2019 (11) TMI 1829 - SC - Indian Laws

Doctrine of pith and substance - Wildlife sanctuary - area in question falls within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake and is 123 meters away from the boundary of Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary - Whether housing activities are permissible within a short distance of 123 meters from Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary such a project can be permitted to come up? - HELD THAT - Considering the distance of 123 meters from the Northern side and 183 meters from the Eastern side of the project in question from wildlife sanctuary in our opinion no such project can be allowed to come up in the area in question. The State of Punjab was required to act on the basis of Doctrine of Public Trust. It has failed to do so. The origination of the project itself indicates that State of Punjab was not acting in furtherance of Doctrine of Public Trust as 95 MLAs were to be the recipients of the flats. It is clear why Government has not been able to protect the eco-sensitive zone around a Wildlife and has permitted setting up of high-rise buildings up to 92 meters in the area in question which is not at all permissible. Such projects cannot be permitted to come up within such a short distance from the wildlife sanctuary. Moreso in view of the Notification issued with respect to the Sukhna wildlife sanctuary towards the side of Chandigarh Union Territory and also considering the fact that proposal made by the Punjab Government confining the Buffer Zone to 100 meters has rightly not been accepted by MoEF as the Government of Punjab as well as the MoEF cannot be the final arbiter in the matter. The Court has to perform its duty in such a scenario when the authorities have failed to protect the wildlife sanctuary eco-sensitive zone. The entire exercise of obtaining clearance relating to the project is quashed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Environmental Clearance and Conformity with MoEF Notification
2. Proximity to Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and Catchment Area
3. Legal Validity of Permissions Granted by Local Authorities
4. Impact on Eco-sensitive Zones and Wildlife Sanctuary
5. Doctrine of Public Trust and Government's Role

Summary:

1. Environmental Clearance and Conformity with MoEF Notification:
The Appellant challenged the High Court's decision invalidating the environmental clearance dated 17.09.2013 granted by SEIAA, Punjab, for Tata HDCL's housing project. The clearance was deemed non-compliant with the MoEF Notification dated 14.09.2006, which mandates prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or SEIAA.

2. Proximity to Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and Catchment Area:
The project site was found to be 123 meters from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake as per the Survey of India Map dated 21.09.2004. The High Court held that the Survey Map is binding on the State of Punjab and that the project site falls within the eco-sensitive zone.

3. Legal Validity of Permissions Granted by Local Authorities:
The permission granted by Nagar Panchayat, Naya Gaon, to Tata HDCL on 05.07.2013 was invalidated. The High Court noted that the project violated the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, and the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. The Chandigarh Administration disputed the permissions, asserting that the area is ecologically sensitive.

4. Impact on Eco-sensitive Zones and Wildlife Sanctuary:
The project was found to be in violation of eco-sensitive zone regulations. The MoEF had not accepted Punjab's proposal to limit the buffer zone to 100 meters and directed resubmission for at least a 1 km buffer zone. The High Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to eco-sensitive zone regulations to protect the wildlife sanctuary.

5. Doctrine of Public Trust and Government's Role:
The Court highlighted the Government's failure to act in accordance with the Doctrine of Public Trust, especially given that 95 MLAs were beneficiaries of the project. The Court stressed the importance of protecting the environment and wildlife, citing various legal principles and precedents. The entire exercise of obtaining clearance was quashed, and the appeals were dismissed with directions to protect the eco-sensitive zone.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the need for strict environmental regulations and protection of eco-sensitive zones. The permissions and clearances granted for the project were invalidated, and the appeals were dismissed.