Summary
The development-plan process under Chapter IV of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act is delegated legislation. The NGT could not dictate how the State and Director exercised that planning power, and it should not have ruled on the later draft plan while the High Court was seized of the dispute. The Court left open whether the NGT otherwise had jurisdiction over the planning dispute.
Issues
- Whether the NGT could direct the State and the Director to prepare and finalize a development plan with specific restrictions, where the Town and Country Planning Act assigns them delegated legislative functions.
- Whether the NGT could decide a challenge to the draft development plan while the High Court was already seized of the same dispute.
- Whether the planning dispute arose from an enactment listed in Schedule I to the NGT Act and was within the NGT’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Provisions considered
- Chapter IV, Sections 13–20, Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977The Act entrusts the Director and State Government with preparing, publishing, modifying and approving development plans through a process of public notice, objections, hearings and Gazette publication. The Court held that these powers are legislative in character and may not be fettered by directions prescribing the plan’s content. (¶¶ 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 61)
- Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court’s judicial review and supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals is part of the constitutional structure. The NGT should not have continued with the later planning dispute after the High Court was seized of the same issue. (¶¶ 93, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112)
- Section 14 and Schedule I, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The State argued that the planning dispute did not arise from an enactment listed in Schedule I. Because the first NGT order was set aside for encroaching on delegated legislative powers, the Court expressly left the NGT’s subject-matter jurisdiction to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. (¶¶ 12, 89, 90)
Held
- The preparation and approval of a development plan under Chapter IV of the TCP Act is delegated legislation: it sets general rules for land use, development and building controls through the statutory process of publication, objections, hearings and approval. A tribunal cannot direct the delegate to exercise this legislative power in a particular manner or impose fetters on it. (¶¶ 39, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 69, 70)
- The NGT’s first order prescribed restrictions on construction and required the State to frame its development plan in a particular way. It was liable to be set aside for exceeding the NGT’s adjudicatory role and encroaching on the delegate’s legislative power. The Court did not decide the separate objection that the subject matter fell outside Section 14 and Schedule I of the NGT Act. (¶¶ 62, 69, 70, 89, 90)
- Paragraph 47 of Mantri Techzone did not establish a general precedent authorizing the NGT to prescribe the content of planning legislation. Read in context, the issue was not decided because the relevant appellant’s challenge to the general directions had been conceded; the observations were confined to that case’s circumstances. (¶¶ 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76)
- The NGT acted contrary to judicial propriety by deciding the challenge to the draft plan while the High Court was seized of the same dispute, including a petition challenging the NGT’s interim stay. The second NGT order, which rested on its first order, was also set aside. (¶¶ 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112)
- The Court did not endorse the 2023 development plan in detail. It found on a prima facie review that the plan included environmental safeguards and allowed implementation to proceed, while preserving the right to challenge any specific provision before the appropriate forum. Planning must balance development with environmental and ecological protection. (¶¶ 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 122, 123, 124, 126)
Result
The civil appeals and transferred case were allowed. The NGT’s orders of 16 November 2017, 16 July 2018, 12 May 2022 and 14 October 2022 were set aside. The State and its instrumentalities were permitted to implement the development plan published on 20 June 2023, subject to the Court’s observations. The NGT’s subject-matter jurisdiction was left open. No costs.