners. The law on the precedent is aptly clear by proposition of Hon'ble Apex Court that if the facts are different even one additional fact may make a world of difference in applying the principle and as such keeping in mind such salutary proposition, we are of the firm opinion that without entering into controversy on merits on other issues, we may deem it proper to relegate the petitioners to an appropriate alternative authority created under the statute. 27. 27. At this stage, we may also refer to one further proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no doubt Article 226 is wide enough to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction but it depends upon the principle of self restraint and same may be exercised only when the courts comes to a conclusion that authority created under the statute may not take either impartial decision or unable to adjudicate the view. In such circumstances, in a given case the Court may take up the issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise the High Court by exercising such jurisdiction cannot usurp the discretion and statutory function of an authority which is created for that purpose. Following is the relevant observations, we may deem it proper to quote hereunder which is in the case of D. N. Jeevaraj versus Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 653 :- "41. This Court has repeatedly held that where discretion is required to be exercised by a statutory authority, it must be permitted to do so. It is not for the courts to take over the discretion available to a statutory authority and render a decision. In the present case, the High Court has virtually taken over the function of the BDA by requiring it to take action against Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj. Clause 10 of the lease-cum-sale agreement gives discretion to the BDA to take action against the lessee in the event of a default in payment of rent or committing breach of the conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement or the provisions of law.[8] This will, of course, require a notice being given to the alleged defaulter followed by a hearing and then a decision in the matter. By taking over the functions of the BDA in this regard, the High Court has given a complete go-bye to the procedural requirements and has mandated a particular course of action to be taken by the BDA. It is quite possible that if the BDA is allowed to exercise its discretion it may not necessarily direct forfeiture of the lease but that was sought to be preempted by the direction given by the High Court which, in our opinion, acted beyond its jurisdiction in this regard. 43. It is quite possible that if the BDA is allowed to exercise its discretion it may not necessarily direct forfeiture of the lease but that was sought to be preempted by the direction given by the High Court which, in our opinion, acted beyond its jurisdiction in this regard. 43. To this we may add that if a court is of the opinion that a statutory authority cannot take an independent or impartial decision due to some external or internal pressure, it must give its reasons for coming to that conclusion. The reasons given by the court for disabling the statutory authority from taking a decision can always be tested and if the reasons are found to be inadequate, the decision of the court to by-pass the statutory authority can always be set aside. If the reasons are cogent, then in an exceptional case, the court may take a decision without leaving it to the statutory authority to do so. However, we must caution that if the court were to take over the decision taking power of the statutory authority it must only be in exceptional circumstances and not as a routine. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has not given any reason why it virtually took over the decision taking function of the authorities and for this reason alone the mandamus issued by the High Court deserves to be set aside, apart from the merits of the case which we have already adverted to." 28. So from aforesaid clear proposition of law and more particularly, the issues involved in the present litigation, we may deem it proper to dismiss the writ petition with a liberty to the writ applicant to initiate appropriate proceedings before the National Green Tribunal under the provisions of the Act. 29. Since the present writ petition appears to have been pending since 2019, the issue of limitation if at all arises before the Tribunal, we expect that same may be looked into appropriately in the interest of justice. Hence, petition stands dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to avail an alternative efficacious remedy created under the statute, i.e., National Green Tribunal under the provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and/or under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which may be availed of. Hence, petition stands dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to avail an alternative efficacious remedy created under the statute, i.e., National Green Tribunal under the provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and/or under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which may be availed of. It is made clear that this Court has not examined nor expressed any opinion on merits and on other contentions raised in the petition and it goes without saying that it is always available to the petitioner to raise the same in appropriate forum. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Notice is discharged.