STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS v. YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469

Court: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)

Bench: Yogendera Mohan Sengupta

Case summary

particular cases; whereas an administrative act is the making and issue of a specific direction or the limited jurisdiction, can do so or not, would be in negative - The first order of NGT is liable to be set aside

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019 [2024] 1 S. C. R. 973 : 2024 INSC 30 The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another (Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019) With Transferred Case (C) No. 2 of 2023 11 January 2024 [B. R. Gavai* and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ] Issue for Consideration What is the Legislative Scheme of the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 (TCP Act); What is the nature of functions/powers of the Authorities under Chapter-IV of the TCP Act; Whether the NGT could have issued directions to the legislative body to exercise its legislative functions in a particular manner; Whether observations in Para 47 of the Mantri Techzone Private Limited would operate as res judicata; Whether the NGT was justified in passing the order dated 14. 10.

2022 when the High Court was seized of the same issue during the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 5960 of 2022; Balancing the need for Development and Protection of the Environment.

Headnotes Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 (TCP Act) - Legislative scheme of: Held: The TCP Act has been enacted to make provision for planning and development and use of land; to make better provision for the preparation of development plans and sectoral plans with a view to ensuring that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective - It also provides for constitution of Town and Country Development Authority for proper implementation of town and country development plan - It also provides for development and administration of special areas through the Special Area Development Authority - Under Section 13 of the TCP Act, the State Government is empowered to constitute planning areas for the purposes of the Act and define the limits thereof - Under Section 15 of the TCP Act, the Director is required to carry out the survey and prepare an existing land use map and, * Author 974 forthwith publish the same in such manner as may be prescribed together with public notice of the preparation of the map - It also provides for inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto within thirty days from the date of publication of such notice - Section 15-A of the TCP Act deals with "Freezing of land use pending preparation of existing land use map u/s.

15(1)" - S. 16 of the TCP Act deals with "Freezing of land use on the publication of the existing land use map u/s. 15" - s. 17(1) of the TCP Act deals with "Interim Development Plans" - The provisions of ss. 18, 19 and 20 of the TCP Act deals with development plan, Publication of draft publication plan and sanction of development plan.

[Paras 30-40] Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 - Nature of functions/powers of the Authorities under Chapter-IV of the TCP Act - The powers vested with the Director and the State Government are for enacting a piece of delegated legislation: Held: Chapter-IV of the TCP Act is a complete code, providing for preparation of draft development plan, publication of draft development plan with a publication of its notice, inviting objections and suggestions, giving reasonable opportunity to all persons affected of being heard, making modifications in the draft development plan as may be considered necessary by the Director and thereafter submitting it to the State Government - Chapter-IV of the TCP Act provides for inviting objections and suggestions at two stages - Firstly, at the stage of Section 19 where the Director is required to invite objections and suggestions to the draft development plan and after giving an opportunity of being heard and considering the objections and suggestions, submit the development plan to the State Government - Under Section 20 of the TCP Act, a second opportunity of making objections and suggestions has been provided - Again, the State Government is required to give an opportunity of hearing to such objectors before granting final approval to the development plan - A perusal of the scheme of the TCP Act and particularly Chapter-IV thereof would establish beyond doubt that the powers vested with the Director and the State Government are for enacting a piece of delegated legislation.

[Para 45, 47] Administrative Law - Distinction between the legislative function and administrative function: The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v.

Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another Held: A legislative act is the creation and promulgation of a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases; whereas an administrative act is the making and issue of a specific direction or the application of a general rule to a particular case in accordance with the requirements of policy - Legislation is the process of formulating a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases and usually operating in future - Whereas, administration is the process of performing particular acts of issuing particular orders or of making decisions which apply general rules to particular cases - It has also been held that rule-making is normally directed towards the formulation of requirements having a general application to all members of a broadly identifiable class; whereas an adjudication, on the other hand, applies to specific individuals or situations - In the instant case, it will be amply clear that the preparation of draft development plan u/s.

18 of the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977, finalization of the same u/s. 19 of the TCP Act by the Director and grant of approval by the State u/s. 20 of the TCP Act are all legislative functions - The provisions enable the delegated legislative body to formulate the provisions which will have a general application to all members of the broadly identifiable classes. [Paras 50, 51] Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 - Whether the NGT could have issued directions to the legislative body to exercise its legislative functions in a particular manner: Held: A perusal of the first order (16. 11.

2017) of NGT would reveal that the NGT, in effect, has issued directions to the authority empowered to enact the development plan, to do so in a particular manner - It is a settled law that the Constitution of India does not permit the courts to direct or advise the Executive in the matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of Legislature or Executive - It is also settled that the courts cannot issue directions to the Legislature for enacting the laws in a particular manner or for amending the Acts or the Rules - It is for the Legislature to do so - It is also a settled position of law that neither the High Courts while exercising powers u/Art. 226 of the Constitution nor the Supreme Court while exercising powers u/Art.

32 of the Constitution can direct the legislature or its delegatee to enact a law or subordinate legislation in a particular manner - If the High Courts and the Supreme Court, in their extra-ordinary powers u/Arts. 226 and 32 of the Constitution 976 cannot do so, the answer to the question as to whether a Tribunal constituted under a statute, having a limited jurisdiction, can do so or not, would be in negative - The first order of NGT is liable to be set aside on the short ground that it has transgressed its limitations and attempted to encroach upon the field reserved for the delegatee to enact a piece of delegated legislation - When the TCP Act empowers the State Government and the Director to exercise the powers to enact a piece of delegated legislation, the NGT could not have imposed fetters on such powers and directed it to exercise its powers in a particular manner.

[Paras 66, 69, 70] Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 - A reliance is placed on the case of Mantri Techzone Private Limited by respondent No.

1 - Whether observations in Para 47 of the Mantri Techzone Private Limited would operate as res judicata: Held: In the said case the Advocate General of the State had specifically argued that the Revised Master Plan is statutory in nature and the NGT has no power, competence or jurisdiction to consider the validity or vires of any statutory provision/regulation - It was therefore argued that the order of the NGT to that extent was liable to be set aside - It was similarly argued on behalf of the other appellant that the order of the NGT impugned therein which revised buffer zones also had the effect of amending the Revised Master Plan 2015 - A perusal of para 29 of the Mantri Techzone Private Limited would clearly reveal that the counsel appearing for the applicants before the High Court has fairly conceded to the setting aside of those general directions - It could thus be seen that, though the issue was raised before the High Court with regard to the power of the NGT to issue such directions, the Supreme Court did not go into that issue on the basis of the concessions made by the appellants - Therefore, the observations found in para 47 of the Mantri Techzone Private Limited could not be construed to be a precedent or a ratio decidendi.

[Para 76] Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 - Whether the NGT was justified in passing the order dated 14. 10. 2022 when the High Court was seized of the same issue during the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 5960 of 2022: Held: The second order of NGT (order dated 14. 10. 2022) arises out of publication of the draft development plan on 08. 02. 2022 - It was held that the draft development plan, being in conflict with the The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another first order (dated 16. 11. 2017) of NGT, was illegal and cannot be given effect to - The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v.

