1. Environmental protection — Vision Document preparation for protected zone — Declaration of heritage city — Management Plan submission to international heritage body. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1332
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
M.C. Mehta – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381 of 1984
Decided On : 28-08-2018
Important Points
The court emphasized the importance of preparing a Vision Document for the Taj Trapezium Zone and the Taj Mahal, involving experts and considering the larger picture and the interest of the area. The declaration of Agra as a heritage city was discussed, and the State of U.P. was expected to respond to the Government of India by a specified date.
Subject
Environmental Law - Heritage Preservation
Headnote
Heritage City - Agra - The court advised the preparation of a Vision Document for the Taj Trapezium Zone and the Taj Mahal, with the involvement of experts and the petitioner's suggestions. The declaration of Agra as a heritage city was discussed, and the State of U.P. was expected to respond to the Government of India by a specified date.
Fact of the Case:
The court advised the preparation of a Vision Document for the Taj Trapezium Zone and the Taj Mahal, involving experts and the petitioner's suggestions. The declaration of Agra as a heritage city was discussed, and the State of U.P. was expected to respond to the Government of India by a specified date.
Finding of the Court:
The court advised the preparation of a Vision Document for the Taj Trapezium Zone and the Taj Mahal, involving experts and the petitioner's suggestions. The declaration of Agra as a heritage city was discussed, and the State of U.P. was expected to respond to the Government of India by a specified date.
Issues: Preparation of Vision Document, Involvement of Experts, Declaration of Agra as a Heritage City, State of U.P.'s Response
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of preparing a Vision Document for the Taj Trapezium Zone and the Taj Mahal, involving experts and considering the larger picture and the interest of the area. The declaration of Agra as a heritage city was discussed, and the State of U.P. was expected to respond to the Government of India by a specified date.
Final Decision: The matter was listed for the next date of hearing, and the State of U.P. was expected to give its response before the specified date. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was directed to file the Management Plan with the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO within a specified period.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Rahul Mishra.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Mr. R. Bala, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Devasis Bharuka, Mr. G.S. Makker, Mr. Jubair Ahmad Khan, Mr. Zaid Ali, Mr. Tamim Qadri, Mr. Saeed Qadri, Mr. Syed Faizan Ali, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Mr. M.K. Maroria, Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Mr. Pradeep Misra, Mr. Suraj Singh, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra.
For the TTZ : Mr. Ankur Prakash, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Mr. Rohit Gupta, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Joshita M. Pai, Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Ms. Anubha Goel, Mr. C.M. Patel, Mr. Rakesh Mudgal, Mr. Vishwapal Singh, Mr. Tipoo N.
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Rahul Mishra.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Mr. R. Bala, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Devasis Bharuka, Mr. G.S. Makker, Mr. Jubair Ahmad Khan, Mr. Zaid Ali, Mr. Tamim Qadri, Mr. Saeed Qadri, Mr. Syed Faizan Ali, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Mr. M.K. Maroria, Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Mr. Pradeep Misra, Mr. Suraj Singh, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra.
For the TTZ : Mr. Ankur Prakash, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Mr. Rohit Gupta, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Joshita M. Pai, Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Ms. Anubha Goel, Mr. C.M. Patel, Mr. Rakesh Mudgal, Mr. Vishwapal Singh, Mr. Tipoo N.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner — Necessity of declaring a city as a heritage city pursuant to prior judicial directions. (Para 5 )
3. Preparation of Vision Document — Necessity of expert collaboration and consideration of the larger interest of the protected zone. (Para 1 )
4. State directed to respond to heritage city proposal — ASI directed to file Management Plan with international heritage body. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. What guidance did the court provide regarding the preparation of the Vision Document for the protected zone?
The court advised that the document be prepared by experts with a focus on the larger picture and the interests of the protected zone and the monument. (Para 1 )
6. What is the procedure for the declaration of a city as a heritage city as discussed?
The process involves the central government requesting a proposal from the state government to declare the city as a heritage city, following prior judicial directions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
7. What is the requirement for the Archaeological Survey of India regarding the site's management?
The Archaeological Survey of India is required to file the Management Plan with the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
1. Ms. Meenakshi Dhote, who is the Professor of Environmental Planning, DSPA and Project Coordinator of Vision Document is present in the Court today. We have had a brief discussion with her. We have advised her that she should prepare a document along with other experts keeping the larger picture in mind and the interest of the Taj Trapezium Zone and the Taj Mahal in mind. If she needs any other expert assistance, she can freely ask for it. If she comes across any hurdles or obstacles in the preparation of the Vision Document, she can always approach this Court for assistance.
2. Mr. M.C. Mehta (the petitioner) says that he had about two meetings with Ms. Dhote. He says that he will give his suggestions and also meet her, whenever necessary. The suggestions will be given within a week or so.
3. Ms. Dhote says that she has received valuable suggestions from ICOMOS, Aga Khan Foundation and INTACH and they are being considered.
4. List the matter on 25th September, 2018.
5. In so far as declaration of Agra as a heritage city is concerned, it is pointed out by Mr. M.C. Mehta that this is one of the directions given by this Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. UOI, (1997) 2 SCC 353.
6. It is stated by Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, the learned ASG that a communication in this regard has been sent to the Government of U.P. to send a proposal for declaring Agra as a heritage city.
7. It is stated by Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned ASG appearing for the State of U.P. that he will respond to the Government of India within a month from today.
8. We expect the State of U.P. to give its response before the next date of hearing i.e. 25.09.2018.
9. It is stated by Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, the learned ASG that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will file the Management Plan with the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO within a period of three months from today.
