The court emphasized the Public Trust Doctrine, asserting that the State's duty to protect the environment and sensitive ecosystems overrides individual business rights, especially when policies are drafted arbitrarily without consulting statutory environmental agencies.

Order

I. Report of the Court Commissioner:

1. In compliance with the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2026, the appointed Court Commissioners, Ms. Kamini Joshi, Advocate, and Mr. Rajendra Bhanawat, Retd. IAS Officer carried out the site inspection and submitted an interim report. The report includes aerial photography not only of the petitioner's property but also of the nearby vicinity.

2. During the course of the hearing, the learned Court Commissioner, Ms. Kamini Joshi, apprised the Court that multiple hotels have been constructed and are operational upon the said hills. The only distinguishing feature of the petitioner's property, as compared to the aerial photographs of other properties, is that it is situated on a steeper slope.

3. Upon a perusal of the properties in the vicinity, as specified in the report, it is glaringly evident that the hills and mountains have been brutally cut and constructed upon until they are on the verge of extinction, effectively being replaced by hotels.

4. It has also come to the knowledge of this Court that the author and creator of the Hill bye-laws vis-a-vis the Hill Policy of the year 2018 were certain private external agencies. Shockingly, no advice or consultation was ever sought from the relevant statutory agencies and departments concerning climate, wildlife, pollution, and environment, either through the Union of India or the respective State departments.

5. Moreover, during the course of the inspection, the learned Commissioner observed that the authorities of the Udaipur Development Authority (UDA) lacked knowledge regarding either the policy or the prevailing laws pertaining to hill construction.

II. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:

6. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, raises the issue of hostile discrimination and challenges the prospective applicability of the policy upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's construction is strictly in accordance with the previous policy and the concept of sustainable development. Reliance in regard of the aforesaid is placed upon the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in East India Hotels Limited v. State of Rajasthan , 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) 249

7. It is further submitted that numerous hotels have constructed properties in the nearby area, even on agricultural lands, without any appropriate permissions. The construction of the petitioner's hotel property is not distinct or different from these nearby hotels.

8. It is further submitted that the respondents have adopted a pick and choose policy, targeting the petitioner, who is a hotelier and commenced the project in 2018, much before the introduction of the previous policy.

9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as the inspection report has just been filed, they require time to analyze the same to make further appropriate submissions.

III. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:

i. Union of India:

10. Learned ASG, Mr. Bharat Vyas, appearing for the Union of India, along with other necessary parties and stakeholders, have not marked their presence despite the matter being listed at the Top of the Board and their presence being essential. The associate counsel has prayed for an adjournment. However, it was previously argued by the learned ASG that the Union of India, Ministry of Environment, Fo