BBA LLB (H)

LAW125

Environmental Law

SEMESTER 8

2020-2025

Presented by

Shahil Laskar (A90821520012)

Case Analysis - Sachidananda Pandey vs State of West Bengal & Ors

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF-

Prof. Vishal Bera

Sachidananda Pandey vs State of West Bengal & Ors
CITATION - 1987 AIR 1109, 1987 SCR (2) 223
DATE OF JUDGEMENT - 13 Feb. 1996
BENCH/JUDGE - Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, Justice V. KHALID

Introduction
Sachidanand Pandey vs State of West Bengal was a case of Environment Protection. The case
came into focus due to government of West who Bengal who decided to grant 4 acres of
Begum Bari land to the Taj group of hotels for the construction of a Five-star hotel at
Calcutta. The case was filed by a petitioner Sachidanand Pandey against the Government of
West Bengal and Taj group of hotels as respondent.
The case was first appealed in the trial count and then to the high court and at the end to the
Supreme Court as per the rule of law.
The judgement was given by two judges in the favor of the group of Taj group of hotels that
is the respondent. The main judgement was given by Supreme court of India in 1987.Later-on
other parties also filed a case on behalf of this case.
That time the petition was filed by Indian Council of Environment Legal and the respondent
was the Union of India. But the judgement by supreme court was given in 1996 and was the
same that is in favor of respondent and the judges were also same. The case is basically based
on the zoological garden.
Facts of the Case:
In 1979, a tourism conference was held. It was resolved at the conference that lands in good
location in the states, should be allocated for construction of hotels so as to promote tourism.
In 1980, Taj Group of Hotels came up with a proposal to construct a five-star hotel in any
three specified Chowringhee area if it was available to them. But some pending litigation was
going on in Chowringhee area.
The Indian Tourism Department Cooperation was interested in the Hastings house Property
and the Taj group of hotels were not at all interested.
So, In September 1980, the government of West Bengal, thought of giving the four acres
out of eight acres of Begum Bari area which was only used for fodder and grass cultivation
for elephants. The eight acres also had old buildings, structure, animal husbandry, etc
which were a part of the zoo. The eight acres known as Begum Bari land, upon which
the Alipore zoo was built.
On February 1981, the cabinet agreed to the proposal and cleared the way for negotiations
with Taj Group of Hotels. The public undertaking committee appointed by the West Bengal
legislative assembly submitted a report in which it was stated that the construction of a five-
star hotel might affect the migration of birds and breeding potential of the animals because of
immense air and sound pollution. Also, the reallocation of the staff quarter, animal husbandry,
morgue, etc which were on the eight acres of Begum Bari Land.
In march 1980, the Taj Group of Hotels submitted a proposal to the government illuminating
about the benefits flowing out of the construction. Two alternative financial agreements were
suggested. The first alternative was the payment of annual rent on the basis of the valuation
of the land and the second alternative was based on net sales. Net sales are sales after
deducting all taxes, levies and service charges. The Metropolitan Development Department
expressed the preference for the second alternative The government also asked the Group of
Hotel to submit a finance a projection based on the second alternative WEBCON a West
Bengal Consultancy undertaking was asked to examine the proposal of the Taj Group of
Hotels, on request of committee of secretaries.
On July 1981, a comprehensive report was submitted indicating the second financial
alternative of net sales as the best. The Managing committee of the zoo presented a resolution
against the proposal of construction of hotel. It was stated that the construction on the vicinity
of the zoo will be detrimental to the animals and also to the migration of birds which was the
prominent attraction of the zoo. It was further pointed out that the proposed area is already
used for growing grass, as animal morgue, husbandry and these are essential services which
cannot be shifted in the near premises of the zoo as there is a risk of spreading of the
infections to other animals.
The Minister of Metropolitan Development Department informed the Chief Minister about
the resolution of Managing Committee. The Chief Minister endorsed a note to the Managing
Committee that if any further facilities are required by the zoo the government will provide it.
Thus, the Managing committee withdraw their objects on the assurance of being provided
adjacent land and matching grants for purpose of shifting of departments of the zoo Director
of the zoo also addressed a note to Secretary of Animal husbandry and Veterinary department
stating its objection towards the construction of the hotel. The Director of the zoo contented
that the zoo cannot operate a single day without the essential service that is hospital,
morgue, dumping ground, etc and also pointed out that the Alipore Zoological Garden
(Management) Rules, would clearly stipulates that the Managing Committee shall have
custody and disposal of the property and funds of the Gardens and shall be responsible for
proper maintenance. As a result, the secretary of Animal husbandry and veterinary
department wrote that it was not consulted before putting forward the proposal to the cabinet
and thus the practice issues were not taken into consideration. The negotiations with the Taj
Group of Hotels were fastened. WEBCON submitted further reports on the modifications the
by the Taj group of hotels and a detailed report was presented for cabinet discussion on
September 1981. It was put forth that the overall environmental beautification was state's
