Summary
The Court upheld directions requiring Mount Abu’s Zonal Master Plan 2030 to conform to the 2009 Eco-sensitive Zone Notification, including the prohibition on construction on the appellant’s site. Assessing the plan against that statutory environmental notification lay within the National Green Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The final expert report supplied site-specific ecological reasons and showed material differences from sites cleared for construction. The precautionary principle required preventive action despite incomplete scientific certainty; the appellant’s reliance on an internal draft report did not displace the final assessment.
Issues
- Whether the NGT could test and require amendment of the zonal plan for conformity with the statutory Eco-sensitive Zone Notification.
- Whether the expert assessment discriminated against the appellant or lacked justification under the precautionary principle.
Provisions considered
- Sections 14, 15(1)(c) and 20, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010Environmental disputes arising from scheduled enactments and environmental restitution supported review of the plan; precautionary principles justified preventive protection of the site. (¶¶ 17-21, 25, 31-34)
- Clauses 3(1)(i), 3(10) and 3(13), Mount Abu Eco-sensitive Zone Notification, S.O.1545(E), dated 25 June 2009The statutory notification required an environmentally conforming zonal plan and protection of water resources and vulnerable slopes; authorities were bound to comply. (¶¶ 3-5, 18, 33-34)
Held
- The challenge raised a substantial environmental question arising from the notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, a scheduled enactment. Testing the zonal plan for conformity and ordering corrective modification fell within the NGT’s jurisdiction. It obtained expert assistance, heard objections and gave reasons for accepting the final report. (¶ 17-21)
- The internal draft report remained subject to deliberation; the final report submitted to the NGT represented the expert committee’s views. Reliance on the draft did not establish the alleged infirmity. (¶ 22)
- The appellant’s site included fragile steep slopes and wildlife habitat, with sloth-bear footprints observed during inspection. Even geologically stable portions could affect the ecosystem. Material differences in location and suitability distinguished the two comparison sites, defeating the discrimination claim. (¶¶ 12-13, 23-24)
- The precautionary principle requires anticipatory environmental protection. Incomplete scientific data cannot justify inaction where available information indicates a risk of degradation. The statutory notification was an enforceable protection for Mount Abu’s fragile ecosystem and the plan had to conform to it. (¶ 25-34)
Result
Appeals dismissed; NGT directions to modify ZMP 2030 and prohibit construction on the appellant’s land upheld.