Union of India and others clearly holds that all Tribunals will act as the only Courts of first instance in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted - It is a settled position of law that the High Courts exercise the power of judicial review over all the Tribunals which are situated within its jurisdiction - In view of the settled legal position, the continuation of the proceedings by the NGT during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court was not in conformity with the principles of judicial propriety - Needless to state that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, insofar as its territorial jurisdiction is concerned, has supervisory jurisdiction over the NGT - Despite pendency of the proceedings before the High Court including the one challenging the interim order dated 12. 05. 2022 passed by NGT, the NGT went ahead with the passing of the second order dated 14. 10.

2022 impugned herein - The perusal of the orders of the NGT itself reveal that though the NGT was informed about the High Court being in seisin of the proceedings, it went on to hold that the judgment given by it was binding and therefore, the draft development plan, which in its view, was not in conformity with its judgment, was liable to be set aside - The NGT ought not to have continued with the proceedings after the High Court was in seisin of the matter and specifically when it was informed about the same - That apart, the second order of NGT (dated 14. 10. 2022) is passed basically on the basis of the first order of NGT (dated 16. 11. 2017) - Since, the first order of NGT itself to be not tenable in law, the second order of NGT which is solely based on the first order of NGT, is liable to be set aside. [Paras 91, 94, 105, 106, 109, 111, 112] Environment - Balancing the need for Development and Protection of the Environment - Discussed.

Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 - Development Plan 2041 - Finalization of: Held: The development plan has been finalized after taking into consideration the reports of various expert committees, the studies undertaken with regard to various aspects including environmental & ecological aspects and after undergoing the rigorous process, including that of inviting objections and suggestions at two stages. [Paras 123, 124] 978 Case Law Cited L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others[1997] 2 SCR 1186 : (1997) 3 SCC 261 - followed. Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority (H. P. BSM & DA) v. Central Empowered Committee and Others [2021] 1 SCR 344 : (2021) 4 SCC 309;State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development and Others[2020] 12 SCR 1139 : (2020) 9 SCC 781; Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India v.

Aam Aadmi Lokmanch and Others [2020] 6 SCR 1050 : (2021) 11 SCC 566;Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited and Others [2019] 3 SCR 777 : (2019) 19 SCC 479;Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and Others [2017] 12 SCR 956 ; State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Satpal Saini[2017] 1 SCR 658 : (2017) 11 SCC 42;Ambesh Kumar (Dr. ) v. Principal, L. L. R. M. Medical College, Meerut and Others[1987] 1 SCR 661 : 1986 Supp SCC 543;Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others[1982] 1 SCR 1137 : (1982) 1 SCC 39;State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament[2022] 6 SCR 810 :(2022) 8 SCC 156;T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 982 : (1997) 2 SCC 267;Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, In Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2004[2016] 11 SCR 15 : (2017) 1 SCC 121;State of Tamil Nadu v.

State of Kerala and Another[2014] 12 SCR 875 : (2014) 12 SCC 696;Mantri Techzone Private Limited v. Forward Foundation and Others [2019] 4 SCR 995 : (2019) 18 SCC 494;Pragnesh Shah v. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma and Others [2022] 8 SCR 154 : (2022) 11 SCC 493; Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and Others (1997) 11 SCC 605;Resident's Welfare Association and Another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others [2023] 1 The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another SCR 601:(2023) 8 SCC 643;Bangalore Development Authority v. Aircraft Employees' Cooperative Society Limited and Others[2012] 4 SCR 881 : (2012) 3 SCC 442;Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and Others[2021] 15 SCR 283 :(2022) 11 SCC 1;T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others [2023] 6 SCR 601 :2023 INSC 430 - referred to. Union of India and Another v. Cynamide India Ltd.

and Another[1987] 2 SCR 841 : (1987) 2 SCC 720;Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur [1980] 2 SCR 1111 : (1980) 2 SCC 295;Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and Others v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and Others[1989] 3 SCR 405 : (1989) 3 SCC 396;Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Promoters and Builders Association and Another[2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 207 : (2004) 10 SCC 796;V. K. Naswa v. Home Secretary, Union of India and Others[2012] 2 SCR 912 : (2012) 2 SCC 542;Manoj Narula v. Union of India[2014] 9 SCR 965 : (2014) 9 SCC 1;Union of India and Others v. Dhanwanti Devi and Others [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 32 : (1996) 6 SCC 44;Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others [2012] 12 SCR 818 : (2013) 11 SCC 404;Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Others[1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507 : (1996) 5 SCC 281;Essar Oil Limited v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and Others [2004] 1 SCR 808 : (2004) 2 SCC 392; N. D.

Jayal and Another v. Union of India and Others [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 152 : (2004) 9 SCC 362;State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Others[2022] 19 SCR 781 :2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469 - relied on. State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Yogendra Mohan Sengupta and OthersCivil Writ Petition (CWP) No. 5960 of 2022;Rajeev Varma and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others,CWP No. 4595 of 2011;Forward Foundation v. State of Karnataka 2016 SCC OnLine NGT 1409 - referred to. 980 List of Acts Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977; Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Rules, 1978; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Constitution of India.

List Keywords Planning area, Director to prepare development plans; Existing land use maps; Development plan; Publication of draft publication plan; Sanction of development plan; Delegated legislation; Administrative Law; Legislative body; Legislative function; Administrative function; Tribunals; Power of Judicial review of the High Court; Principles of judicial propriety; High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunals; Development and Protection of the Environment; Development Plan 2041. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 16. 11. 2017 of the National Green Tribunal in OA No. 121 of 2014 and Dated 16. 07. 2018 in RA No. 08 of 2018. With Transferred Case (C) No. 02 Of 2023 Appearances for Parties Anup Rattan, Vinay Kuthalia, Sr. Advs. , Puneet Rajta, Joydip Pati, Rishi Malhotra, Himanshu Tyagi, Advs. for the Appellants. Sanjay Parikh, Rajive Bhalla, P. V. Surendranath, Sr. Advs.

, Rahul Choudhary, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Ms. Itisha Awasthi, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Raghav Goel, Anurag Tandan, Sanjay Jain, Subhash Chandran K. R. , Ms. Krishna L R, Biju P Raman, Sawan Kumar Shukla, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Subodh Kr. Pathak, Shashi Ranjan, Raghav Goel, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B . R. Gavai, J. INDEX* I INTRODUCTION Paras 1 to 2 II. FACTS Paras 3 to 4. 1 III. SUBMISSIONS Paras 5 to 29 IV. CONSIDERATION Paras 30 to 122 A. Legislative Scheme of the TCP Act. Paras 30 to 44 B. Nature of functions/powers of the Paras 45 to 61 Authorities under Chapter-IV of the TCP Act. C. Whether the NGT could have issued Paras 62 to 70 directions to the legislative body to exercise its legislative functions in a particular manner? D.

