Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed a petition challenging a Himachal Pradesh government notification, while taking suo motu cognizance of broader ecological concerns in the State. The Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Union Government to respond with specific action plans addressing ecological imbalance and environmental degradation. The Bench ordered the Registry to register a public interest writ petition on the matter and mandated the State to submit a detailed response within four weeks.

The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of hotels and resorts, approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging a notification dated 06.06.2025 issued by the Town and Country Planning Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The notification declared Shri Tara Mata Hill as a Green Area. The petitioner sought quashing of the said notification under a writ of certiorari and further sought production of records related to the notification through a writ of mandamus.

Also Read: Supreme Court Bars Use Of WhatsApp, Electronic Means For Section 35 Notices | Reaffirms Personal Service Mandate To Protect Liberty

According to the notification, the amendment to the Shimla Planning Area Development Plan was carried out under Section 19 and Section 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. It inserted Shri Tara Mata Hill as a Green Area under regulation 17.2, which restricted any new private construction except re-construction on the old line and alterations in existing buildings with prior approval of the State Government. Construction activities by the Shri Tara Mata Complex trust were permitted only with prior approval.

The notification delineated the boundaries of the newly declared Green Area beginning from Shoghi at NH-05 near a building, extending uphill to Shoghi-Mehli Road, continuing along the road to a railway over-bridge, and further along the Kalka-Shimla Railway Track to the Tara Devi Railway Station. The route then crossed the hill to the junction of NH-05 and the Totu/Airport bypass road and looped back to the starting point.

The High Court dismissed the petition stating that the petitioner, being a Private Limited Company, was not an aggrieved party as it had not acquired any legal right or permission to purchase land in the State. The Supreme Court, upon appeal under Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19426 of 2025, declined to interfere with the High Court's findings, agreeing that the petitioner had no established right over the land.

The Supreme Court recorded “The object of issuing such notifications declaring certain earmarked area as green areas is definitely a laudable object but we are afraid to say that it is too late in the day for the State to issue such notifications and try to save the situation.”

The Bench noted "the situation in the State of Himachal Pradesh has gone from bad to worse." It stated severe ecological imbalance, natural calamities, and environmental destruction.

The Court stated, "It is not right to blame only nature for the disaster in Himachal Pradesh. Humans, not nature, are responsible for phenomenon such as continuous land sliding of mountains and soil, land-slides on roads, collapsing of houses and buildings, subsidence of road etc."

The Court quoted expert views and reports attributing major causes of destruction to "Hydro Power Projects, four lane roads, deforestation, multi-storey buildings etc." It stressed the need for expert opinion before development.

Discussing the impacts of tourism, the Bench recorded, "Uncontrolled growth of tourism has strained the State's environment... during peak seasons, the influx of tourists results in traffic congestion, waste generation, noise pollution, overuse of water resources, and encroachment into ecologically sensitive areas."

Regarding hydropower, the judgment stated, "While this form of energy is renewable and low-carbon, the large-scale construction of dams, reservoirs, and tunnels comes with considerable environmental costs." It also mentioned inadequate enforcement of contractual water flow standards by project proponents.

On climate change, the Court recorded, "The State has been witnessing rising average temperatures, shifting snowfall patterns, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events." It further warned that glacier retreat, unseasonal rains, and forest degradation were contributing to disaster risks.

The judgment addressed failures in waste management, noting, "Seldom is source segregation implemented, resulting in mixed trash that is more difficult to handle... high-altitude tourism zones confront particular difficulties."

The Court also observed inadequacies in urban planning, stating, "Projects like four-lane highways, ropeways, tunnels, and urban expansions often bypass environmental safeguards... hill slopes are cut steeply, unscientifically, without adequate stabilization measures."

It added that, "Despite having been an environmentally rich state, its own people are today responsible for such blind pursuit of development, to their own detriment."

The Bench stressed that unchecked tourism, particularly in ecologically fragile zones such as Rohtang and trekking routes, contributed significantly to environmental deterioration.

In relation to mining, the Court recorded, "Despite the state government's legislation to control mining and quarrying, illicit or inadequately regulated operations nevertheless take place... the mining of stone, sand, and gravel destabilizes the terrain, raises the risk of erosion, and can even impact the structural integrity of neighbouring roads and structures."

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the High Court's refusal to entertain the writ but proceeded to register a public interest writ petition on environmental grounds. The Court stated, "We close this litigation so far as the main matter is concerned i.e. the challenge by the petitioner to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The petition stands dismissed. However, in larger public interest, we would like to keep this matter alive so far as the issues relating to ecology and environmental conditions prevailing in the State are concerned."

The Bench directed the Registry, "The Registry is directed to register a Writ Petition in public interest in this regard."

It called upon the State to respond, recording, "We call upon the State of Himachal Pradesh to file its response to what has fallen from us more particularly the issues which we have discussed in the preceding parts of this order."

Also Read: P&H High Court: Criminal Case Unrelated to Service Can’t Justify Withholding Gratuity Under PCS Rules

It continued, "We expect the State to file an appropriate reply explaining whether they have any action plan to meet with the issues we have discussed and what do they propose to do future."

The Court ordered issuance of notice: "Issue notice to the State for this limited purpose, returnable within 4 weeks. By the next date, we want an appropriate report from the State."

Further, the Court mandated communication of its order: "Registry shall forward one copy of this order at the earliest to the Chief Secretary, State of Himachal Pradesh. One copy shall also be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Union of India."

The matter was scheduled: "Post it for the hearing on 25.08.2025 on top of the board."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. PS Patwalia, Senior Advocate; Mr. Kushagra Goyal, Advocate; Mr. Alok Tripathi, Advocate-on-Record

For the Respondents: Mr. Navin Pahwa, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General; Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Puneet Rajia, Advocate

Case Title: M/s Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

Case Number: SLP(C) No. 19426/2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan