PRAGNESH SHAH versus DR. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 12-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 154
154
PRAGNESH SHAH
v.
DR. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7724-7725 of 2021)
JANUARY 12, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Environment Protection
Act, 1986 – Environment Protection Rules, 1986 – Eco-sensitive
Zone Notification and Zonal Master Plan 2030 – NGT on basis of a
report dated 08.12.2020 submitted by an Expert Committee, allowed
an original application filed by the first respondent, which
challenged the Zonal Master Plan 2030 prepared by the State of
Rajasthan, for the Mount Abu Eco-sensitive Zone – Report of the
Expert committee had, inter-alia, declared land owned by the
appellant to be unfit for construction – Review filed by the appellant
was dismissed by NGT – On appeal, held: the Expert Committee has
furnished valid reasons for determining that construction must not
be allowed so as to preserve the eco-system of the region – Expert
Committee has noted that while the proposed site for residential
buildings covers the land of low slopes which is stable, it also covers
lands with a high slope domain which are not suitable for
construction – Low slope domain site is a habitat for wildlife and
footprints of sloth bear were also observed and it was in this context
the Expert Committee determined that construction must not be
allowed – At places with a high slope domain, the landscape was
noted to be fragile in terms of soil erosion – Further, the Expert
Committee opined that the proposed tourism facility centre may
disturb the wild life eco-system – The ESZ notification required,
inter alia, the State of Rajasthan to prepare the ZMP 2030, so as to
ensure that future development activity in the region could be
planned while accounting for potential environmental degradation,
following the precautionary principle – The ESZ notification is
backed by a statutory mandate of Union legislation – The
Notification is an enforceable charter for the preservation of the
fragile eco-system of Mount Abu – Every authority is duty bound to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
155
comply with its terms and any action in breach must peril invalidation
– NGT had correctly directed the ZMP 2030 to be modified to bring
it into conformity with the ESZ Notification and the precautionary
principle – Specifically, it correctly upheld the Expert Committee
Report’s recommendation that no construction should be allowed
to take place on the appellant’s land.
Environmental Law – Precautionary principle – Held: The
precautionary principle envisages that the State cannot refuse to
act to preserve the environment simply because all the scientific
data may not be available – If there is some data to suggest that
environmental degradation is possible, the State must step into action
to prevent it from taking place.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
Merits of Expert Committee Report
HELD: 1. As regards the disputed site in question in this
appeal (“near STP plant”), the Expert Committee has furnished
valid reasons for determining that construction must not be
allowed so as to preserve the eco-system of the region. The
Expert Committee has noted that while the proposed site for
residential buildings covers the land of low slopes which is stable,
it also covers lands with a high slope domain which are not suitable
for construction. At places with a high slope domain, the landscape
was noted to be fragile in terms of soil erosion. Further, the Expert
Committee opined that the proposed tourism facility centre may
disturb the wild life eco-system. Additionally, although the low
slope domain may be suitable for construction, the site is a habitat
for wildlife and footprints of the sloth bear were also observed
during the field visit. It was in this context that the Expert
Committee determined that construction must not be allowed on
the site to preserve the eco-system. In comparison, the
observations contained in Table 16 with reference to the “Sunset
Road Scheme” and the “Sunrise Housing Society” sites clearly
indicate that there is no discrimination against the appellant since
there is a material difference in the location and suitability of the
sites for construction. [Para 24][174-A-E]
PRAGNESH SHAH v. DR. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
Precautionary Principle
2. The report of the Expert Committee is consistent with
the precautionary principle. The report has hence be

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