E I H LIMITED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by E.I.H. Limited is offshoot of the two pending writ petitions known as "Udaipur Lakes System," challenging the order dated 8/9-12-2000 (Annex. 12) passed by the Collector, Udaipur, directing the petitioner Company to stop construction work with immediate effect of Phase Second of "Hotel Trident".

(2.) The City of Udaipur is known for its lakes system and for its scenic beauty. However, a concern was expressed by the citizens about increasing number of hotels around the Pichhola Lake polluting the water. The lakes which are lifeline of all the inhabitants of Udaipur have rapidly turned into a death trap on account of pollution in water, heavy siltation and encroachments. The writ petition in the public interest was filed before this Court as back as in the year 1982. The State Government realising that Udaipur lakes are facing environmental problems, silitation and also shrinkage in its area, with a view to protect the water of the lakes from further pollution, in exercise of powers under Section 299 read with Section 171 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act issued a notification dated 17-1-1997 declaring a prohibited area known as "No Construction Zone" around the lakes. The construction in the area specified in the notification was completely banned. Later-on, in view of certain difficulties faced because of the notification dated 17-1-1997, a decision was taken to frame the building construction bye laws in the said restricted zone. Accordingly, superseding the notification dated 17-1-1997, another notification dt. 10-12-1999 was issued whereby some of the areas which are neither attached nor related to Lakes System, have been excluded. However, a complaint was made that inspite of government notification, the constructions are being raised in the "No Construction Zone". It was also pointed out that in the garb of the Byelaws of 1999, the U.I.T. has permitted or deliberately ignored raising of construction in the "No Construction Zone." It was also brought to the notice of the Court that Udaipur Lakes System has been recognised and included in the "National Conservation Plans" of the Ministry of Environment and Pollution, Govt. of India. It was pointed out that the Central Government has ambitious plans for conservation and development of National Lakes. However, the pre-condition to take up the Udaipur Lakes System under the said plan is that the State Government should give free environmental status of the area within 200 metres of the high flood level of the lakes so that further deterioration does not take place. It was emphasized that 200 metres zone around the lakes may be declared as "No Construction Zone." It was realised that if the construction in the "No Construction Zone" is not strictly prohibited, efforts made in the public interest litigation pertaining to the Udaipur Lakes System would be a futile exercise. Thus, this Court directed the State Government and other local authorities to prepare a time bound programme. The time bound programme has been submitted by the authorities and this Court is monitoring the same. In this background, first directions were given by interim order dated 8th May, 2000. In the instant writ petition, we are concerned with the directions contained in sub para (vii) of Para 23 of the interim order dt. 8th May, 2000, which reads as under :

(3.) When the matter came up before us on 5-9-2000 for reporting compliance of the order dated 8-5-2000, it was brought to the notice by the Court Commissioner that they have noticed massive construction activity at the Trident Hotel on the bank of Pichhola Lake. According to the Court Commissioners, the construction activity was within the "No Construction Zone" stipulated by the notification dated 17-1-1997. It was suggested that an enquiry into the matter convering the title of the land, legality of the approvals for constrcution and deviations in the actual construction from the approved plans may be ordered to bring out irregularities, if any, at any levels. In view of this, this Court in sub para (ii) of Para 23 of the order dated 5-9-2000 directed as follows :