The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another (2024)

Introduction 

• This judgment addresses the critical question of jurisdictional limits of the National Green Tribunal when state authorities exercise quasi-legislative powers in urban planning. 
• The Supreme Court examined whether the NGT exceeded its authority by issuing specific mandatory directions regarding the content and manner of preparing development plans under the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977. 

Facts 

• The dispute originated from proceedings before the NGT concerning the Shimla Planning Area Development Plan under the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977. 
• Respondent Yogendera Mohan Sengupta filed Original Application No. 121 of 2014 before the NGT seeking protection of Green Belt areas and requiring prior permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for any non-forest activities. 
• The NGT expanded the scope of the application suo motu and passed its first order on 16th November 2017, imposing a complete ban on construction in core/forest/green areas and restricting construction in the entire Shimla Planning Area to a maximum of 2 storeys plus attic. 
• The NGT directed the State to finalize the Development Plan within three months while incorporating specific directions and precautions mandated by the Tribunal. 
• The State subsequently published a draft development plan on 8th February 2022 in accordance with the TCP Act procedures. 
• Respondent filed a second application (OA No. 297 of 2022) before the NGT challenging the draft plan. 
• Despite the State filing Civil Writ Petition No. 5960 of 2022 before the High Court challenging the NGT's interim stay, the NGT proceeded to pass its second order on 14th October 2022, declaring the draft development plan illegal for allegedly conflicting with its earlier directions. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the preparation, finalization, and approval of Development Plans under Chapter-IV (Sections 18-20) of the TCP Act constitute quasi-legislative functions beyond the NGT's interference. 
• Whether the National Green Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing mandatory directions prescribing specific content (such as height restrictions and construction prohibitions) for the Development Plan. 
• Whether the NGT violated principles of judicial propriety by continuing proceedings and passing final orders when the High Court was already seized of the same matter. 

Court’s Observations 

• The Supreme Court held that preparation, finalization, and sanction of Development Plans under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the TCP Act are legislative or quasi-legislative functions involving creation of general rules of conduct. 
• Citing V.K. Naswa v. Home Secretary, Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that the judiciary cannot legislate or direct the legislature or its delegatee to enact laws in a particular manner. 
• The Court ruled that the NGT transgressed jurisdictional boundaries in its first order by attempting to dictate specific provisions like maximum building heights, thereby imposing improper fetters on the delegatee's legislative power. 
• Regarding judicial propriety, the Court emphasized that the NGT should not have continued proceedings and passed final orders when the High Court was already seized of the same issue through CWP No. 5960 of 2022. 
• The Court noted that conflicting orders from a statutory tribunal and a constitutional court create anomalous situations, and orders of constitutional courts must prevail. 
• The Court observed that the TCP Act itself mandates environmental safeguards through Section 18, requiring measures for flood control, landslide protection, and environmental control. 
• The Court acknowledged that the State's finalized Development Plan demonstrated balance between development and environmental protection by incorporating stringent safeguards including mandatory soil investigation in vulnerable areas and restricting construction in Green Belt areas to single storey plus attic. 
• The Court recognized the principle of sustainable development, noting that the State's plan attempted to harmonize developmental needs with environmental protection. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that both NGT orders dated 16th November 2017 and 14th October 2022 were legally unsustainable due to jurisdictional transgression into the State's quasi-legislative domain. 
• The Court established clear limitations on the NGT's powers, particularly concerning statutory planning functions that are legislative in nature. 
• The Court held that the NGT violated principles of judicial propriety by proceeding with the matter despite pending proceedings before the High Court on the same issue. 
• All impugned NGT orders were quashed and set aside, and the State of Himachal Pradesh was permitted to proceed with implementation of the finalized Development Plan published on 20th June 2023. 
• This judgment provides important guidance on the separation of powers between judicial tribunals and legislative/quasi-legislative functions in environmental governance, emphasizing that environmental protection must be achieved within constitutional boundaries respecting the domains of different organs of the state.