9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment and a very complex phenomenon. It is no longer res integra that a Court will not interfere in policy making as the policies are framed based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned in the respective fields. Courts are not equipped with the necessary expertise to substitute their own views and direct formulation of policies tailor-made to suit the requirements of the Petitioner in a given case. While exercising the power of judicial review, it must be kept in mind that Court cannot direct, advise or sermonise the executive in matters of policy framing, which is purely the domain of the executive under the doctrine of separation of powers. Courts can certainly examine a policy or an action of the Executive, if it is unreasonable, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly on day to day basis and further fix a timeframe within which the said matter may be decided and further direct the concerned special court to file a status report every week regarding the status of the said case so that 'one person one tree' policy can be executed. (ii) Issue a writ order or a direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to plan for enforceability of fundamental duty under article 48-A and there should be penalty of not abiding the rules related to protection of environment. (iii) Issue a writ, order, direction, instructions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to decrease the expenditures on temporary measures and to plan for sustainable developments so tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle of 'one person one tree'. He submits that framing a policy is the need of the hour when the pollution is increasing and there is deterioration in the environmental conditions. 3. We have heard Petitioner No.1, who has canvassed the above argument. 4. It is a settled law that framing policies is the domain of the Government and it is not for this Court to direct framing of any policy. We are fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Satpal Saini, (2017) 11 SCC 42 and Ashwini Kumar v. UOI and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 585. 5. From the aforesaid judgements, it is explicitly clear that making a policy with respect to environmental protection and/or issuing Guidelines thereunder is purely a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formulation of the policy relating to environmental protection and directing that it be made on the principle of 'one person one tree', as suggested by the Petitioners, cannot be allowed. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain the present petition and direct the Government to frame a policy. 9. However, it will be open to the Petitioners to make a comprehensive representation to the concerned Respondents, ventilating their grievances and also giving suggestions, if any, towards protection of the environment. As and when such a representation is preferred by the Petitioner(s), the same shall be considered by the concerned Respondents, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