Whether observations in Para 47 of the Paras 71 to 78 Mantri Techzone Private Limited (supra) would operate as res judicata? E. Development Plan 2041. Paras 79 to 90 F. Whether the NGT was justified in passing Paras 91 to 112 the order dated 14th October 2022 when the High Court was seized of the same issue during the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 5960 of 2022? G. Balancing the need for Development and Paras 113 to 122 Protection of the Environment. V. CONCLUSION Paras 123 to 128 List of Abbreviations 1. NGT - National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi 2. First order of NGT - Order of NGT dated 16th November 2017 * Ed. Note: Pagination is as per the original judgment. 982 3. Second order of - Order of NGT dated 14th October 2022 NGT 4. SPA - Shimla Planning Area 5. CWP - Civil Writ Petition 6. TCP Act - Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 7. 1978 Rules - Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Rules, 1978 8. OA - Original Application 9.

FC Act - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 10. NDMA - National Disaster Management Authority 11. HPMC Act - Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 12. BPMC Act - Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 13. MRTP Act - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 14. AT Act - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 I. INTRODUCTION Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 OF 2019 1. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 16th November 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "first order of NGT") passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "NGT") in Original Application (OA) No. 121 of 2014, whereby various directions were issued by the NGT, and the order dated 16th July 2018 passed by the NGT in Review Application No. 8 of 2018, whereby the review sought of the first order of NGT by the present appellants was dismissed. Transferred Case (C) No. 2 of 2023 2.

The draft development plan for 22,450 hectares of Shimla Planning Area (hereinafter referred to as "SPA") which was finalized vide a notification dated 16th April 2022, came to be stayed by the NGT, vide an interim order dated 12th May 2022. By the said order, it restrained The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another the appellants herein from taking any further steps in pursuance of the draft development plan of the SPA. The State of Himachal Pradesh and its instrumentalities-appellants herein preferred Civil Writ Petition (CWP) No. 5960 of 2022 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Yogendra Mohan Sengupta and Others before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the said interim order. Despite the pendency of the said writ petition, the NGT, vide its final order dated 14th October 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the "second order of NGT") in OA No.

297 of 2022, held that the draft development plan, being in conflict with the first order of NGT, was illegal and cannot be given effect to. Thereafter by an amendment in the said CWP No. 5960 of 2022, the second order of NGT also came to be challenged before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. On 14th November 2022, this Court passed an order in Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019 transferring the said CWP No. 5960 of 2022 from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to itself, which came to be re-numbered as Transferred Case (C) No. 2 of 2023. II. FACTS Facts giving rise to filing of Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019: 3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019, are as follows: 3. 1 The Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "TCP Act") was enacted by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1977. Vide Government Notification dated 30th November 1977, the SPA came to be constituted.

The State of Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 87 of the TCP Act, enacted the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "1978 Rules"). The existing land-use for SPA was notified by a notice dated 29th December 1977 and was adopted by another notice dated 14th March 1978. 3. 2 The interim development plan for SPA was approved by a notification dated 24th March 1979 for the period 1979-2001. Vide notification dated 11th August 2000 issued by the Department of Town & Country Planning (Government of Himachal Pradesh), further amendments were carried out to the interim development plan for the SPA notified by the aforesaid notification dated 24th March 1979. 984 3.

3 By another notification dated 7th December 2000 issued by the Department of Town & Country Planning (Government of Himachal Pradesh), in pursuance of the notification dated 11th August 2000, a survey of "Green Belt" within existing Core & restricted areas of the SPA was carried out and areas were declared as "Green Belt". 3. 4 A writ petition being CWP No. 4595 of 2011 titled Rajeev Varma and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others came to be filed in the year 2011 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. A direction was sought in the said writ petition to the State of Himachal Pradesh to prepare a development plan for the SPA in accordance with the TCP Act within a time-bound schedule. 3. 5 Respondent No. 1 herein Yogendera Mohan Sengupta filed an OA (No. 121 of 2014) before the NGT, wherein he made the following prayers: (i) "Direct the State Government and the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to recognize the areas mentioned in notification dated 7. 12.

2000 as forest and any non-forest activity should not be allowed without prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest. (ii) Direct the State Government not to change the land use in any forests/green belt area as stated in clause d of notification dated 11. 8. 2000 to protect the ecology, environment and future of Shimla. (iii) Pass any other orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. " 3. 6 The appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh (respondent in the said OA) filed a reply dated 23rd July 2014 before the NGT, wherein it specifically contended that the use of the words "Green Belt" does not include or bring the areas under forests and the "Green Belt" includes both forest and non-forest areas and that no permission for construction or any non-forestry activity would be allowed on forest land without approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "FC Act").

The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another 3. 7 Despite the assurance given by the State Government, the NGT, suo motu, extended the scope of the application and vide an ad-interim order dated 30th May 2014 banned all types of construction activities in the Green Belt areas of Shimla covered under the notification dated 7th December 2000. 3. 8 Thereafter, vide order dated 12th October 2015 in the said OA No. 121 of 2014, the NGT constituted a Committee comprising of officers from the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), a senior scientist from Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun as nominated by the Director and other officials of the State and Central Governments for submitting its report on various aspects including water supply and the strength of carrying capacity of the hills. 3.

9 Pursuant to the said order dated 12th October 2015 passed by the NGT, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Town & Country Planning (Government of Himachal Pradesh) issued a notification dated 6th November 2015 for the constitution of an Expert Committee. The Expert Committee submitted a report to the NGT on 29th August 2016. Along with an affidavit filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the final report of the Expert Committee came to be submitted to the NGT on 20th May 2017. 3. 10Thereafter the first order of NGT came to be passed, whereby it issued various directions to the appellants herein and further banned all kinds of construction activities in core/forest/green areas in Shimla and further restricted the construction and re- construction activities in the entire SPA. 3. 11Some of the directions issued vide first order of NGT, inter alia, prohibited new construction of any kind, i. e.

residential, institutional and commercial, in any part of the core and green/ forest area and also directed that even in the other areas which fall within the SPA, construction would not be permitted beyond 2 storeys + attic floor. It further directed that, in case of unsafe and unfit residential structures in the core and green/forest areas, re-construction would only be allowed for residential purposes and that too, not beyond 2 storeys and an attic floor. 3. 12In direction No. VIII in the first order of NGT, it directed the State to finalise the development plan within three months 986 from the date of the pronouncement of its first order. It also directed the said development plan to be notified in accordance with law and directed to take into consideration the directions and precautions as suggested in the first order of NGT while finalizing the development plan. 3.

13The NGT also constituted an Implementation Committee and a Supervisory Committee entrusted with the responsibility for carrying out the specific directions given under the first order of NGT and to provide NOCs or necessary permissions to the stakeholders, whether State or private parties. 3. 14The appellants thereafter filed a Review Application No. 8 of 2018 seeking review of the first order of NGT. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 16th July 2018. Being aggrieved thereby, Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019 have been filed before this Court. Facts giving rise to filing of Transferred Case (C) No. 2 of 2023: 4. In pursuance of the directions issued vide first order of NGT and in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under the TCP Act and the 1978 Rules framed thereunder, the State of Himachal Pradesh published a draft development plan on 8th February 2022.

