SC adjourns hearing on the Shimla Development Plan till November
The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to adjourn the hearing on the Shimla Development Plan till November on the adjournment sought by the state of Himachal Pradesh.
Hearing the Special Leave Petition of Himachal Pradesh, in the matter of state versus Yogendra Mohan Sengupta and others, SC allowed the intervention petition moved by the former Deputy Mayor Shimla Mr . Tekinder Singh Panwar ordering the petitioners to file a reply on this petition in the same matter.
The counsel for the respondent, Sanjay Parik stated before the bench that under the guise of the SDP plan, multistory building could be permitted by the state however National Green Tribunal restrained the state from permitting multistory building on the basis of a expert committee report. The respondent is opposing the SDP by terming it the recipe for the destruction of the hill town. He said that he has read the SDP plan and it is proposed to allow the multistory buildings. He urged that an expert committee should be constituted to study the impact of SDP with regard to the devastation rendered by the recent rain in Shimla town.
The bench of SC comprising Mr Justice BR Gavai and Mr Justice PK Mishra, Mr Justice Gavai questioned the absence of Advocate General from the hearing on a case related to Himachal Pradesh.
The counsel for the state of Himachal Pradesh (appeared online) denied the contention of the respondent and urged the court to allow the state to implement the SDP as it has published the plan as per previous directions of the apex court and state abide by the directions issued by the bench.
Replying to the contention of the respondent that multistory buildings would not be allowed under the guise of SDP, the state further submitted that not more than three-story buildings be permitted under the SDP and it should be allowed to permit three-story buildings in the core areas and four-story buildings in the proposed satellite township coming in the outskirts of the capital town.
On the argument of multistory buildings Justice BR Gavai said that the court would look into the matter of multistorey buildings during the course of the hearing on the SLP however he questioned that recent devastation occurred in the town and state should owe the responsibility of loss rendered due to construction, besides the natural calamities.
The counsel for the state countered the argument vehemently that devastation could not be completely attributed to the construction and permissions are not granted under SDP so far on the direction of this court.
The state submitted before the SC that it was raining from the month of March till September Shimla rain also caused more devastation or damage to houses and property in the Kullu and Manali areas which is not covered under the Shimla Planning area.
The state government informed the court that it is coming with SDP to stop the devastation by ensuring planned development as unplanned development is more likely to render heavy loss due to natural calamity in the state and Shimla town.
Responding to concern of the Justice Gavai that parking areas abutting the road should not be permitted for residential purposes the counsel for the state stated that there is no question of allowing construction in the parking and areas designated or permitted for the parking would remain solely for the purpose of parking.
He said that with regard to this concern the bench state is also ready to give an undertaking that the Parking area should be strictly used for the purpose of parking and not for residential purposes as the town could not afford to park vehicles on the roads (given the narrow roads).
The Bench fixing the hearing in the matter in the Month of November also issued the notice to MC and TCP on the application of the former Deputy Mayor who filed an intervention application in the SLP.
During the previous hearing, the AG had also contented before the same bench that various applications of residents are pending before the government for a long time to allow the construction as per the provisions of the TCP Act and the state needs to process these applications as it allow to go ahead with SDP for the catering of new construction. However, the court did not pass any order on the matter of SDP so far.
Former Deputy Mayor Tekinder Singh Panwar told us that he has also filed an intervention application before the SC seeking to prepare the calamity action plan for Shimla town in the wake of the global warming and recent devastation rendered by the rain.
He also sought to do away with the SDP plan and order the state to prepare a new Shimla Development Plan to be strictly prepared on the basis of a Geological Study by an expert committee for further development and to save the township from being converted into a concrete jungle.
It is worthwhile to mention that the State government has challenged the National Green Tribunal judgment passed in November 2017 restraining the new construction on the basis of the Interim development plan in the Shimla planning area.
The state also challenged the NGT order which declared the new Shimla Development Plan illegal against the November 2017 order.
During the previous hearing in the matter SC similarly deferred the hearing for today after allowing the state of Himachal to place the draft of a new development plan in the court which was also tabled before the SC bench hearing this SLP.
According to the Counsel for architect Hitanshu Jisthtu advocates Ragahav Geol the matter is adjourned at the request of the state.
”The bench has observed in the hearing that any permission if granted during the pendency of matter If brought to the notice of the SC they would order demolition if the state allows it.’. Mr Goel added.
Earlier to this the division bench could not hear this matter after July 28, 2023, as the matter was adjourned twice in the month of August and September.
