Back
Himachal High Court: Existing commercial activities cannot justify in
The has struck down a permission allowing commercial development in a designated of Dalhousie, ruling that the mere presence of other hotels and guest houses cannot justify overriding a statutory Development Plan. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi set aside the 2020 order by the Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning) that permitted a from residential to commercial for a hotel and guest house on a 5,594 sq. metre plot in Upper Bakrota.
The court found the order "non-speaking" and lacking any valid justification, terming it a "" that violated the Dalhousie Development Plan's mandate to preserve the .
Background of the dispute
The case originated from a Litigation filed by the . The association challenged the granted to Prit Pal Singh, who had purchased the land in . The plot falls within the "" of the Dalhousie Planning Area, where only is permitted under the Development Plan notified in .
Singh initially obtained permission for residential construction in
and
. He later applied to convert the use to a hotel and guest house. The
rejected the application in
after a joint site inspection revealed 65 green trees on the site and noted that the area was
"restricted to residential use only."
However, on appeal, the Principal Secretary allowed the
in January 2020, citing the existence of commercial establishments in the vicinity and Singh's status as an original inhabitant.
Arguments before the High Court
The petitioner, represented by , argued that the Development Plan is "" and cannot be ignored. He contended that the appellate order was arbitrary, non-speaking, and failed to consider the of the area. The existence of other commercial activities, he said, could not justify a wrong under .
Respondent No. 5, represented by , argued that the PIL was not maintainable and that the under of the Development Plan had been correctly exercised. He further pointed out that subsequent permissions for and building plans had been granted in and .
Legal analysis and reasoning
The court scrutinised the Development Plan, which designates Bakrota Up-Mohal as a "
" requiring special protection.
explicitly states that
"restriction on all type of commercial constructions is required and only need based residential with related infrastructure should be allowed in this area."
Sub-regulation (vi) of
empowers the committee to permit a
only
"in the
and in the interest of the town design or any other material consideration."
The court held that the appellate authority's order failed to demonstrate any such justification.
"In the absence of any such justifiable reasons, and merely on the ground that the supporting documents showed existing Hotels, Guest Houses, and Home-Stays operating in the vicinity of the plot, this extraordinary power was exercised to violate the 'DPA' issued by the State Government,"
the court observed.
The judgment relied on the 's ruling in Shanti Sports Club & Another vs. Union of India and Others (2009), which held that the concept of cannot be invoked to perpetuate irregularities or illegalities. The court also cited Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) to emphasise that administrative and must be , and that recording reasons is essential for transparency and .
The court further noted that permitting commercial development in the
would open
"a
of haphazard and rampant construction"
and cause irreversible environmental damage. It referred to the
's observations in
M/s Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2025), where the apex court expressed concern over the
"blatant growth of construction activities"
in Himachal Pradesh leading to natural calamities.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"The order dated cannot be classified as a speaking order. The statutory provisions mandate that the Appellate Authority, while deciding an appeal, must apply its mind before exercising its to allow a (CLU) that was the Dalhousie Development Plan."
"No was involved. Furthermore, no examples were provided to show that commercial activity was going on in the vicinity of the plot, even if it were, the order failed to address whether such activity was permissible, its distance from the plot, and the nature of the construction."
"The tourism pressure in the would destroy it; therefore, allowing such development is impermissible. No justified the (CLU) granted by the Principal Secretary through his discretionary powers."
"The whole case revolves around the private interest of respondent No.5, who seeks to develop the property on a commercial basis. Merely because he owns the land and purchased it way-back in the year does not grant him a license to utilize the property for purposes other than those permitted under the notification."
"The sacrosancy of the notification dated 27.12. has been blatantly violated. The specified land use could not have been allowed to be altered in the manner in which the Appellate Authority had exercised its powers, especially without providing valid, justifiable reasons."
The Court's Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated and all subsequent permissions, including the development permission dated . It clarified that the property could continue to be used for residential purposes, as originally permitted. The court also dismissed the objection regarding , holding that it is the "bounden duty" of the court to protect the flora and fauna of the State under .
The judgment serves as a strong reminder that discretionary powers under must be exercised judiciously and not merely to accommodate private commercial interests at the expense of environmental conservation and statutory plans.