It is to be noted that various directions were also issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh from time to time in CWP No. 4595 of 2011 for finalization of the development plan in accordance with the TCP Act. The State of Himachal Pradesh also invited objections and suggestions from the general public in relation to the draft development plan. In all, 97 objections/suggestions were received by the State of Himachal Pradesh within stipulated time-period and the same were heard by the Director in due course. CWP Nos. 23 and 37 of 2022 were also filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh praying inter alia for stay of the draft development plan. 4. 1 In the meantime, respondent No. 1 herein-Yogendera Mohan Sengupta filed another OA (No. 297 of 2022) before the NGT in relation to the draft development plan.

The NGT, vide interim order dated 12th May 2022, stayed the draft development plan and restrained the State of Himachal Pradesh from taking any further steps in pursuance of the draft development plan. Being aggrieved thereby, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed CWP The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another No. 5960 of 2022 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Despite the pendency of the said CWP No. 5960 of 2022, the NGT, vide its second order, held that the draft development plan, being in conflict with the first order of NGT, is illegal and cannot be given effect to. The appellants herein filed an application in CWP No. 5960 of 2022, before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, praying for amending the writ petition so as to challenge the second order of NGT. Since common issues were being considered by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.

5348-5349 of 2019, this Court vide an order dated 14th November 2022, directed the transfer of the said CWP No. 5960 of 2022 before itself. III. SUBMISSIONS 5. We have heard Shri Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Shri Vinay Kuthalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Shimla Municipal Corporation and Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the common respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019 and Transferred Case (Civil) No. 2 of 2023.. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants: 6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the State was fully aware of its duties and responsibilities as envisaged by the Constitution of India as well as the relevant statutory provisions. It is submitted that while finalizing the development plan, the State has adopted a proactive role to ensure that a balance is struck between the developmental and environmental issues. 7.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the development plan has been finalized in exercise of statutory powers vested in the appellants under Sections 13 to 20 of the TCP Act, after considering all the recommendations and suggestions of various expert bodies and technical committees as well as the directions and recommendations of the NGT. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that a bare perusal of Chapters 12 and 17 of the development plan would go to show that the entire environmental aspects as well as the suggestions and directions of the NGT issued vide first order of NGT have been fully and duly considered before finalizing the development plan. 988 9. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that while taking steps to finalise the development plan, the appellants have attempted to balance the developmental requirements for catering to the needs of the expanding population, with the safeguards to preserve and protect the environment.

It is submitted that while finalizing the development plan, the entire procedure as prescribed under the Statutes was duly followed. 10. The learned Advocate General as well as Shri Kuthalia submitted that the planning regulations divide the areas into different categories. It is submitted that, in order to protect the environment, various stringent provisions have been made such as: (i) "In the core area, only 2 storeys + attic is permitted and parking floor is permitted only in those plots which are accessible by motorable road; (ii) In the non-core area and the Planning Area, only 3 storeys + attic is permitted and parking floor is only permitted in plots which are adjacent to motorable roads; and (iii) Rebuilding and reconstruction of old buildings has been permitted strictly on old lines.

With the efflux of time in many buildings, there are different owners of each floor; (iv) In green belt areas which are lying between constructed areas, only single storey construction with attic is permissible. However, no tree will be permitted to be felled in any such area and no construction will be permitted in forest area without following the mandate of the Forest Conservation Act. " 11. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that appropriate setbacks have also been made mandatory in order to avoid overcrowding. It is submitted that because of the peculiar climate of Shimla, the attic is necessary because the roof is required to be sloping in hilly terrain, to allow for run-off of rain and snow. It is further submitted that construction will only be permitted after a soil investigation report of the area and assessment of structural stability by an expert are made. The construction is required to be approved by a qualified architect or engineer. 12.

The first and second orders of NGT are also challenged by the appellants on the ground that the jurisdiction of NGT is limited to the civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "NGT Act"). It is submitted that Schedule I of the NGT Act does not include town and country planning and as such, the orders passed by the NGT are without jurisdiction. 13. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that the exercise of power for finalisng the development plan is a quasi-legislative power and the NGT could not have issued directions to exercise that power in a particular manner.

It is submitted that the said would amount to encroachment upon the statutory functions of the State which are entrusted to it by virtue of the TCP Act. 14. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the NGT could not have suo motu enlarged the scope of OA No. 121 of 2014 as it is a body constituted under a statute and it has to exercise its jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute. 15. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that various directions issued by the NGT are contrary to the provisions of the TCP Act, Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for short, "HPMC Act") and the various Bye-laws, Rules and Notifications framed thereunder and as such, not sustainable in law. A reliance in this respect is placed on the following judgments of this Court: Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority (H. P. BSM & DA) v. Central Empowered Committee and Others1, State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development and Others2, Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India v. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch and Others3, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited and Others4 andTechi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and Others5. 1 [2021] 1 SCR 344 : (2021) 4 SCC 309 : 2021 INSC 18 2 [2020] 12 SCR 1139 : (2020) 9 SCC 781 : 2020 INSC 516 3 [2020] 6 SCR 1050 : (2021) 11 SCC 566 : 2020 INSC 452 4 [2019] 3 SCR 777 : (2019) 19 SCC 479 : 2019 INSC 220 5 [2017] 12 SCR 956 : (2018) 11 SCC 734 : 2017 INSC 986 990 16. It is submitted that since the development plan was prepared by the State in exercise of its constitutional powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and statutory powers under the TCP Act and HPMC Act, the NGT could not have issued directions to act in a manner which would be contrary to those provisions.

Reliance in this respect is placed on the following judgments of this Court: State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Satpal Saini6, Ambesh Kumar (Dr. ) v. Principal, L. L. R. M. Medical College, Meerut and Others7andBishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others8. 17. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the directions issued by the NGT, rather than subserving any public interest are contrary to the public interest inasmuch as vast number of citizens are being put to great hardships and inconvenience. It is submitted that on account of the directions issued by the NGT, re-construction of the old structures which are in dilapidated condition and which is permissible on the existing plinth area, has been brought to a complete halt. 18. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the State is alive to the requirement of protecting environment and as such, the Cabinet has taken a decision wherein it prescribed more stringent measures.

19. Both the orders of NGT are also challenged on the ground that when the High Court was seized of the matter with regard to the draft development plan, the NGT could not have entertained the proceedings and passed the orders therein. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament)9. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents: 20. Shri Parikh, on the contrary, submitted that the first order of NGT threw light on the serious concerns regarding the fragile ecology of State of Himachal Pradesh in general and Shimla in particular. The 6 [2017] 1 SCR 658 : (2017) 11 SCC 42 7 [1987] 1 SCR 661 : 1986 Supp SCC 543 : 1986 INSC 275 8 [1982] 1 SCR 1137 : (1982) 1 SCC 39 : 1981 INSC 189 9 [2022] 6 SCR 810 : (2022) 8 SCC 156 : 2022 INSC 632 The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v.

Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another first order of NGT has also tried to address issues with regard to continuous instances of landslides and collapsing of buildings, cloud bursts and earthquakes. 21. Shri Parikh further submitted that the first order of NGT is based on the report presented by the High Powered Committee appointed by it. The NGT has considered in detail the report of the High Powered Committee, various other documents and government records. After consideration of the same, directions have been given in order to ensure the protection of ecology and environment. It is submitted that the development plan is finalized keeping in view the directions issued by the NGT with regard to core areas, green areas, sinking areas and heritage areas. 22.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the NGT has rightly issued the directions to re-construct in core area or green/forest area within legally permissible statutory limits of the old buildings and in any case not beyond 2 storeys and an attic floor. It is submitted that further direction was that if any construction, particularly public utilities like hospitals, schools, offices are proposed to be constructed beyond 2 storeys plus an attic floor, then the plan has to be duly approved and permission has to be obtained from the concerned authorities. 23. Shri Parikh submitted that the "Green Belt" areas, by notification dated 7th December 2000, are covered under the dictionary meaning of 'forest' and are thus required to be protected under the provisions of the FC Act as per the order of this Court passed in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others10. 24.

Shri Parikh submitted that the challenge to the second order of NGT is also without substance inasmuch as the directions issued by the NGT, vide its first order, were binding upon the appellants and the draft development plan could not have been notified in contravention of the directions of the NGT. A reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, In Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 200411. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala and Another12. 10 [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 982 : (1997) 2 SCC 267 : 1997 INSC 226 11 [2016] 11 SCR 15 : (2017) 1 SCC 121 : 2016 INSC 1018 12 [2014] 12 SCR 875 : (2014) 12 SCC 696 : 2014 INSC 373 992 25. Shri Parikh further submitted that this Court in the case of Mantri Techzone Private Limited v.

Forward Foundation and Others13has held that the NGT has overriding powers over anything inconsistent contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law. He further submitted that this Court has held that while providing for restoration of environment in an area, the NGT can specify buffer zones around specific lakes and waterbodies in contradiction with zoning regulations under these statutes or Revised Master Plan. 26. Shri Parikh relies on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Pragnesh Shah v. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma and Others14, Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and Others15 and Resident's Welfare Association and Another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others16 in support of the proposition that the NGT has jurisdiction to issue directions in order to protect the ecologically sensitive areas. 27.

It is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is very limited and an interference is warranted only when the court finds that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the findings of the NGT. 28. It is submitted that if the directions issued by the NGT, which provide for a precautionary approach, are not followed and the construction activities as provided in the development plan are carried out, it will be disastrous for future generations and will result in calamities like frequent landslides due to floods and earthquakes, cloudbursts and other natural disasters resulting in loss to the human lives and property. It is therefore submitted that the present appeals as well as the transferred case arising out of the writ petitions pending before the High Court are liable to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Interveners/Land Owners: 29.

It was argued on behalf of the interveners who were owners of the plots in "Green Belt" areas that on account of the restrictions imposed in the "Green Belt" areas, they were deprived of enjoyment of their 13 [2019] 4 SCR 995 : (2019) 18 SCC 494 : 2019 INSC 315 14 [2022] 8 SCR 154 : (2022) 11 SCC 493 : 2022 INSC 47 15 (1997) 11 SCC 605 16 [2023] 1 S. C. R. 601 : (2023) 8 SCC 643 : 2023 INSC 22 The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another property which would be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was therefore submitted that a direction be given to the State to pay compensation to such owners for not being in a position to utilize their plot of lands. We prima facie find that such an issue could be beyond the scope of the present proceedings. IV. CONSIDERATION: A. Legislative Scheme of the TCP Act. 30.

It will be apposite to refer to the Preamble of the TCP Act, which reads thus: "An act to make provision for planning and development and use of land; to make better provision for the preparation of development plans and sectoral plans with a view to ensuring that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective to constitute the Town and Country Development Authority for proper implementation of town and country development plan, to provide for the development and administration of special areas through the Special Area Development Authority17, to make provision for the compulsory acquisition of land required for the purpose of the development plans and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. " 31.

It can thus be seen that the TCP Act has been enacted to make provision for planning and development and use of land; to make better provision for the preparation of development plans and sectoral plans with a view to ensuring that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective. It also provides for constitution of Town and Country Development Authority for proper implementation of town and country development plan. It also provides for development and administration of special areas through the Special Area Development Authority. 32. Section 13 of the TCP Act reads thus: "13. Planning Area. --(1) The State Government may, by notification, constitute planning areas for the purposes of this Act and define the limits thereof. 17 As amended vide Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 2015 (Act 14 of 2015).

994 (2) The State Government may, by notification,- (a) alter the limits of a planning area so as to include therein or exclude there from such area as may be specified in the notification; (b) amalgamate two or more planning areas so as to constitute one planning area; (c) divide any planning area into two or more planning areas; (d) declare that the whole or part of the area constituting the planning area shall cease to be planning area or part thereof. " 33. It can thus be seen that under Section 13 of the TCP Act, the State Government is empowered to constitute planning areas for the purposes of the Act and define the limits thereof. It is also empowered to alter the limits of a planning area, amalgamate two or more planning areas and also to divide any planning area into two or more planning areas. 34. Section 14 of the TCP Act reads thus: "14. Director to prepare Development Plans.

--Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder the Director shall-- *(a)prepare an existing land use map indicating the natural hazard proneness of the area; *(b)prepare an interim development plan keeping in view the regulation for land use zoning for natural hazard prone area; *(c) prepare a development plan keeping in view the regulation for land use zoning for natural hazard prone area;18 (d) prepare a sectoral plan; 18 *As amended vide Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 2013 (Act No. 41 of 2013). The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v.

Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another (e) carry such surveys and inspections and obtain such pertinent reports from Government departments, local authorities and public institutions as may be necessary for the preparation of the plans; (f) perform such duties and functions as are supplemental, incidental, and consequential to any of the foregoing functions or as may be assigned by the State Government for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. " 35. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 14 of the TCP Act have been amended vide Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 2013 (Act No. 41 of 2013). It can be seen that these clauses provide a special emphasis on the areas indicating the natural hazard. 36. Section 15 of the TCP Act reads thus: "15. Existing Land use Maps.

--(1) The Director shall carry out the survey and prepare an existing land use map and forthwith publish the same in such manner as may be prescribed together with public notice of the preparation of the map and of the place or places where the copies may be inspected, inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto within thirty days from the date of publication of such notice. (2) After the expiry of the period specified in the notice published under sub-section (1), the Director may, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all such persons who have filed the objections or suggestions, make such modification therein as may be considered desirable. (3) As soon as may be after the map is adopted with or without modifications the Director shall publish a public notice of the adoption of the map and the place or places where the copies of the same may be inspected.

(4) A copy of the notice shall also be published in the Official Gazette and it shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the map has been duly prepared and adopted. " 996 37. Under Section 15 of the TCP Act, the Director is required to carry out the survey and prepare an existing land use map and, forthwith publish the same in such manner as may be prescribed together with public notice of the preparation of the map. It also provides for inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto within thirty days from the date of publication of such notice. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 thereof provides for allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all such persons who have filed the objections or suggestions. It also enables the Director to make such modification therein as may be considered desirable.

