Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 1876
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 202 of 1995 with SLP(C) No. 25047 of 2018 (XVI)
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Amicus Curiae :Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. [A.C.] (Not Present), Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] (Not Present), Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] (Not Present), Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Advocate [A.C.] (Not Present), Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advocate [A.C.], Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv., Ms. Kanti, Adv.
For the Parties : Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv., Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv., Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv., Mr. S. S. Rebello, Adv., Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv., Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv., Ms. Shivika Mehra,Adv., Ms. Shagun Thakur,Adv., Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvai, Adv., Ms. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR, Mr. Ravi K Chandna, Adv., Ms. Shruti A Chandna, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Karan Chhibber, Adv., Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv., Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv., Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv., Ms. Nina Nariman,Adv., Ms. Tahira Karanjawala,Adv., Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shreyas Meheshwari, Adv., Mr. Ritwik Mohapatra, Adv., For M/s. Karanjawala & Co., Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv., Mr. Krishnam Mishra, Adv., Ms. Ambika Atrey, Adv., Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Adv., Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR, Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv., Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv., Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Adv., Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Adv., Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv., Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj,Adv., Mr. M. Shoeb Alam,Adv., Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv., Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR.
The court prioritized balancing environmental preservation with residents' rights to access services in Matheran, directing a Monitoring Committee to assess development proposals.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act - Eco Sensitive Zones - Matheran City Development - Right to Life - The court considers the balance between environmental preservation and the right of inhabitants to access essential services, recognizing Matheran's special status and the need for a Monitoring Committee to evaluate the integration of E-Rickshaws and paver blocks in the city. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Right to Life - The court discusses the inhuman practice of manually pulled rickshaws and its derogation of citizens' rights, affirming the need for improved livelihood opportunities through E-Rickshaws. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The applications arose concerning the authorization of E-Rickshaws and road paving in Matheran, an Eco Sensitive Zone, prompting concerns about environmental impact versus resident needs.
Findings of Court:
The Monitoring Committee is directed to evaluate the proposals, emphasizing the importance of preserving Matheran's natural beauty while considering practical human needs.
Issues: The main issues are whether to allow E-Rickshaws and the implications of laying paver blocks in Matheran.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that both environmental and human concerns must be balanced in the assessment of development proposals in sensitive areas.
Result: Monitoring Committee directed to report findings within eight weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized construction demolished; possession taken. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. debate over e-rickshaws in matheran. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. balancing environmental concerns and resident needs. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. monitoring committee to address e-rickshaws and roads. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. various applications entertained and listed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
I.A. NO.3973/2017 (ITEM NO.1)
Dr. Abhishek Atrey, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttrakhand submits that the unauthorized construction has already been demolished and the possession of premises has been taken over by the Forest Department.
2. As such no orders are required to be passed in this application.
3. The I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of.
I.A. NOS.79569, 79576, 159670 & 159677 OF 2019, 14261 & 14262/2021, 40624 and 40599 of 2023 (ITEM NO.2)
4. Mainly two issues are involved in these applications i.e. (i) With regard to permitting the E-Rickshaws in the city of Matheran; and (ii) Laying down of paver blocks etc. on the roads in the city of Matheran.
5. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that on account of the restrictions of permitting any vehicles within the city of Matheran, a lot of inconvenience is caused to the citizens. He submits that the children in the city find it difficult to attend the schools, solid waste is required to be carried on the head of the inhabitants causing serious health hazards, LPG cylinders could not be distributed to the residents etc. He further submits that inhuman practice of man-pulled rickshaws is still prevalent, which is in derogation of the Right to Life, as enshrined under the Constitution of India.
6. He, therefore, submits that if E-Rickshaws are permitted, the present persons who are manually pulling rickshaws can use ERickshaws, which will, in addition to continue to provide them livelihood will also be helpful to the citizens.
7. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, on the contrary submits that the special status of Matheran has been recognized by this Court and as such the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issued Notification dated 04.02.2003 declaring Matheran and surrounding region as an Eco Sensitive Zone. He further submits that on account of laying of paver blocks on the roads, the entire beauty of the city is being compromised. Not only that, on account of the same, there is a possibility of the residents sleeping on the said roads and thereby facing accidents. He further relies on some of the photographs annexed with I.A. No.40624/2023, to show that the horses have fallen and injured in the process on account of laying down of the paver blocks.
8. No doubt that the environmental aspect and specifically when the city of Matheran has been notified as Eco Sensitive Zone has to be preserved. However, at the same time, the human beings residing there and the man-pulling rickshaws also need to be taken into consideration. The Notification dated 04.02.2003 and specifically clause (5) thereof provides for constitution of the Monitoring Committee. The said Committee consists of various experts including the representatives of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Central Pollution Control Board, Department of Environment, Department of Urban Development, subject experts etc.
9. We find that it would be appropriate that the said Monitoring Committee takes a call with regard to permitting the E-Rickshaws and the laying down of paver blocks.
10. Prima facie, we find that laying down of paver blocks would destroy the natural beauty of the said city. It cannot be in dispute that even prior to laying down of paver blocks the manpulled rickshaws were plying on the roads in the said city. If that be so, there should be no difficulty in the E-Rickshaws plying on the same roads, which are in existence for ages.
11. Even in the reserved forests there are no concrete roads and the safari vehicles are plying on the jungle roads. The same can also be cons
