CASE SUMMARY

Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority Vs The

Central Empowered Committee

Submitted by Drishti Tiwari

R450217036
B.A.LL.B
(EL)
Sem
VIII

FACTS-
This
case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant
structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and parking space. The
Central
Empowe
red Committee concluded that part of Bus Stand Constructed by the Himachal
Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority at McLeod Ganj in
Himachal
Pradesh
violates the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The
CEC recommended the demolition of the illegal portions.

ISSUE-
Was the
construction of Bus stand in that space was permitted earlier but extension of the
space breach of environmental norms?

ARGU
MENTS PRESENTED-
Appe lla
nts -
- Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex was included to
make it a
commercially viable station, for which the construction rights were assigned
without considering any interest in the land.
- It was the responsibility of the construction company to get appropriate
 - If the project was to be demolished at that stage, it will cause environmental
damage as debris arising out of demolition will be difficult to dispose of in an
area that is congested and covered with extensive vegetation.
Respondents
- MOEF rejected the request of the state for the extension of the use of the
forest land
for any other constructions other than a Bus Stand and parking space, making
the commercial complex structure illegal.
- The actions of the appellant and the second respondent have constituted to
violation
of the environmental rule of law and were deliberately in violation of the
provisions of the Forest Act.
- The de-reservation of forest land for the construction of the Hotel-cum-
Restaurant structure violated section 2(i)of the forest Act.

COURTS OBSERVATION AND DECISION

Observation- the Supreme Court noted the importance of judicial intervention for
ensuring environmental protection and underscored the principles that are the
cornerstone of our
environmental jurisprudence i.e., the precautionary principle, the polluter pays
principle, and sustainable development. The role of the Court and tribunals
cannot be overstated in
ensuring that the ‘shield’ of the “rule of law” can be used as a facilitative
instrument in ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. Thus, the direction
given by NGT in its
impugned judgment shall be confirmed. The present permission by MOEF was only
for the
construction of ‘parking space’ and ‘bus stand’ in Mcleod Ganj and consciously
decided not to modify the permission. The Construction by the second respondent,
even with the tacit approval of the appellant would have been illegal.

Decision- the Court directed the demolition of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in

the Bus Stand Complex because the structure has been made illegally. The order
upholds the decision of the National Green Tribunal. The state of Himachal Pradesh
and the second respondent could utilize the parking space and bus stand in the
complex after demolition. The National Green Tribunal discovered that the Bus Stand
complex at McLeod Ganj, where the Hotel Cum Restaurant is situated, not only
violates the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it also disturbs the
ENVIRONMENTAL RULE OF LAW
The environmental rule of law is one of the features of the idea of rule of law. It
incorporates highlights that are specific to environmental administration, highlights
which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law tries to make fundamental
devices- reasonable, procedural, and institutional to bring structure to discourse on
environmental protection. It looks for a
multidisciplinary of any ideas with the mutual perspective between
examination administrative science, strategy viewpoint. Environmental rule of law
choices, and sustainable is vital to coordinates environmental necessities with
development.
components ofIt the ruletheof fundamental
law, and gives the premise to improving
environmental administration. Without environmental rule of law and the
implementation of legal rights and commitments, environmental administration might be
arbitrary, that is, optional, subjective, and discretionary

CONCLUSION
The environmental rule of law approaches judges to marshal the information from the
record, which is now and again restricted, and react harshly and unequivocally to the
infringement of
the environment. For this situation, also the specific harm can't be measured yet the
method by which the appellant and the subsequent respondent tried to accomplish
their motivation
isn't adequate. The appellant and second respondent carried with development
without conforming to the plans drawn continued even after being restrained from
construction by
TCP. Indeed, even the post facto refusal by the MOEF was likewise not contemplated.
These
activities violate environmental rule of law. An absence of logical assurance is no
ground to jeopardize the environment.