Sub-section (3) thereof provides that after the map is adopted with or without modifications, the Director shall publish a public notice of the adoption of the map. A copy of the notice is required to be published in the Official Gazette. 38. Section 15-A of the TCP Act deals with "Freezing of landuse pending preparation of existing landuse map under Section 15(1)". Section 16 of the TCP Act deals with "Freezing of land use on the publication of the existing land use map under Section 15". Section 17(1) of the TCP Act deals with "Interim Development Plans". 39. The provisions of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the TCP Act are most relevant for considering the issues involved in the present matter, which read thus: "18. Development Plan.

--A development plan shall-- (a) indicate broadly the land use proposed in the planning areas; (b) allocate broadly areas or sector of land for,-- (i) residential, industrial, commercial or agricultural purposes, (ii) open spaces, parks and gardens, green belts, zoological gardens and play grounds, (iii) public institutions and offices, (iv) such special purposes as the Director may deem fit; (c) lay down the pattern of National and State highways connecting the planning area with the rest of the region ring roads, arterial roads, and the major roads within the planning area; The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v.

Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another (d) provide for the location of airports, railway stations, bus terminal and indicate the proposed extension and development of railways; (e) make proposals for general landscaping and preservation of natural areas; (f) project the requirement of the planning area of such amenities and utilities as water, drainage, electricity and suggest their fulfilment; (g) propose broad based regulations for sectoral development, by way of guideline, within each sector of the location, height, size of buildings and structures, open spaces, court-yards and the use to which such buildings and structures and land may be put 19"including regulations for façade control and sloping roof conforming to the hill architecture and environs"; (h) lay down the broad based traffic circulation patterns in a city; (i) suggest architectural control features, elevation and frontage of buildings and structures; (j) indicate measures for flood control, *"and protection against land slide", prevention of air and water pollution, disposal of garbage and general environmental control.

19. Publication of Draft Development Plan. --(1) The Director shall forthwith publish the draft development plans prepared under section 18 in such manner as may be prescribed together with a notice of the preparation of the draft development plan and the place or places where the copies may be inspected, inviting objections and the suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto, within thirty days from the date of publication of such notice. Such notice shall specify in regard to the draft development plan the following particulars, namely:-- (i) the existing land use maps; 19 As amended vide Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 2013 (Act No. 41 of 2013).

998 (ii) a narrative report, supported by maps and charts, explaining the provisions of the draft development plan; (iii) the phasing of implementation of the draft development plan as suggested by the Director; (iv) the provisions for enforcing the draft development plan and stating the manner in which permission to development may be obtained; (v) an approximate estimate of the cost of land acquisition for public purposes and the cost of works involved in the implementation of the plan.

(2) The Director shall, not later than ninety days after the date of expiry of the notice period under sub-section (1), consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice under sub-section (1) and shall, after giving reasonable opportunity to all persons affected thereby of being heard, make such modifications in the draft development plan as he may consider necessary, and submit not later than six months after the publication of the draft development plan, the plan so modified, to the State Government for approval together with all connected documents, plans, maps and charts. 20. Sanction of Development Plan.

--(1) As soon as may be after the submission of the development plan under Section 19, the State Government may either approve the development plan or may approve it with such modifications as it may consider necessary or may return it to the Director to modify the same or to prepare a fresh plan in accordance with such directions as it may issue in this behalf. (2) Where the State Government approves the development plan with modifications, the State Government shall, by a notice published in the Official Gazette invite objections and suggestions in respect of such modifications within a period of not less than thirty days from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. (3) After considering objections and suggestions and after giving a hearing to the persons desirous of being heard the State Government may confirm the modification in the development plan. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v.

Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another (4) The State Government shall publish the development plan as approved, under the foregoing provisions in the Official Gazette and shall along with the plan publish a public notice, in such manner as may be prescribed, of the approval of the development plan and the place or places where the copies of the approved development plan may be inspected. (5) The development plan shall come into operation from the date of publication thereof in the Official Gazette and as from such date shall be binding on all Development Authorities constituted under this Act and all local authorities functioning within the planning area. (6) After the coming into operation of the development plan, the interim development plan shall stand modified or altered to the extent the proposals in the development plan are at variance with the interim development plan. " 40. It can thus be seen that the development plan is required to consist of various factors.

Clause (b) of Section 18 of the TCP Act provides that it shall allocate broadly areas or sector of land for various purposes including residential, industrial, commercial or agricultural. It shall also provide for open spaces, parks and gardens, green belts, zoological gardens and play-grounds. It is also required to make proposals for general landscaping and preservation of natural areas. It is required to project the requirement of the planning area of such amenities and utilities as water, drainage, electricity and suggest their fulfilment. It is also required to propose broad-based regulations for sectoral development, by way of guide-lines, within each sector of the location, height, size of buildings and structures, open spaces, court-yards and the use to which such buildings and structures and land may be put including regulations for façade control and sloping roof conforming to the hill architecture and environs. 41.

It can thus be seen that a special emphasis is placed on regulations for façade control and sloping roof conforming to the hill architecture and environs. Clause (j) of Section 18 of the TCP Act, also specifically provides to indicate measures for flood control, protection against land slide, prevention of air and water pollution, disposal of garbage and general environmental control. 1000 42. Under Section 19(1) of the TCP Act, the Director is required to publish the draft development plan prepared under Section 18 in such manner as may be prescribed together with a notice of the preparation of the draft development plan and the place or places where the copies may be inspected. It provides for inviting objections and suggestions, in writing, from any person with respect thereto, within thirty days from the date of publication of such notice.

The notice to be issued under Section 19 requires that it should specify the existing land use maps, a narrative report supported by maps and charts, explaining the provisions of the draft development plan, the phasing of implementation of the draft development plan as suggested by the Director, the provisions for enforcing the draft development plan and stating the manner in which permission to development may be obtained and the approximate estimate of the cost of land acquisition for public purposes and the cost of works involved in the implementation of the plan. 43. Under sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the TCP Act, the Director is required to consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice under sub-section (1) thereof, not later than ninety days after the date of expiry of the notice period.

He is also required to give reasonable opportunity to all persons affected thereby of being heard and make such modifications in the draft development plan as he may consider necessary. He is also required to submit, not later than six months after the publication of the draft development plan, the plan so modified, to the State Government for approval together with all connected documents, plans, maps and charts. 44. Under Section 20 of the TCP Act, after the development plan under Section 19 is submitted to the State Government, it may either approve the development plan or it may approve it with such modifications as it may consider necessary or may return it to the Director to modify the same or to prepare a fresh plan in accordance with such directions as it may issue in this behalf.

Under sub-section (2) thereof, where the State Government approves the development plan with modifications, the State Government shall, by a notice, published in the Official Gazette, invite objections and suggestions in respect of such modifications within a period of not less than thirty days from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. Under sub-section (3) thereof, after considering objections and suggestions The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another and after giving a hearing to the persons desirous of being heard, the State Government may confirm the modification in the development plan.

