AALOK JAGGA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The permissibility of a housing project proposed to be set up by the respondents in the name of Tata Camelot Housing Colony (Tata Housing Colony) is the core issue that has been raised in the present public interest litigation. The petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, has raised the aforesaid challenge on several grounds including what has been perceived to be an apparent conflict between the project and the vision of Mon Lee Corbusier, the architect of the planned city of Chandigarh. The project, according to petitioner, is in violation of the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Periphery Control Act'), as the various permissions and sanctions under the said Act which would enable commissioning/launching of the said project had not been obtained despite which advertisements have been issued proposing to "sell space" in the proposed housing colony. The petitioner contends that the project is not authorised under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, inasmuch as, the report of the State Experts Appraisal Committee (Annexure P-9) states that the project lies in the eco- sensitive and protected area and is within 10 kilometres of the periphery of Chandigarh. The petitioner also contends that the project falls within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake. It is the further case of the petitioner that being in close proximity to the Sukhna Wild Life Sanctuary, the project needed clearance under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which has been refused. It has also been pleaded that the project runs counter to the edict of Chandigarh as visualised by its founder and that the same has the potential of adversely affecting the claim of Chandigarh to the status of a heritage city which matter is pending before the concerned world body.

(2.) The promoters of the project and persons connected therewith, who are respondents No. 7, 8 and 9, have justified the project by contending that with the enactment of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the '1995 Act'), the provisions of the Periphery Control Act would cease to have any application to the site where the project is proposed to be located. The master plan, which has statutory force, has been drawn up under the 1995 Act covering village Kansal where the project is to be located. The said master plan would alone cover the matter to the exclusion of the Periphery Control Act. The respondents have conceded that if the provisions of the Periphery Control Act are held to be applicable, they are ready and willing to approach the necessary authorities for requisite sanctions and permissions. Insofar as the requirements under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act are concerned, according to the respondents, they have submitted to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the aforesaid enactments and the applications filed before the concerned authorities are pending. All these, according to the respondents, make the writ petition highly premature and the same assumes the colour of a speculative litigation seeking to obtain some observations from the court which could adversely affect the project by casting unintended fetters on the powers of the different authorities under the enactments referred to above.

(3.) The broad contours of the present proceeding having been outlined, we may now proceed to take note of the specific contentions of the contesting parties as made before us. However, before we do so, it may be appropriate to mention the somewhat conflicting stand of the parties with regard to the present stage of the applications filed under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act as well as the Wild Life (Protection) Act. While the petitioner, who is supported by the respondent No. 6-Chandigarh Administration, asserts that necessary sanction/permission under both the Acts have been refused by orders passed by the competent authorities, the promoters of the project contend to the contrary. The facts, as unfolded before us, indicate that against the refusal of sanction under the Environment (Protection) Act, the respondents have sought a review of the order on the ground that the findings arrived at, which have formed the basis of the refusal, are ex-parte. No order in the review matter has been passed by the competent authority, perhaps, because of the interim order passed in the PIL which has been clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court by order dated 31.1.2012 permitting the concerned authority under the different statutes governing the matter to exercise their respective jurisdictions in accordance with law. Insofar as the Wild Life (Protection) Act is concerned, it appears that the rejection has been made by the Chief Wild Life Warden who, the respondents claim, is merely a recommending authority and is required to forward his recommendation to the Central Government. As the rejection under the Wild Life (Protection) Act has been made by an authority not competent to do, the promoters of the project have sought a review of the order which is still pending for the same reason(s) as noticed above.