Supreme Court Quashes NGT Order on No-Development Zone in Jabalpur: S.N. Dubey vs. Raman Khandelwal (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 931
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J. (Bench of two judges)
Can a tribunal rely solely on a court-appointed commissioner’s report without considering objections from the involved parties? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the declaration of a no-development zone around a lake in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The court emphasized the importance of independent assessment by tribunals, setting aside an order by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that had relied heavily on an outsourced report. This judgment underscores the need for a balanced approach in environmental decision-making, ensuring that all perspectives are duly considered before imposing restrictions on development activities.

Case Background

The case originated from an application filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) by Raman Khandelwal, Deepak Gupta, and Sharad Singh Kumhre, seeking the preservation of the Bajrang Nagar Pahadi area in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The applicants were concerned about the potential environmental impact of development activities in the area, particularly on the Gokulpur Talab (lake) and the Narmada River. The NGT appointed a Court Commissioner to assess the site and submit a report.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The NGT, based on the Court Commissioner’s report, declared a one-kilometer area surrounding the Gokulpur Talab as a no-development zone. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Special Armed Forces, and private individuals affected by this order filed appeals before the Supreme Court, challenging the NGT’s decision. The appellants argued that the NGT had not independently considered the objections raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh and had merely accepted the Court Commissioner’s report without further scrutiny.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the concept of catchment areas for water bodies. The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that there are two types of catchment areas: direct and indirect. Direct catchment areas are the primary sources of water for a water body, such as nalas, streams, and rivers. Indirect catchment areas are larger areas where water is absorbed into the soil and percolates to the main water bodies. The State contended that while the area in question might be an indirect catchment area, it was not a direct one. It also highlighted that the Jabalpur Development Scheme/Master Plan 2021 had considered the natural water dispersal system and did not classify the area as a direct catchment for Gokulpur Talab or the Narmada River.

Arguments

The following arguments were presented before the Supreme Court:

• Appellants (State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Armed Forces, and Private Individuals):
  • The NGT’s order, if implemented, would halt all development activities in the area.
  • The Jabalpur development plan had already considered all relevant aspects, including the catchment area.
  • The NGT did not consider the State’s objection that the area was an indirect, not a direct, catchment area.
  • The Planning Authority had taken into account the catchment area while preparing the development plan.
• Respondent (Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board):
  • Supported the stand of the State Government.

The State of Madhya Pradesh, in its reply before the NGT, had stated:

“The applicant has also alleged that the subjective land is the catchment area of Gokulpur pond as well as Narmada river. It is most humbly submitted that the catchment is defined as direct catchment and indirect catchment the direct catchment area is the area which is the main source of water for the water body whereas indirect catchment area could be a huge area which could be more than hundreds of square kilometers because each and every surface on earth could be the catchment area for one or the other waterbodies therefore the subjective land may be considered as indirect catchment of Gokulpur pond as well as Narmada river but it could never be direct catchment of the same as while preparing the Jabalpur Development Scheme/Master Plan 2021 the survey pertaining to the natural water dispersal system was carried out and to show the natural water dispersal areas map was prepared which is part and parcel of the master plan. In the said flow map the subjective area is not shown as the direct catchment area of Gokulpur pond as well as Narmada River.”

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

• Whether the NGT could declare an area as a no-development zone based solely on the Court Commissioner’s report without independent consideration of the objections raised by the parties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

• Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan and Others [CITATION]: The Supreme Court referred to its order dated 27.11.2024 in this case, which deprecated the practice of the NGT of basing its judgment on outsourced material.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Benzo Chem Industrial Private Limited v. Arvind Manohar Mahajan and Others [CITATION]* to emphasize that tribunals should not base their judgments solely on outsourced material. The Court stated that “A tribunal is expected to carefully consider the material placed before it and the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. It cannot discharge its function by merely relying on a report of the Court Commissioner without even considering the stand of the parties before it.”

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse on the part of the NGT in not independently considering the objections raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court emphasized the importance of a tribunal’s duty to assess all evidence and arguments presented by the parties, rather than relying solely on a report from a court-appointed commissioner. The court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that the NGT acted within its jurisdiction by considering all relevant information and arguments.

The court’s reasoning was based more on the legal principle of procedural fairness and the need for tribunals to independently assess evidence rather than the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the NGT’s orders dated 20.03.2020 and 06.04.2021. The Court held that the NGT had erred in accepting the Court Commissioner’s report without independently considering the objections raised by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court emphasized that:

• “A tribunal is expected to carefully consider the material placed before it and the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties.”
• “It cannot discharge its function by merely relying on a report of the Court Commissioner without even considering the stand of the parties before it.”

The Court also clarified that any permissions for development granted after obtaining approval from the State Environment Impact Assessment Agency (SEIAA) would remain valid. Additionally, the time period from the date of the stay granted by the NGT until the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment was excluded from any specific time limits for development activities.

The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations.

Key Takeaways

• Tribunals must independently assess evidence and arguments presented by all parties.
• Reliance solely on outsourced reports without considering objections is not permissible.
• Development permissions granted after due process remain valid.
• Time periods affected by stay orders are excluded from development timelines.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The permission for development which was granted after obtaining the approval of the State Environment Impact Assessment Agency (SEIAA) would continue to operate.
• The time from the date of stay granted by the learned NGT till today, shall stand excluded from any specific period provided for such activities.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that tribunals, such as the NGT, must not base their decisions solely on outsourced reports without independent consideration of the objections raised by the parties. This judgment reinforces the principle of procedural fairness and the need for tribunals to act judiciously by considering all relevant information and arguments. It clarifies that a tribunal cannot delegate its decision-making function to a court-appointed commissioner and must actively engage with the evidence and arguments presented by the parties. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing principles of procedural fairness and judicial review.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in S.N. Dubey vs. Raman Khandelwal underscores the importance of procedural fairness and independent assessment by tribunals. The Court quashed the NGT’s order, emphasizing that tribunals must not rely solely on outsourced reports but must actively consider all evidence and arguments presented by the parties. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the need for a balanced approach in environmental decision-making, ensuring that all perspectives are duly considered before imposing restrictions on development activities.