Sub-section (4) thereof requires the State Government to publish the development plan as approved, under the foregoing provisions in the Official Gazette and shall along with the plan publish a public notice, in such manner as may be prescribed, of the approval of the development plan and the place or places where the copies of the approved development plan may be inspected. Sub-section (5) thereof provides that the development plan shall come into force from the date of publication thereof in the Official Gazette and as from such date shall be binding on all Development Authorities constituted under this Act and all local authorities functioning within the planning area. Sub-section (6) thereof provides that after the coming into operation of the development plan, the interim development plan shall stand modified or altered to the extent the proposals in the development plan are at variance with the interim development plan. B.

Nature of functions/powers of the Authorities under Chapter-IV of the TCP Act. 45. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions, leaves no manner of doubt, that Chapter-IV of the TCP Act is a complete code, providing for preparation of draft development plan, publication of draft development plan with a publication of its notice, inviting objections and suggestions, giving reasonable opportunity to all persons affected of being heard, making modifications in the draft development plan as may be considered necessary by the Director and thereafter submitting it to the State Government. 46. Under Section 20 of the TCP Act, the State Government is empowered to either approve the development plan or may approve it with such modifications as it may consider necessary or may return it to the Director to modify the same or to prepare a fresh plan in accordance with such directions as it may issue in this behalf.

Sub-section (2) thereof provides that where the State Government approves the development plan with modifications, it is again required to be published in the Official Gazette to invite objections and suggestions in respect of such modifications. The State Government is empowered to confirm the modification in the development plan after considering objections and suggestions and after giving a hearing to the persons desirous of being heard. 47. It could thus be seen that Chapter-IV of the TCP Act provides for inviting objections and suggestions at two stages. Firstly, at the stage of Section 19 where the Director is required to invite objections and suggestions to the draft development plan and after giving an opportunity of being heard and considering the objections and suggestions, submit the development plan to the State Government. Under Section 20 of the TCP Act, a second opportunity of making objections and suggestions has been provided.

Again, the State Government is required to give an opportunity of hearing to such objectors before granting final approval to the development plan. 48. A perusal of the scheme of the TCP Act and particularly Chapter-IV thereof would establish beyond doubt that the powers vested with the Director and the State Government are for enacting a piece of delegated legislation. 49. The distinction between the legislative function and administrative function is succinctly described by this Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Cynamide India Ltd. and Another20, which reads thus: "7. The third observation we wish to make is, price fixation is more in the nature of a legislative activity than any other. It is true that, with the proliferation of delegated legislation, there is a tendency for the line between legislation and administration to vanish into an illusion.

Administrative, quasi-judicial decisions tend to merge in legislative activity and, conversely, legislative activity tends to fade into and present an appearance of an administrative or quasi- judicial activity. Any attempt to draw a distinct line between legislative and administrative functions, it has been said, is "difficult in theory and impossible in practice". Though difficult, it is necessary that the line must sometimes be drawn as different legal rights and consequences may ensue. The distinction between the two has usually been expressed as "one between the general and the particular". "A legislative act is the creation and promulgation of a general rule of conduct without reference to particular 20 [1987] 2 SCR 841 : (1987) 2 SCC 720 : 1987 INSC 100 The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v.

Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another cases; an administrative act is the making and issue of a specific direction or the application of a general rule to a particular case in accordance with the requirements of policy". "Legislation is the process of formulating a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases and usually operating in future; administration is the process of performing particular acts, of issuing particular orders or of making decisions which apply general rules to particular cases. " It has also been said: "Rule-making is normally directed toward the formulation of requirements having a general application to all members of a broadly identifiable class" while, "an adjudication, on the other hand, applies to specific individuals or situations". But, this is only a broad distinction, not necessarily always true. ..... " 50. Though, this Court, in the celebrated case of Cynamide India Ltd.

(supra) observed that any attempt to draw a distinct line between legislative and administrative functions is difficult in theory and impossible in practice, it attempted to draw a line between the two inasmuch as different legal rights and consequences may ensue, in exercise of such functions. It has been held that the distinction between the two has usually been expressed as "one between the general and the particular". A legislative act is the creation and promulgation of a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases; whereas an administrative act is the making and issue of a specific direction or the application of a general rule to a particular case in accordance with the requirements of policy. It has been held that legislation is the process of formulating a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases and usually operating in future.

Whereas, administration is the process of performing particular acts of issuing particular orders or of making decisions which apply general rules to particular cases. It has also been held that rulemaking is normally directed towards the formulation of requirements having a general application to all members of a broadly identifiable class; whereas an adjudication, on the other hand, applies to specific individuals or situations. 51. When we apply the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it will be amply clear that the preparation of draft development plan under Section 18 of the TCP Act, finalization of the same under Section 19 of the TCP Act by the Director and grant of approval by 1004 the State under Section 20 of the TCP Act are all legislative functions. The provisions enable the delegated legislative body to formulate the provisions which will have a general application to all members of the broadly identifiable classes. 52. In the case of Tulsipur Sugar Co.

Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur21, again a challenge was made to the notification issued under Section 3 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914 on the ground that before issuance of final notification, the principles of audi alteram partem were not followed. While rejecting the said contention and holding the exercise of powers as a piece of conditional legislation, this Court observed thus: "7. ..... The power of the State Government to make a declaration under Section 3 of the Act is legislative in character because the application of the rest of the provisions of the Act to the geographical area which is declared as a town area is dependent upon such declaration. Section 3 of the Act is in the nature of a conditional legislation. Dealing with the nature of functions of a non-judicial authority, Prof. S. A. De Smith in Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd Edn. ) observes at p.

163: "However, the analytical classification of a function may be a conclusive factor in excluding the operation of the audi alteram partem rule. It is generally assumed that in English law the making of a subordinate legislative instrument need not be preceded by notice or hearing unless the parent Act so provides. " ......... 9. We are, therefore, of the view that the maxim "audi alteram partem" does not become applicable to the case by necessary implication. " 53. It is thus clear that this Court held that a declaration under Section 3 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914 provided for enabling the application of the rest of the provisions of the Act to the geographical area which is declared as a town area. It was thus held that the declaration made under Section 3 was legislative in character. 21 [1980] 2 SCR 1111 : (1980) 2 SCC 295 : 1980 INSC 38 The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another 54.

In the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and Others v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and Others22, the Government of Maharashtra had issued a draft notification under Section 3(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short, "BPMC Act"). The draft notification proposed for formation of "Kalyan Corporation". Against the said proposal, there were many objections and representations received from different sections. In the earlier draft notification, the area of Ulhasnagar Municipal Council was proposed to be merged in the proposed area of Kalyan Corporation. However, taking into consideration the objections, the area of Ulhasnagar Municipal Council was excluded from the area of Kalyan Corporation while issuing the final notification. The same was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition.

