Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 11.09.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Others on 11 September, 2024
Author: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
2024:HHC:8420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPIL No.37 of 2022
.
Decided on: 11.09.2024
Court on its own motion ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate as
Amicus Curiae with Mr. J.R. Sharma and
Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents no.1 to 3.
Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for
respondent no.5.
Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent no.6.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)
The following prayers are made in this CWPIL:
"i. Pass an order thereby directing the Town
and Country Planning Department, Government of
Himachal Pradesh to withdraw the Development Plan
with immediate effect; and/or
ii. Pass an order thereby directing that the
Development Plan for Shimla Planning Area shall be
prepared only as per the directions contained in
judgment dated 16.11.2017; and/or
iii. Pass an order that the Development Plan for
Shimla is not notified in its present form, and if notified
is withdrawn summarily."
.
2. The development plan in question, whose withdrawal
is being sought by the representationist Richa Minocha, has since
been upheld in principle by the Supreme Court in its order dt.
11.01.2024 in State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Yogendera
Mohan Sen Gupta and another1.
3. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has observed
as under:
"123. We have gone through the development plan.
The development plan has been finalized after taking
into consideration the reports of various expert
committees and the studies undertaken with regard to
various aspects including environmental and
ecological aspects.
124. We, however, clarify that we have not
considered the development plan in minute details.
Upon its prima facie consideration, we have come to a
view that there are sufficient safeguards to balance the
need for development while taking care of and
addressing the environmental and ecological concerns.
We may however not be construed as giving our
imprimatur to the said development plan. At the same
time, it cannot be ignored that the development plan
has been finalized after various experts from various
Civil Appeal Nos.5348-5349 of 2019
fields including those concerned with urban planning,
environment etc., were taken on board. It also cannot
be ignored that the development plan has been
.
finalized after undergoing the rigorous process
including that of inviting objections and suggestions at
two stages, giving the hearing to such objectors and
suggesters and after considering the same. If any of
the citizen has any grievance that any provision is
detrimental to the environment or ecology, it is always
open to raise a challenge to such an independent
provision before the appropriate forum. Such a
challenge can be considered in accordance with law.
But, in our view, the development plan, which has been
finalized after taking recourse to the statutory
provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot
be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire
developmental activities to a standstill.
125. Insofar as the grievance of the Interveners,
who are the plot holders in the 'Green Belt' area, with
regard to payment of compensation is concerned, we
find that the said issue would be beyond the scope of
the present proceedings. We, therefore, without
specifying any opinion on such claim, relegate the
interveners to avail the appropriate remedy available
to them in law.
126. In the result, we pass the following order:
(iii) The appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh and
its instrumentalities are permitted to proceed with
the implementation of the development plan as
published on 20 th June 2023 subject to what has
been observed by us hereinabove."
.
4. Having regard to the above order of the Supreme
Court, no further orders are necessary in this PIL, which is
accordingly closed alongwith pending application(s) if any.
( M.S. Ramachandra Rao )
Chief Justice
r ( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
September 11, 2024
(vt)
