Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 — Sections 70, 75, 76, 79–81 — Master Plan — Binding force — Change of Land Use (CLU) — Land falling in rural agricultural zone — Whether CLU can override operative Master Plan — Held, No — Master Plan once published under Section 70(5) read with Section 75 acquires statutory force — Section 79 prohibits use inconsistent with Master Plan — CLU under Sections 80–81 is regulatory permission within discipline of Plan, not source of power to override zoning — CLU dated 13.12.2021 illegal ab initio (Paras 9–17).
Master Plan — Alteration/Revision — Section 76 — Whether minutes of Planning Board meeting dated 05.01.2022 granting ex post facto approval could cure defect in CLU — Held, No — Revision attracts procedure under Sections 70 and 75 including publication and objections — Internal approval cannot substitute statutory amendment — No retrospective validation absent express statutory provision (Paras 18–25).
Environmental Law — EIA Notification, 2006 — Prior Environmental Clearance — Preventive nature — Siting norms — PPCB Notification dated 02.09.1998 — Minimum distance from school/residential cluster — Whether compliance demonstrably established — Held, No — Boundary-based assumption insufficient — Precautionary principle mandates objective verification — Consent to establish cannot defer siting compliance (Paras 26–33).
Constitution of India — Articles 14 and 21 — Right to clean and healthy environment — CPCB revised industrial categorisation (January 2025) — Reclassification of stand-alone grinding unit without CPP from Red to Orange category — Consequential relaxation of siting norms under GSR 84E and GSR 85E dated 29.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 — Whether sustainable — Held, No — Sector-level Pollution Index methodology cannot dilute preventive safeguards — Regulatory downgrade arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 — Precautionary principle reaffirmed (Paras 47–66).
Judicial Review — Technical regulatory classification — Scope of interference — Courts ordinarily exercise restraint — However, where dilution of safeguards impacts life and health, constitutional scrutiny warranted (Paras 54–58, 64).
Result — Appeals allowed — CLU dated 13.12.2021 and Consent to Establish dated 14.12.2021 quashed — Revised CPCB categorisation insofar as impugned and consequential MoEF&CC notifications quashed — Fresh exercise permissible if consistent with precautionary principle and constitutional mandate (Paras 34–37, 65–68).
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
The controversy arose from grant of Change of Land Use dated 13.12.2021 in favour of Respondent No. 9 for establishment of a cement grinding unit over 47.82 acres in Sangrur, Punjab. The land, as per the notified Master Plan for Sangrur, fell within a rural agricultural zone. The appellants consisted of agriculturists residing in the vicinity and a school located near the proposed site.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petitions challenging the CLU. It recorded that as on 13.12.2021 the CLU lacked statutory backing under the PRTPD Act, but held that the defect stood cured by “approval” granted by the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Board in its 43rd meeting dated 05.01.2022. It also accepted that siting and environmental safeguards were adequately addressed.
The Supreme Court structured the judgment in two parts. Part I addressed legality of CLU and related approvals. Part II examined constitutional challenge to revised CPCB industrial categorisation and consequential central notifications issued during pendency of appeals.
On facts, the Court noted that:
The site was consistently treated as falling in a rural agricultural zone under the operative Master Plan.
Red category industry was not permissible at that location.
Environmental clearance had not been granted; only Terms of Reference were issued and public hearing conducted.
The PPCB granted consent to establish on the basis of SDM certification and site visit, relying on boundary measurements.
During pendency, CPCB reclassified stand-alone grinding units from Red to Orange category, and MoEF&CC issued guidelines relaxing siting and regulatory safeguards.
These factual elements framed the legal issues regarding statutory competence, curability of jurisdictional defect, compliance with preventive safeguards, and constitutional validity of regulatory dilution.
ANALYSIS OF LAW
I. Binding Force of Master Plan and Nature of CLU
The Court placed decisive emphasis on the statutory architecture of the PRTPD Act. Sections 70 and 75 establish that a Master Plan becomes operative only upon publication in the Official Gazette and thereafter binds authorities and public alike.
Section 79 imposes a mandatory prohibition against land use inconsistent with the Master Plan. Sections 80 and 81 create a permission regime but expressly within conformity with the Master Plan.
The Court clarified that a CLU is not an independent source of power to override zoning. It is a regulatory instrument that presupposes permissibility under the Plan. Any interpretation that allows CLU to invert statutory hierarchy would nullify Section 79.
The Court relied upon the jurisprudential principle that where statute prescribes a manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner alone. It also invoked the ratio of Bangalore Medical Trust to underscore that alteration of planning scheme cannot occur through executive convenience or post facto approval.
Thus, the CLU dated 13.12.2021 was held illegal ab initio because, on the date of its grant, the use was impermissible under the operative Master Plan.
II. Whether Subsequent Approval Could Cure the Defect
The High Court had treated the Planning Board’s approval dated 05.01.2022 as curing the defect.
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning. Section 76 contemplates revision of Master Plan but expressly attracts procedural safeguards under Sections 70 and 75, including publication, invitation of objections, and gazette notification.
Minutes of a meeting or ex post facto endorsement cannot amount to a statutory amendment brought into operation.
The Court held that jurisdictional illegality cannot be retrospectively cured unless statute expressly permits such validation. The PRTPD Act contains no such provision.
Thus, the subsequent approval lacked legal efficacy to validate the earlier unlawful CLU.
III. Environmental Safeguards and Siting Norms
The Court examined compliance with the EIA Notification, 2006 and PPCB siting norms dated 02.09.1998.
It reiterated that prior environmental clearance is preventive and must precede construction or land preparation.
Regarding siting norms, the Court found that reliance on boundary-based measurements and assumption that emission sources would be farther did not constitute demonstrable compliance. Objective and verifiable measurement from identified emission sources was required.
The Court applied the precautionary principle and held that compliance cannot be deferred to later stages such as consent to operate.
Thus, Issue III was answered in favour of appellants.
IV. Constitutional Scrutiny of Revised CPCB Categorisation
Part II of the judgment marks a significant constitutional development.
The CPCB reclassified stand-alone grinding units without captive power plant from Red to Orange category based on revised Pollution Index methodology.
The Court held that sector-level scoring cannot justify dilution of preventive safeguards where exposure risks remain.
Relative pollution potential vis-à-vis integrated plants was irrelevant; the real question was whether absolute risk justified relaxation of siting norms near habitations and schools.
The Court held that:
Environmental governance is constitutionally anchored in Article 21.
Regulatory downgrades impacting life and health must satisfy proportionality and rational nexus under Article 14.
Precautionary principle requires erring on side of protection in case of credible risk.
Judicial restraint in policy matters does not extend to abdication where constitutional minima are diluted.
Consequently, reclassification and consequential notifications GSR 84E and GSR 85E were quashed to the extent of impugned relaxation.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The binding ratio emerging from the judgment is as follows:
Once a Master Plan has come into operation under Sections 70 and 75 of the PRTPD Act, land use inconsistent with its zoning prescriptions cannot be permitted through a Change of Land Use unless the Plan itself is altered in the manner prescribed by statute. A CLU issued contrary to the operative Master Plan is void for lack of jurisdiction and cannot be retrospectively validated by subsequent administrative approval not complying with statutory procedure.
Further, preventive environmental safeguards, including siting norms and prior environmental clearance requirements, must be demonstrably complied with at the threshold. Regulatory classification frameworks that dilute such safeguards, without scientifically substantiated and proportionate justification, infringe Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be struck down.
No comments:
Post a Comment