responsibility and would be beneficial for public at large. WEBCON also cited that the
projected profitability would be much more and would create direct and indirect
activities.
On 7 January 1982, a joint meeting of establishment and finance sub-committees was held
where it was decided that the four acres of land may be relinquished subject to requirements
of the until new facilities are construed on adjacent land. The Managing committee endorsed
the view and communicated the same to the government on January 11, 1982. On January is
1982, the Government of West Bengal wrote to the Land of Acquisition Officer with copies to
the Taj Group of Hotels directing the land acquisition officer to give possession of the land to
the Taj Group of Hotels. Thus, the appellants filed a suit in the court to restrain the zoo
authorities from handing over four acres of land to the government and against the resolution
passed on 7th and 11th January.
Arguments of Petitioner:
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned counsel on the behalf of appellants made the following
submissions before the court: Begum Bari land was statutorily vested in the managing
Committee of the zoological Garden. It was further contended that the land should not be
leased to the Taj Group of Hotels without giving invitation to the tender from volunteers and
without following the requirements of the land Manual. The decision was taken by the
authority without considering adverse impact on the zoo and without consulting various
interested authorities and institutions. Alike the Director of the zoo, the Public Undertakings
Committee of West Bengal, the Indian Wild Life Broad leading ornithologists of the country
etc. opposes the approval given to the Taj group of hotels. These persons and institution had
given several reasons for the disapproval and none of them were taken into account by the
Government Attention was not given by the government to this matter for the obligation as
the Cabinet Memorandum ignored such objections. According to the learnt counsel it was
submitted that the decision taken by the government was wrong as it was based on only
assumptions. And the assumption was made without proper enquiry and investigation.
According to the petitioner the loss of environmental destruction is too high to be
refunded. Furthermore, the terms were detrimental to the public revenue which are
considered for granting the lease of land.
Legal Issues
 Whether the government of West Bengal was arbitrary and unreasonable in
allotting land for construction of a five-star hotel and not inviting tenders for the
same?
The Hon'ble Supreme court referred the case of RD. Shetty v. International Airport
Authority, wherein the court observed that the activities of the Government had a public
element and if it entered into any contract, it must do so fairly without discrimination and
without unfair procedure: Whenever the Government dealt with the public, whether by way
of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms
of larges, the Government could not act arbitrarily at its sweet-will but must act in conformity
with standards or norms without being arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. If the Government
departed from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases its action was liable to be
struck down unless it could be shown that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on
some valid principle which was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
Therefore, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the court was
satisfied that the Government of West Bengal acted perfectly bona fide in granting the lease
of Begum Bari land to the Taj Group of Hotels for the construction of a Five-Star hotel in
Calcutta. The Government of West Bengal did not fail to take into account any relevant
consideration.
Thus, direct negotiation with these who came forward with proposals to construct Five Star
Hotels was without doubt the most reasonable and rational way of proceeding in the matter
rather than inviting tenders or holding public auction. There was nothing discriminatory in
the procedure adopted since no other leading hotelier showed any inclination to come
forward. It was sale of a Government property. Therefore, public auction was necessarily
ruled out. Only Taj Group of Hotels came forward with an offer to start the hotel.
 Whether the Government has considered the principles of Natural Justice in
allotting of the land, and the question of the migratory birds while leasing the
land to the Taj Group of Hotels?
The principles of Natural Justice inculcate rules necessary for determining the righteous
action of the Government. It's two main components are rule against bias and right to fair
hearing. The court righteously noted that the principles of Natural Justice has been observed
and that those who are most interested in the Zoological Garden were heard in the matter
before the decision was taken. The proposal to lease the Begumbari land was public
knowledge. The interested parties in the matter like the Managing Committee of the
Zoological Garden and the Director of the Zoo did have their say in the matter. The Public
Undertakings Committee in its report discussed the matter and invited the Government's
attention to various factors. The matter was further discussed on the floor of the Legislative
Assembly. Therefore, it was impossible to agree that there was any failure to observe
principles of Natural Justice.
It was also well noted that the Government was alive to the considerations put forward by the
committees and interested well beings. For instance, the report by public undertaking
committee was given importance as it mentioned that the construction of a five star hotel
nearby would diminish the breeding potential of the animals in the zoo and would be
detrimental to the migrating birds. The resolution by the Managing committee of the Zoo put
