JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:

A. The appeal

B. Previous orders of this Court

C. The history of the forest land

D. The construction of the Bus Stand Complex

E. Proceedings before the first respondent

F. Proceedings before the NGT

G. Report of the District and Sessions Judge, Kangra

H. Submissions of counsel

I. Analysis

I.1 Environmental rule of law

I.2 Role of courts in ensuring environmental protection

I.3 Illegal activities on forest land

I.4 Jurisdiction of NGT

J. Conclusion

A. The appeal

1. The civil appeals in the present case arise under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 ("NGT Act"). The correctness of a judgment and order dated 4 May 2016 of the National Green Tribunal ("NGT") is in issue.

2. The NGT dealt with an original application filed by the second respondent, who is also the appellant in companion Civil Appeal Nos. 5229-5230 of 2016, to challenge a report dated 18 September 2008 of the Central Empowered Committee ("CEC"), the first respondent. In its report, the CEC concluded, inter alia, that a part of the Bus Stand Complex constructed by the second respondent and the appellant at McLeod Ganj in Himachal Pradesh violates the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ("Forest Act"). The CEC recommended the demolition of the illegal portions.

3. The NGT accepted the findings of the CEC, observing that the Bus Stand Complex seriously disturbs the ecology of the area in which it has been constructed. The NGT directed, inter alia, that:

(i) The structure of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant in the Bus Stand Complex be demolished by the second respondent;

(ii) The second respondent shall pay a compensation of Rs. 15 lacs in terms of Sections 15 and 17 of the NGT Act;

(iii) The appellant shall pay a compensation of Rs. 10 lacs, while the State of Himachal Pradesh and its Department of Tourism shall pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs each; and

(iv) The Chief Secretary of the State of Himachal Pradesh shall conduct an enquiry against the erring officers of the appellant, in order to fasten the responsibility for the illegal project.

B. Previous orders of this Court

4. By an order dated 16 May 2016, this Court admitted the present appeals and framed the following substantial questions of law, as provided in Section 22 of the NGT Act:

"1. Whether the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the land which is subject matter of the appeal had already been diverted for non - forest use under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?

2. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider properly the effect of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority Act, 1999 which empowers the authority to establish and maintain hotels and restaurants at or near bus stands?

3. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that alleged violations of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 are made out even though the said enactment is absent in the Schedule I of enactments attached to the National Green Tribunal Act?"

This Court also granted a stay against the operative portion of the NGT's judgment directing: (i) the demolition of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex; and (ii) an enquiry to be conducted against the appellant's officers.

5. The above order was modified on 9 September 2016, by lifting the stay against the enquiry to be conducted against the appellant's officers. However, this Court directed that an enquiry shall be conducted by the District and Sessions Judge, Kangra within whose jurisdiction the Bus Stand Complex is located. The District and Sessions Judge was directed to place a report before this Court. Parties to the present appeals were permitted to associate themselves with the enquiry being conducted by the District and Sessions Judge.

C. The history of the forest land

6. The genesis of the present case originates in an order dated 12 November 1997 of t