Supreme Court: In the present case, the petitioner, Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., had preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, challenging Notification dated 6-6-2025, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Town and Country Planning Department, whereby construction in Shri Tara Mata Hill area was prohibited as it was declared a ‘green area’. The High Court had declined to entertain the writ petition stating that the petitioner still had to seek permission from the State authorities to purchase the land in question.
The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ., stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment as the object for issuing such a Notification was to curb constructive activities in a particular area. The Court opined that the situation in the State had gone from bad to worse and severe ecological imbalance had led to serious natural calamities. The Court dismissed the petition, however, after considering the issues relating to ecology and environmental conditions prevailing in the State, directed Registry to register a Writ Petition in public interest in this regard. The Court further directed the State to file its reply, explaining whether it had any action plan to meet with the issues discussed by this Court in the present case.
Background
The petitioner engaged in the business of hotels and resorts wanted to set up a resort in Shri Tara Mata Hill area, but the said area was declared as a ‘Green Area’ by Notification dated 6-6-2025. As per the said Notification, certain areas were declared as green areas, and once any area was declared as a green area, there was a restriction insofar as construction etc., was concerned. Thus, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the High Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification and contended that declaring Shri Tara Mata Hill as a ‘Green Area’ in Totally was in contravention of Sections 19 and 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977.
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, stating that it was not open for the petitioner to question the Notification, as being a Private Limited Company, it had not acquired any right or interest to purchase land within the State of Himachal Pradesh, and thus, was not ‘an aggrieved person’. The petitioner thus, still had to seek permission from the authorities of the State to purchase the land in question.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment and order and observed that the obvious reason for issuing such a Notification was to curb constructive activities in a particular area, but it was too late in the day for the State to issue such notifications and try to save the situation. The situation in Himachal Pradesh had gone from bad to worse and severe ecological imbalance and other environmental conditions led to serious natural calamities over a period of years.
The Court observed that in the year 2025, hundreds of people perished in the floods and landslides and thousands of properties got destroyed, thus, nature was annoyed with the activities which were going on in the State. It was not right to blame only nature for the disaster in Himachal Pradesh as humans, not nature, were responsible for phenomenon such as continuous land sliding of mountains and soil, landslides on roads, collapsing of houses and buildings, subsidence of road, etc.
The Court stated that as per experts and various reports, major causes of destruction were Hydro Power Projects, four lane roads, deforestation, multi-storey buildings, etc. The Court opined that the State was nestled in the lap of the Himalayan Mountains and thus, it was important to seek opinion of Geologists, Environmental Experts and local people before any development project was undertaken in the State. The Government started constructing four lane roads to promote the State as a tourist destination, for which heavy machinery and explosives materials were used to cut the mountains, due to which the natural balance of the place had started to deteriorate.
Further, unrelenting building, tunnel, and road construction, frequently done without sufficient environmental planning, had increased the area’s susceptibility to natural disasters and the effects of climate change. Ecological diversity and growing human demands necessitate immediate sustainable planning and conservation measures.
The State was witnessing rising average temperatures, shifting snowfall patterns, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, along with unseasonal rainfall and prolonged dry spells, which affected agriculture and water availability. Forests in the State also played a vital role in regulating local climate, sequestering carbon, and maintaining the water cycle, making their protection essential for the region’s ecological balance. This situation was exacerbated by the removal of forest guard check posts and with such removal, even at the inter-district level, had compounded the problem of illegal felling of trees, and now there was no mechanism of control and checks on the exploitation of this resource.
Despite the State Government’s legislation to control mining and quarrying, illicit/inadequately regulated operations take place, especially close to road construction sites and riverbeds. The Court stated that to address this issue in a sustainable manner, it required both offering alternate sources of income and stepping up the enforcement of environmental regulations.
The Court opined that it was high time that the State paid attention and started taking necessary action at the earliest in the right direction. The Union of India owed an obligation to see that the ecological imbalance in the State did not get further disturbed and natural calamities did not occur. The Court also opined that earning revenue was not everything, and it could not be earned at the cost of the environment and ecology, because if things proceeded the same way, then the day was not far when the entire State might vanish in thin air from the Country’s map.
The Court dismissed the petition, however, in larger public interest, kept the present matter alive so far as the issues relating to ecology and environmental conditions prevailing in the State were concerned. The Court thus directed the Registry to register a Writ Petition in public interest in this regard and issued notice to the State, directing to file its reply, explaining whether it had any action plan to meet with the issues discussed by this Court, and what did it proposed to do in the future.
The matter would next be listed on 25-8-2025.
[Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, SLP(C) No. 19426 of 2025, decided on 28-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: PS Patwalia, Sr. Adv.; Kushagra Goyal, Adv.; Alok Tripathi, AOR
For the Respondents: Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv.; Anup Rattan, Advocate General; Vaibhav Srivastava, AAG; Puneet Rajia, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
