< Back
Supreme Court
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court

Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court

Supreme Court

“Revenue Cannot Be Earned At The Cost Of Ecology”: Supreme Court Converts Challenge To Shimla’s Green Zone Hotel Construction Ban Into Suo Motu PIL

Namrata Banerjee
|
1 Aug 2025 6:30 PM IST

The Court said environmental degradation in Himachal Pradesh from deforestation, blasting, and unregulated construction had reached alarming levels, prompting it to convert the case into a suo motu PIL for urgent action.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a hotel company’s challenge to a Himachal Pradesh Government notification declaring Tara Mata Hill as a 'Green Area', and instead converted the matter into a suo motu public interest litigation to examine the widespread environmental degradation in the hill State caused by unregulated development.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “It is too late in the day for the State to issue such notifications and try to save the situation. The situation in the State of Himachal Pradesh has gone from bad to worse.”

The Court added, “Revenue cannot be earned at the cost of environment and ecology… If things proceed the way they are, the day is not far when the entire State of Himachal Pradesh may vanish in thin air from the map of the Country.”

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner, a hotel in Shimla, challenged the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had permitted construction of a hotel within the ecologically sensitive Green Belt area of the city. The Petitioner had obtained approval from the Town and Country Planning Department, allowing construction despite the area being designated as a no-construction zone due to its vulnerability to landslides, deforestation, and flooding.

Public objections were raised against the project, citing environmental degradation and violation of green norms. Allegations were also made that government authorities selectively relaxed environmental safeguards to favour private interests. Aggrieved by the continuing approvals and the High Court’s order upholding them, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s writ petition, but expressed grave concern over the alarming environmental degradation in Himachal Pradesh. Observing that the matter raised larger issues of public interest, the Court chose to convert the case into a suo motu public interest litigation.

The Bench remarked that natural disasters in hilly regions could no longer be dismissed as mere acts of nature, noting, “We are now witnessing floods and landslides very frequently, especially in hilly terrains. It is not right to blame only nature. If nature becomes furious, then it is only because humans have caused such fury. What is evident is that due to unregulated constructions in hilly terrains, there is always a risk of landslides and floods during monsoon. These floods and landslides are not natural, but man-made. If immediate remedial steps are not taken, then we are afraid that it would be too late.”

The Court observed that the root of the ecological crisis lay in rampant construction, infrastructure projects, and deforestation. The Bench highlighted how activities such as tunnel blasting, unregulated tourism, and dam projects were accelerating environmental collapse. It noted, “It is too late in the day for the State to issue such notifications and try to save the situation. The situation in the State of Himachal Pradesh has gone from bad to worse.”

The Court was particularly critical of large-scale construction on fragile terrains and the continued destruction of forests: “In the name of development, multi-storey constructions are being raised even on hill slopes that are declared as ‘sinking areas’. Haphazard and unscientific developments are being allowed, putting in peril not only the environment and ecology of the region, but even human life. Deforestation is occurring at a rampant pace. Mountains and hillocks are being blown into fragments by dynamites for creating pathways.”

The Bench raised serious concerns about hydroelectric projects being permitted at the cost of the ecosystem. It observed, “It is very unfortunate that in the name of construction of hydroelectric power projects, the State has permitted cutting of trees and use of explosives to blast the rocks and hills for constructing tunnels. It is very painful to note that thousands of trees have been cut in the recent past. What is left today in the name of forest are just pine trees.”

The Court cautioned that environmental degradation in the region had reached a tipping point, and stated, “Revenue cannot be earned at the cost of environment and ecology. The economic value of biodiversity is enormous. However, the loss in biodiversity and ecosystem affects the society. If things proceed the way they are, the day is not far when the entire State of Himachal Pradesh may vanish in thin air from the map of the Country.”

While acknowledging belated action by the State Government, the Bench noted that substantial harm had already occurred, though efforts to mitigate were underway. It added, “Much damage has been caused but there is a saying that something is better than nothing. We are saying so because what has been placed on record does indicate that at least now, the State Government has realised its mistake and is trying to rectify the same by taking appropriate measures.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to treat the matter as a suo motu PIL and called upon the State Government to submit a comprehensive action plan addressing the environmental crisis. Notices were also issued to the Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh and the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 25, 2025.

Cause Title: M/s Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19426/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate PS Patwali; AOR Alok Tripathi; Advocate Kushagra Goyal

Respondents: Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa; AG Anup Rattan; AAG Vaibhav Srivastava; Advocate Puneet Rajia

Click here to read/download Order



Similar Posts