9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1288 - SC - Indian LawsSLP against the order of HC where the High Court was pleased to cancel an Environment and Monument Improvement/Preservation and Tourism Development Project at Jaipur by declaring it as illegal which was awarded to the petitioner/appellant Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited via global tender floated in 2003 and finally granted in 2005 after all requisite approvals as per the petitioner/appellant under the Environmental Law including Environment Impact Assessment under the Environment Protection Act and the Notifications issued thereunder of the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board. However, in view of the cancellation of the project, the High Court has directed immediate dismantling and removal of the entire project and diversion of the two drains which was done to purify waters of a man made artificial water body and detritus. Held that - The judgment and order of the High Court thus stands quashed and set aside to the extent by which the lease deed has been cancelled except an area of 13 bighas 17 biswas equivalent to 8.65 acres and the balance disputed area claimed to be lake bed comprising 14.15 acres shall be notionally treated as part of the lease deed but the same shall remain a construction free zone where neither the State Government of Rajasthan nor the appellant-lessee/Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd. shall have the right to raise any construction on this area as the same shall remain exclusively for the use of public promenade / walkway free of charge.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the lease agreement for 100 acres of land. 2. Environmental clearance and compliance with Wetland Rules 2010. 3. Impact on Mansagar Lake and Jal Mahal. 4. Procedural and administrative propriety in awarding the project. 5. Public interest and delay in filing PIL. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Lease Agreement: The Supreme Court scrutinized the lease agreement granted to the appellant for 100 acres of land adjoining the lake area. The High Court had declared the lease illegal, citing that the land included submerged areas and lakebed, violating the public trust doctrine. However, the Supreme Court found that only 8.65 acres were classified as "gairmumkin talab" (lakebed) and 14.15 acres as barren land, not forming part of the lakebed. The Court held that 8.65 acres should be excluded from the lease and returned to the State, while 14.15 acres should remain construction-free but part of the lease for public use as a promenade. 2. Environmental Clearance and Compliance with Wetland Rules 2010: The High Court had invalidated the environmental clearance granted by SEIAA, stating it violated the Wetland Rules 2010. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Wetland Rules 2010 were not in effect when the lease was executed, and the area was not officially notified as a wetland. The Court emphasized that the project had received necessary environmental clearances under the EIA 2006, and the Wetland Rules 2010 could not be applied retrospectively. 3. Impact on Mansagar Lake and Jal Mahal: The High Court had found that the project reduced the lake's water level and spread, adversely affecting the environment. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Detailed Project Report (DPR) prepared in 2001 had scientifically determined the water level at 98m RL to protect the Jal Mahal Monument. The Court found no evidence of manipulation to reduce the lake's size and emphasized that the project aimed to restore the lake and monument, enhancing public interest. 4. Procedural and Administrative Propriety: The High Court had questioned the procedural propriety in awarding the project, alleging favoritism and deviation from tender conditions. The Supreme Court found that the tender process was transparent, involving multiple stages of evaluation by expert committees. The Court noted that the decision to award the project to the highest bidder, KGK Consortium, was taken after thorough deliberation and approval by the highest authorities, including the Chief Minister. The Court held that minor procedural deviations did not invalidate the entire process, especially when substantial compliance was achieved. 5. Public Interest and Delay in Filing PIL: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in filing the PIL, noting that the project had been in the works since the late 1990s, with multiple attempts to restore the lake and monument. The Court found that the PILs were filed five to six years after the lease was executed, raising questions about their bonafide. The Court emphasized that public interest projects should not be derailed by delayed litigation, especially when significant investments had already been made. Conclusion: The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, upholding the lease agreement except for the 8.65 acres of lakebed, which should be returned to the State. The Court directed that the 14.15 acres of barren land remain construction-free and used as a public promenade. The lease period was reduced from 99 years to 30 years, starting from the date of the judgment. The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in administrative matters, especially when supported by expert opinions and extensive deliberations.
|
