TITLE: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS V. YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5348-5349 OF 2019 WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO. 2 OF 2023
DECIDED ON: 11 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
Facts of the Case
The National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) ruling on the draft development plan for the Shimla Planning Area is being contested in a civil appeal. The NGT gave instructions, halted the proposal, and then ruled it unlawful. In a writ case, the State of Himachal Pradesh challenged the NGT’s ruling, claiming it went beyond its authority. The appeal is based on contradictory directives, the NGT’s purported intrusion into legislative affairs, and the more general problem of striking a balance between environmental preservation and development.
Legal Provisions:
Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 2019, and Rules, Forest Conservation Act, National Green Tribunal Act, Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Relevant sections of the TCP Act (Sections 15, 18, 19, 20), The separation of powers doctrine, The High Court’s power of judicial review, The principle of sustainable development, The duty of states to prevent adverse effects of mining on forests, Forest Conservation Act and its provisions.
Issues Involved:
Whether the NGT has jurisdiction over town and country planning matters? Whether the NGT, by directing the legislative body on how to exercise its legislative functions, has exceeded its constitutional mandate? Whether the NGT’s continuation of proceedings during the pendency of writ petitions before the High Court conforms to principles of judicial propriety? Whether the NGT’s directions were issued in accordance with statutory procedures and adherence to legal norms?
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The question of jurisdiction is the focal point of the judicial inquiry, as the court carefully examines the limits of the NGT’s power. The ruling emphasises the importance of the separation of powers doctrine and highlights how the NGT went beyond its authority by interfering with legislative activities. The court explains the subtle differences between legislative and administrative functions, clarifying that the legislature or its representative alone has the authority to enact laws. According to the ruling, the judiciary—including the NGT—cannot dictate how legislative authority is to be used. Furthermore, the court finds that the NGT’s directives are unlawful after carefully analyzing the contradictory decisions coming from the NGT and the High Court. The ruling covers a wide range of topics related to sustainable development in addition to legal nuances. The court lays a great deal of emphasis on the necessity of creating a balanced balance between environmental protection and development projects. It states that the guiding concept should be sustainable development, which protects the welfare of future generations. The ruling makes it clear that the matter of compensation for plot holders in “Green Belt” areas is outside the scope of the current proceedings, even though it permits the State to move forward with the development plan. The court’s analysis essentially explores constitutional principles, legal nuances, and the overriding necessity of striking a balance between environmental imperatives and developmental objectives.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
