2012 (3) TMI 673 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Permissibility of Tata Camelot Housing Colony.
2. Applicability of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 vs. the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995.
3. Compliance with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
4. Impact on the vision of Chandigarh as planned by Mon Lee Corbusier.

Summary:

1. Permissibility of Tata Camelot Housing Colony:
The core issue raised in the public interest litigation is the permissibility of the Tata Camelot Housing Colony. The petitioner, an advocate, contends that the project violates the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, as necessary permissions and sanctions have not been obtained. The petitioner argues that the project is unauthorized under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and falls within the eco-sensitive area near Sukhna Lake and Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, requiring clearance under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which has been refused.

2. Applicability of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 vs. the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995:
The respondents argue that the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, supersedes the Periphery Control Act for the project site. They assert that the master plan under the 1995 Act covers the area and are willing to seek necessary sanctions if the Periphery Control Act is deemed applicable. The court concludes that both statutes are complementary and should apply to the project, ensuring regulated development in the peripheral area and beyond.

3. Compliance with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:
The respondents claim they have submitted applications for necessary clearances under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, which are pending. The court refrains from addressing these issues, emphasizing that the statutory authorities must exercise their jurisdiction without fetters. The court underscores the importance of ecological concerns and the duty of authorities to protect natural resources, as highlighted in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath.

4. Impact on the vision of Chandigarh as planned by Mon Lee Corbusier:
The petitioner and the Chandigarh Administration argue that the project violates the edict of Chandigarh envisioned by Mon Lee Corbusier, particularly the prohibition on construction north of the capital complex. The court interprets the edict as a formal wish rather than a binding decree, emphasizing that authorities must consider the spirit of preserving the city's planning and design while granting necessary clearances and permissions.

Conclusion:
The court holds that the Periphery Control Act and the 1995 Act are complementary and applicable to the housing project. The respondents must comply with all statutory requirements under both Acts. The process of obtaining clearances under the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act must be completed, considering the court's observations. The PIL is disposed of with these directions.