forth that the construction would take away the fodder cultivation land and therefore, would
likely shift the facilities on that land to the premises of the Zoo. The Chief Minister of West
Bengal assured them that if any further facilities are required it will be provided by the
government. Also, the lease was the culmination of a long elaborate and open procedure with
nothing to hide which therefore cannot justifiably be subject to adverse criticism.
Furthermore, the Government of West Bengal & the Taj group borne in mind the flight of the
migratory birds and that's why the structure of the construction was not to be above 75 feet
despite being some skyscrapers already built in the area. It was done to keep free the route of
the flight of the birds. It was also agreed to subdue lights in the hotel, keeping surroundings
of the hotel and the flora well maintained, in the interest of the birds.
All of it reflected quite crystal clear that the Taj group had given all the assurances necessary
to preserve the Zoo and its inmates it was also agreed that an operation theatre, morgue,
veterinary department and the like would be constructed a new bearing the cost of Rs. 30
lakhs, which the Taj group were entitled to be reimbursed under clause 25 of the lease,
but voluntarily gave up.
Arguments of Respondent
On the other hand, Shri Dipankar Gupta, learned counsel for the Taj Group of hotels and
there Gupta learned counsel for the State of West Bengal pleaded landscaping was designed
to encourage tourism and it would not disturb any of the ecology system. Along with this it
improved the surroundings of the place. For this the court favors the Stand & and asserted
honourable judge Justice Chinnapa Reddy said that, "Obviously," if the government is alive
to the various consideration requiring thoughts and deliberation as arrived at the conscious
decision after taking them into account, it may not be for this court to interfere in the absence
of malfield".
It was also contended the if the dumping ground and the burial ground shifted to some other
place than it will be more hygiene. It was explained that there will be no interference to the
flight of the migrating birds as the hotel was to be constructed at a distance of 700 feet from
the lake and was rise to a maximum height of 75 feet, being a medium rise and not a high
rise. It was also contended that there was going to be an environmental improvement of the
area as the dumping ground, burial ground and the semi -dilapidated buildings were to be
replaced by a hotel surrounded by broad roads. There was no occasion for the government
to invite tenders since the establishment of a five-star hotel was not something which
could practicably be undertaken by anyone in that fashion. According to them, it was
only be done by conducting negotiation session between the persons. The Taj Group of
Hotels agreed to subdue lights in the hotel and keeping surroundings of the hotel clean and
green with the maintenance of flora and in the interest of the bird. The hotel will be
surrounded by greenery all around the campus.
Judgement Decision of Trial Court
The learned Dingle Judge dismissed the writ petition because of the pendency of the matter,
valuable time was lost. Petitioners as well as the government have suffered sufficient loss.
The single Judge also pointed out further that as the petitioners obtained the interim order,
they were not interested in an early hearing of this matter and until a few months back no step
was taken to have this matter heard. If a stay was granted, similar situation will follow.
Decision of High Court:
The division bench observed that the appellants before them have impugned the State
Government’s decision to grant aforesaid four acres of land out of Begum Bari Compound to
Taj Group of Hotel, mainly on the ground that the same was unreasonable and arbitrary. Also,
the state Government did not apply its mind to relevant facts before disposing of the said
valuable lands in discharge of public interest. The Division Bench held that the decision taken
was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and that taking away of four acres of land from the
zoo was not detrimental to public interest. The Division Bench upheld the Judgement of the
learned Trial Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Judgement of the Supreme Court:
In this case the honourable judges give decision in the favor of the respondent and rejected
the prayers made by the appellant. Moreover, the court held that whenever there is a problem
of ecology comes before the court, the court is bound to consider Article 48A and 51A (g) of
the Indian Constitution. In the face of all this material, court do not observe serious threat to
the zoo by the respondent industry. Court is satisfied that the Government of West Bengal
acted perfectly in a bona fide manner in issuing the lease of Begum Bari to Taj Group of
Hotels for the construction of a Five Star Hotel in Calcutta.
Reference Legal Section
Article 48A: This Article comes under the Directive principle of the State policy. This article
implies that the State shall endeavor to protect the environment. It also emphasizes
safeguarding the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 48A imposes a duty on the State
to protect the environment from pollution by adopting various measures.

Article 51A (g): Article 51 A(g) states that it shall be the duty of each and every citizen of
India to protect and improve the natural environment including lakes, rivers, forests, and
wildlife. This article also focuses on showing compassion for living creatures. This article is
similar to Article 48A, but the only difference is that it concentrates on the fundamental duty
of citizens whereas Article 48A instructs the state to perform its duties and protect the
environment. Hence, it is our duty to not only protect the environment from pollution but also
improve its quality.