क्या एनजीटी के फैसले के बाद ओकओवर में हुआ निर्माण अवैध नहीं है?
प्रदेश में हुए करीब 25000 अवैध निर्माणों का दोषी कौन होगा
क्या एनजीटी के निर्देशानुसार संबद्ध विभागों के खिलाफ आपराधिक कारवाई हो पायेगी?
शिमला/शैल। एनजीटी ने 14 अक्तूबर को दिये अपने फैसले में जयराम सरकार द्वारा लायी गयी शिमला डवैल्पमैन्ट प्लान को न केवल अवैध करार दिया है बल्कि एनजीटी अधिनियम की धारा 15 के तहत गैर कानूनी प्रयास भी करार दिया है। एनजीटी ने स्पष्ट कहा है कि इस तरह का प्रयास अधिनियम की धारा 26 के तहत दण्डनीय अपराध है और संबद्ध विभागों के अधिकारी धारा 28 के तहत अपराधिक अभियोजन के अपराधी है।
स्मरणीय है कि एनजीटी का मूल फैसला 16-11-2017 को आया था। इसके खिलाफ हिमाचल सरकार ने 2019 में सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अपील दायर की जिसकी सुनवाई 08-07-2019 को हुई। लेकिन सर्वाेच्च अदालत ने इस पर कोई स्टे नहीं दिया। सर्वाेच्च न्यायालय से स्टे न होने का अर्थ है कि फैसले की अनुपालना किया जाना अनिवार्य है। यह फैसला 16-11-2017 को आया था इसलिये इसकी अनुपालना की जिम्मेदारी तब बनी जयराम सरकार पर आती है। लेकिन इस सरकार ने एनजीटी के फैसले को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चुनौती देने में ही करीब डेढ़ वर्ष का समय लगा दिया। शायद इसी समय के दौरान मुख्यमंत्री के आवास और ओवर में ही कुछ निर्माण हो गये। ओक ओवर शहर के कोर एरिया में आता है और एनजीटी ने कोर एरिया में किसी भी तरह के नये निर्माणों पर पूर्ण प्रतिबन्ध लगा रखा है। इस वस्तुस्थिति में जब एनजीटी के फैसले की अवहेलना मुख्यमंत्री के आवास से शुरू हो जाये तो उसका पूरे प्रदेश में कहां तक असर जायेगा इसका अनुमान लगाया जा सकता है।
इस समय प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय में इस दौरान हुए अवैध निर्माणों को लेकर एक याचिका विचाराधीन चल रही है। इस याचिका में 25000 अवैध निर्माण होने का आरोप लगाया गया है। माना जा रहा है कि सरकार इन निर्माणों को इसलिये नहीं रोक पायी क्योंकि एनजीटी के निर्देशों के बावजूद ओकओवर और सचिवालय तक में निर्माण कार्य जारी थे। अब जब संबद्ध विभागों के खिलाफ एनजीटी ने अपराधिक आयोजन की संस्तुति की है तब यह देखना दिलचस्प होगा कि सरकार ऐसी कारवाई कर पाती है या नहीं। एनजीटी के आदेश को जब डिक्री का दर्जा हासिल है तो उसी से यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि इस फैसले की अनुपालना के अतिरिक्त सरकार के पास और कोई विकल्प नहीं था। कानून की इतनी स्पष्ट स्थिति और शहरी विकास मंत्री के स्वयं कानून विद होने के बावजूद यह स्थिति क्यों पैदा हो गयी। अब जब यह चुनावी वक्त में सरकार के कार्याें पर चर्चाएं चलेगी तब ओकओवर से शुरू होकर पूरे प्रदेश तक फैली अवैधता को कौन और कैसे जायज ठहरा पायेगा?
एनजीटी के फैसले के मुख्य बिन्दु
The Issue
Challenge in this application is to the Draft Development Plan, 2041 prepared by the Town and Country Planning Department, Himachal Pradesh on the ground that such plan is contrary to the sustainable development principle and destructive of environment and public safety. The applicant has relied upon Expert Committee reports based on which this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 16.11.2017 in OA121/2014, has already issued regulatory measures required to be adopted in terms of number of floors, restrictions on constructions in core/green areas etc.
