HIMACHAL PRADESH BUS STAND MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HPBSM & DA) versus THE CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ETC. & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 12-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 344
HIMACHAL PRADESH BUS STAND MANAGEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HPBSM & DA)
v.
THE CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ETC. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5231-32 of 2016)
JANUARY 12, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
INDU MALHOTRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Environmental laws: Forest land – Diversion of forest land
for construction of bus stand and parking space at McLeod Ganj –
Construction of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand
Complex – Legality of – By order dated 12 November 1997, MOEF
permitted diversion of 0.093 hectares of forest land for construction
of a parking space at McLeod Ganj in accordance with s.2 of the
Forest Act – Another order dated 1 March 2001 was passed by
MOEF diverting another 0.48 hectares of forest land for
construction of a bus stand at McLeod Ganj – In April 2000,
appellant-authority was constituted for construction of bus stands
in the State of Himachal Pradesh – In 2006, the land diverted for
non-forest use under orders dated 12 November 1997 and 1 March
2001 was transferred on a 99 year lease to the appellant for
construction of parking facility in McLeod Ganj – Appellant
decided to construct a Bus Stand-cum-Parking Complex and
approved the lowest bid of second respondent – Second respondent
started construction of the Bus stand Complex without awaiting
approval of plans and drawings by the Town and Country Planning
(TCP) Department – Subsequently TCP Department received
application seeking approval of drawings of Bus Stand Complex –
TCP Department pointed out certain shortcomings – As second
respondent continued with the construction without rectifying the
shortcomings, TCP Department called upon the appellant to halt
the construction of Bus Stand Complex – Relying upon the report of
CEC, NGT gave findings that the project proponent not only started
the construction without obtaining appropriate approval and
sanction from the concerned State and Central Government but had
also worked in collusion with some of the authorities who consented
to the commencement of construction which was entirely uncalled
344
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
345
for and was illegal – Hence instant appeal – Held: The construction
of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex
was illegal and constituted a brazen violation of law – The permission
which was granted by MOEF on 12 November 1997 was only for
construction of a ‘parking place’ at McLeod Ganj – Similarly, the
permission granted on 1 March 2001 was granted for constructing
a ‘bus stand’ in the same area – At no point was any permission
granted for the construction of a hotel or commercial structure –
Appellant, on being granted permission to engage in construction
for a specified purpose, unlawfully utilised that permission as the
basis to construct a different structure which was not authorized –
It did so in disregard of the provisions of the Forest Act – The
provisions of s.2 of the Forest Act mandated strict and punctilious
compliance – Mere substantial compliance is not enough – The
officials of statutory bodies of the State Government connived at
the violation of law which is a reflection on the nature of governance
by those who are expected to act within the bounds of law – NGT
acted within its mandate in a case of this nature, where the appellant
actively allowed the perpetration of a structure in breach of
environmental norms – Not looking askance at the construction of
the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure, in an area which the NGT rightly
describes as the “lap of nature”, would lead on the path of judicially
sanctioned environmental destruction – Directions passed to
demolish the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand
Complex – Further, as directed by the NGT, the State of Himachal
Pradesh and the second respondent can utilise the parking space
and the bus stand in the Bus Stand Complex, after the demolition of
the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure – However, this should be in
accordance with orders dated 12 November 1997 and 1 March 2001
issued by the MOEF, i.e., it shall not be used for any purpose other
than parking of cars and buses, as the case may be – Forest Act –
s.2 – Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977.
Environmental laws: Environmental rule of law – Essential
features of – Held: It seeks to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis
of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing
so it brings a shared unde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.