State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta
Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 973 : 2024 INSC 30
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar
Background
The case arose from a series of orders by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that stayed and eventually invalidated the Shimla Development Plan 2041, which aimed to guide urbanization in Shimla until 2041. The NGT had imposed strict restrictions on construction in Shimla, including a ban on buildings with more than two storeys and a prohibition on construction in green belts and core areas, citing environmental concerns. The State of Himachal Pradesh challenged these orders, arguing that the NGT had overstepped its jurisdiction, especially since related writ petitions were already pending before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Jurisdiction and Judicial Propriety:
The Supreme Court held that, as per the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, High Courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction over all tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction. Once writ petitions challenging the NGT’s interim orders were filed before the High Court, the NGT should have refrained from passing further orders on the same subject. The continuation of NGT proceedings during the pendency of High Court writ petitions was found to violate principles of judicial propriety and hierarchy.
NGT’s Power Over Legislative Functions:
The Court clarified that the NGT cannot direct a legislative body to exercise its legislative functions in a particular manner. The preparation and notification of development plans under the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 (TCP Act) are legislative functions, and the NGT’s directions to halt or alter these processes were beyond its authority.
Balancing Development and Environment:
While recognizing the need to protect Shimla’s fragile ecology, the Court underscored that development and environmental protection must be balanced within the statutory framework. The TCP Act provides mechanisms for environmental safeguards, and the state government must ensure compliance, but blanket bans without legislative backing are not permissible.
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s orders that stayed and invalidated the Shimla Development Plan 2041. It restored the state’s authority to implement the plan, subject to compliance with statutory environmental requirements. The Court reaffirmed the High Court’s supervisory role over the NGT and emphasized the need for judicial discipline among tribunals and courts.
Significance
This judgment clarifies the limits of the NGT’s powers, reinforces the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over tribunals, and sets important precedent on the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial functions in urban planning and environmental governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments