2024 Supreme(SC) 37

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5348-5349 of 2019 with Transferred Case (C) No. 2 of 2023
Decided on : 11-01-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Court cannot be permitted to usurp functions assigned to the Executive, Legislature or subordinate legislature – Courts cannot issue directions to Legislature for enacting laws in a particular manner or for amending Acts or Rules.
(2) Binding Precedent – A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides – Essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein.
(3) There is need for maintaining balance between development and protection/preservation of environmental ecology.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 162 – Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 – Sections 18, 19 and 20 – Distinction between legislative function and administrative function – Distinction between two has usually been expressed as “one between general and particular” – Legislation is process of formulating a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases and usually operating in future – Whereas, administration is process of performing particular acts of issuing particular orders or of making decisions which apply general rules to particular cases – Rule-making is normally directed towards formulation of requirements having a general application to all members of a broadly identifiable class; whereas an adjudication, on other hand, applies to specific individuals or situations – Preparation of draft development plan under Section 18 of TCP Act, finalization of same under Section 19 of TCP Act by Director and grant of approval by State under Section 20 of TCP Act are all legislative functions – Exercise of power for preparation, finalization and approval of development plan is a power exercised by delegatee for enacting a subordinate piece of legislation – When TCP Act empowers State Government and Director to exercise powers to enact a piece of delegated legislation, NGT could not have imposed fetters on such powers and directed it to exercise its powers in a particular manner. (Paras 49, 50, 51, 61 and 70)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 309 read with Articles 32 and 226 – Extent of judicial interference in legislative business – Neither High Courts while exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution nor this Court while exercising powers under Article 32 of Constitution can direct legislature or its delegatee to enact a law or subordinate legislation in a particular manner – Constitution of India recognizes independence and separation of powers amongst three branches of State viz. Legislature, Executive and Judiciary – Each of branches are co-equal – Judiciary is entrusted with function to ensure that laws enacted by Legislature are within four corners of Constitution of India and that Executive acts within four corners of Constitution of India and laws enacted by Legislature – However, giving a direction or advisory sermons to Executive in respect of sphere which is exclusively within domain of Executive or Legislature would neither be legal nor proper – Court cannot be permitted to usurp functions assigned to the Executive, Legislature or subordinate legislature – Court cannot also assume a supervisory role over rule-making power of Executive under Article 309 of Constitution of India – Courts cannot issue directions to Legislature for enacting laws in a particular manner or for amending Acts or Rules – It is for Legislature to do so – Power to enact legislation is a plenary constitutional power which is vested in Parliament and State Legislatures. (Paras 65, 66, 68 and 69)

(C) Precedent – Binding Precedent – A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides – Essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein – A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument on a question which arises in case or is put in issue would constitute a precedent. (Paras 74 and 75)

(D) Constitution of India – Articles 32, 141 and 226/227 – Power of judicial review – High Courts exercise power of judicial review over all Tribunals which are situated within its jurisdiction – Power vested in High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over decisions of all Courts and Tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is also part of basic structure of Constitution – Tribunals will have power to handle matters involving constitutional issues – Continuation of proceedings by NGT during pendency of writ petitions before High Court was not in conformity with principles of judicial propriety. (Paras 102, 104, 106 and 109)

(E) Environment Protection – There is need for maintaining balance between development and protection/preservation of environmental ecology – While ensuring developmental activities so as to meet demands of growing population, it is also necessary that issues with regard to environmental and ecological protection are addressed too – If any of citizens has any grievance that any provision is detrimental to environment or ecology, it is always open to raise challenge to such an independent provision before appropriate forum – Such challenge can be considered in accordance with law. (Paras 113, 122 and 124)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals challenge Judgment and order dated 16th November 2017 (First order of NGT) passed by National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application (OA) No. 121 of 2014, whereby various directions were issued by NGT, and order dated 16th July 2018 passed by NGT in Review Application No. 8 of 2018, whereby review sought of first order of NGT by present appellants was dismissed.

Findings of Court:

Development plan has been finalized after undergoing the rigorous process including that of inviting objections and suggestions at two stages, giving the hearing to such objectors and suggestions and after considering the same. If any of citizen has any grievance that any provision is detrimental to the environment or ecology, it is always open to raise a challenge to such an independent provision before the appropriate forum. Such a challenge can be considered in accordance with law. But, in our view, the development plan, which has been finalized after taking recourse to the statutory provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire developmental activities to a standstill.

Result : Directions issued.