Supreme Court Dismisses MP Tourism Development Corporation's Appeal Against NGT Order To Protect Bhopal Lake
While dismissing an appeal, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) expressed surprise at Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation challenging an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which was aimed at saving lakes in the State."By the impugned order, an effort is made by the National Green Tribunal to save various lakes in the State...We fail to understand how the...
While dismissing an appeal, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) expressed surprise at Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation challenging an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which was aimed at saving lakes in the State.
"By the impugned order, an effort is made by the National Green Tribunal to save various lakes in the State...We fail to understand how the Tourism Development Corporation of the State can be aggrieved with a direction issued by the NGT to protect the lakes. Appeal dismissed", said the Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Briefly put, the underlying order was passed in an original application filed before NGT, Bhopal by respondent No.1/Subhash C Pandey. Pandey, an environmentalist and resident of Bhopal, had raised the grievance of serious damage and deterioration being caused to Bhopal Lake, commonly known as 'Bhoj Wetland' comprising 'Upper Lake' and 'Lower Lake' and other water bodies due to operation of motorized boats and cruise boats.
After a detailed discussion, the NGT allowed the application and restrained the authorities from running Cruise Boats or any other boat operated with motors in Bhopal Lake (Ramsar site) and other designated wetlands. The authorities were further restrained from raising any permanent construction within 'Zone of Influence' of water bodies/wetlands and if any permanent construction had been raised, the same was to be demolished.
Against this order, the appellant/Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation approached the top Court. Its counsel urged that there were 6 other Ramsar sites where motorized boats are permitted and are plying even today.
"We will stop there also," countered Oka J.
In response to another contention raised by the appellant to the effect that the NGT did not say there was an absolute ban, Justice Oka said,
"Let's proceed on the footing that there is no absolute ban...What is wrong as an instrument of the State, you should be welcoming such orders that more and more lakes will exist...you are tourism development corporation, in the cities if there are more lakes...it will attract more tourists"
It was further remarked that the appellant's approach should be to ensure that more and more lakes exist.
"You as a State instrument should be careful to protect the lakes...you should not be challenging such orders, they are passed for protection of the lakes".
In this backdrop, the appeal was dismissed.
Counsels for appellant: Advocate Abhinav Shrivastava; AoR Mishra Saurabh
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Versus Subhash C. Pandey and Ors., Diary No. 664-2024