The said directions are still holding the field. There is illegal and ill conceived effort to violate the binding directions of this Tribunal under Section 15 of the NGT, having the force of binding Court decree, subject to further orders only of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under Section 33 of the said Act, the NGT Act has overriding effect over any other law in force.
Violating such directions is a criminal punishable offence under Section 26 of the NGT Act. Heads of concerned Departments of the State are liable to be prosecuted for such offence under Section 28 of the said Act.
The Tribunal noted that against its judgement dated 16.11.2017 in OA121/2014, the State filed Civil Appeal Diary No. 4763/2019, State of Himachal Pradesh& Ors. vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which came up for hearing on 08.07.2019 but no stay was granted. Thus, the draft plan was illegal.
Finding that prima facie the draft development plan was in violation of orders of this Tribunal, notice was issued to State of Himachal Pradesh and interim injunction was granted against taking further steps in pursuance of the said draft plan.
Core Issue considered
8. In view of undisputed factual position question is whether it is open to State to issue a ‘development plan’ in violation of decree of the Tribunal. Further question is whether such action can be justified on the ground that copy of plan was filed in some matter before the high Court or that according to State its action is justified.
Finding
9. After due consideration of the issue, we are of the view that stand of the State cannot be upheld. Once the Tribunal has adjudicated upon the matter, no further question remains for going into the merits. View already taken is final unless the same is interfered with by a legal forum. There is no jurisdiction with the State to annul or ignore the order of the Tribunal. Any other view will negate the rule of law and defeat the purpose of setting up this Tribunal. State’s view is not final in view of overriding provisions of NGT Act by virtue of express provision under section 33. The position is beyond doubt in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mantri Techzone Private Limited (Supra):
“44. The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be given a broader reading. (See Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (2007) 4 SCC 579, para 17). The existence of the Tribunal without its broad restorative powers Under Section 15(1)(c) read with Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless, and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specialized Tribunal specifically to address environmental concerns. The Tribunal, specially constituted with Judicial Members as well as with Experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation to provide for preventive and restorative measures in the interest of the environment.
45. Section 15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction, independent of Section 14 thereof. Further, Section 14(3) juxtaposed with Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act) independently. The limitation provided in Section 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years. Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep Section 14 and 15 as self contained jurisdictions.
46. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to file applications each Under Sections 14 as well as 15. Therefore, it cannot be argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to the Tribunal while Section 15 merely supplements the same with powers. As stated supra. the typical nature of the Tribunal, its breadth of powers as provided under the statutory provisions of the Act as well as the Scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leaves no manner of doubt that the only tenable interpretation to these provisions would be to read the provisions broadly in favour of cloaking the Tribunal with effective authority. An interpretation that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should be preferred rather than one taking away jurisdiction.
47. Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than this Act. This gives the Tribunal overriding powers over anything inconsistent contained in the KIAD Act, Planning Act, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ("KMC Act"); and the Revised Master Plan of Bengaluru, 2015 ("RMP"). A Central legislation enacted under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India will have the overriding effect over State legislations. The corollary is that the Tribunal while providing for restoration of environment in an area, can specify buffer zones around specific lakes & water bodies in contradiction with zoning Regulations under these statutes or the RMP.”
10. In Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, In Re, (2017) 1 SCC
121, it was held:-
“ 48. From the abovementioned set up under our Constitution, there is no difficulty in concluding that no Government, whether Central or State can usurp the power of adjudicating disputes vested in the Judiciary including High Courts and the Supreme Court. Further, as a corollary, the judgments and decrees which are the end product of exercise of judicial power cannot be set at naught by the process of legislative declaration in respect of facts and circumstances. As explained already in the main judgment, the situation is somewhat different when a competent legislature engages itself in the exercise of validating a law declared defective or invalid for reasons which are curable.”
11. As already mentioned, judgement of this Tribunal is deemed to be decree of Court under section 25 of the NGT Act. Judgements relied upon on behalf of the State do not advance its case. There is no conflicting judgement of the High Court. The Tribunal is not dealing with a fresh matter. There is no occasion to revisit the view already taken which has to be treated as final as far as this Tribunal is concerned.
12. In view of above, we are satisfied that the draft development plan, 2041, being in conflict with the judgement of this Tribunal dated 16.11.2017 in O.A No. 121/2014 (Supra) is illegal and cannot be given effect. Any action taken in violation of the said judgment cannot be validated by the said plan and will remain illegal. We declare accordingly.