One of the reasons which weighed with the High Court while allowing the petition was that the opportunity of hearing was not given to one of the parties while issuing the final notification under Section 3(2) of the BPMC Act. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court while reversing the order of the High Court in the said case: "28. Equally, the rule issued by the High Court to hear the parties is untenable. The Government in the exercise of its powers under Section 3 is not subject to the rules of natural justice any more than is legislature itself. The rules of natural justice are not applicable to legislative action plenary or subordinate. The procedural requirement of hearing is not implied in the exercise of legislative powers unless hearing was expressly prescribed. The High Court, therefore, was in error in directing the Government to hear the parties who are not entitled to be heard under law. " 55.

It could thus be seen that this Court clearly held that the issuance of draft notification, consideration of objections and publication of final notification are done in exercise of legislative powers. The procedural requirement of hearing would not be implied unless the statute so provides for. 56. This Court, in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Promoters and Builders Association and Another23, had an occasion to consider somewhat similar provisions under 22 [1989] 3 SCR 405 : (1989) 3 SCC 396 : 1989 INSC 202 23 [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 207 : (2004) 10 SCC 796 : 2004 INSC 348 1006 the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, "MRTP Act"). In the said case, this Court was considering the power of the State Government to make any changes of its own in the modifications submitted by the Planning Authority under Section 37 of the MRTP Act. This Court observed thus: "5. Making of DCR or amendments thereof are legislative functions.

Therefore, Section 37 has to be viewed as repository of legislative powers for effecting amendments to DCR. That legislative power of amending DCR is delegated to the State Government. As we have already pointed out, the true interpretation of Section 37(2) permits the State Government to make necessary modifications or put conditions while granting sanction. In Section 37(2), the legislature has not intended to provide for a public hearing before according sanction. The procedure for making such amendment is provided in Section 37. Delegated legislation cannot be questioned for violating the principles of natural justice in its making except when the statute itself provides for that requirement. Where the legislature has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon it and it is not permissible to read natural justice into such legislative activity.

Moreover, a provision for "such inquiry as it may consider necessary" by a subordinate legislating body is generally an enabling provision to facilitate the subordinate legislating body to obtain relevant information from any source and it is not intended to vest any right in anybody. (Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. [(1987) 2 SCC 720], SCC paras 5 and 27. See generally H. S. S. K. Niyami v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 516] and Canara Bank v. Debasis Das [(2003) 4 SCC 557 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 507] . ) While exercising legislative functions, unless unreasonableness or arbitrariness is pointed out, it is not open for the Court to interfere. (See generally ONGC v. Assn. of Natural Gas Consuming Industries of Gujarat [1990 Supp SCC 397] . ) Therefore, the view adopted by the High Court does not appear to be correct. " 57.

It could thus be seen that this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation(supra) held that making of Development Control Rules (DCR) or amendments thereof are legislative functions. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another 58. In the said case, the Court also found that since the legislature did not provide for a public hearing before according sanction, the delegated legislation could not be questioned for violating the principles of natural justice in its making except when the statue itself provide for that requirement. The Court went on to hold that where the legislature has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon it and it is not permissible to read natural justice into such legislative activity. 59. Again, in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v.

Aircraft Employees' Cooperative Society Limited and Others24, the scheme for finalization of the development plan as provided under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 was considered and the said power was held to be in exercise of the legislative powers. 60. Recently, a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and Others25, after considering the earlier judgments, held that the change of use of government land which is of general nature would be a function which has a quasi-legislative hue to it. 61. It can thus be seen that it is a settled position of law that the exercise of power for the preparation, finalization and approval of development plan is a power exercised by the delegatee for enacting a subordinate piece of legislation.

We therefore have no manner of doubt in holding that the aforesaid provisions as contained in the TCP Act provide for exercise of power by a delegatee to enact a piece of subordinate legislation. C. Whether the NGT could have issued directions to the legislative body to exercise its legislative functions in a particular manner? 62. A perusal of the first order of NGT would reveal that the NGT, in effect, has issued directions to the authority empowered to enact the development plan, to do so in a particular manner. The question therefore that will have to be considered is as to whether the NGT could have exercised its jurisdiction in such a manner, to issue such directions. 24 [2012] 4 SCR 881 : (2012) 3 SCC 442 : 2012 INSC 50 25 [2021] 15 SCR 283 : (2022) 11 SCC 1: 2021 INSC 4 1008 63. In the case of V. K. Naswa v.

Home Secretary, Union of India and Others26, the petitioner-in-person had approached this Court to issue directions to the Central Government, through the Ministry of Law & Justice, to amend the law for taking action against a person for showing any kind of disrespect to the national flag or for not observing the terms contained in the Flag Code of India, 2002. In the alternative, it was prayed by the petitioner-in-person that this Court may be pleased to issue direction(s) in that regard. 64. This Court, in the said case, after surveying various earlier judgments on the issue, observed thus: "6. It is a settled legal proposition that the court can neither legislate nor issue a direction to the legislature to enact in a particular manner. 7. In Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of A. P. [(1990) 2 SCC 707 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1990) 13 ATC 724 : AIR 1990 SC 1251] and V. K. Sood v. Deptt.

of Civil Aviation [1993 Supp (3) SCC 9 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 907 : (1993) 25 ATC 68 : AIR 1993 SC 2285], this Court has held that the writ court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, has no power even indirectly to require the executive to exercise its law-making power. The Court observed that it is neither legal nor proper for the High Court to issue directions or advisory sermons to the executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within the domain of the executive under the Constitution. The power under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame rules is the legislative power. This power under the Constitution has to be exercised by the President or the Governor of a State, as the case may be. The courts cannot usurp the functions assigned to the executive under the Constitution and cannot even indirectly require the executive to exercise its law-making power in any manner.

The courts cannot assume to themselves a supervisory role over the rule-making power of the executive under Article 309 of the Constitution. While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance on a large number of judgments, particularly Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. UT, H. P. [(1971) 2 SCC 747 : AIR 1971 SC 2399], where it has been held that legislative power can be exercised only by the legislature or its delegate and none else. 26 [2012] 2 SCR 912 : (2012) 2 SCC 542 : 2012 INSC 10 The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another 8. In State of H. P. v. Parent of a Student of Medical College [(1985) 3 SCC 169 : AIR 1985 SC 910], this Court deprecated the practice adopted by the courts to issue directions to the legislature to enact a legislation to meet a particular situation observing : (SCC p. 174, para 4) "4. ...

The direction given by the Division Bench was really nothing short of an indirect attempt to compel the State Government to initiate legislation with a view to curbing the evil of ragging, for otherwise it is difficult to see why, after the clear and categorical statement by the Chief Secretary on behalf of the State Government that the Government will introduce legislation if found necessary and so advised, the Division Bench should have proceeded to again give the same direction. Thus the Division Bench was clearly not entitled to do. It is entirely a matter for the executive branch of the Government to decide whether or not to introduce any particular legislation. " 9. In Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364 : AIR 1989 SC 1899] this Court while dealing with a case like this at hand observed : (SCC p. 374, para 19) "19. ... While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits.

The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonise qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive. " 10. In Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 248 : (1992) 19 ATC 219 : AIR 1992 SC 96], this Court similarly observed : (SCC p. 33