JAL MAHAL RESORTS P. LTD. Vs. K.P. SHARMA
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 25,2014
Jal Mahal Resorts P. Ltd.
Appellant
VERSUS
K.P. Sharma and Ors.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
TATA CELLULAR V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. ULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KASTURI LAL LAKSHMI REDDY REPRE SENTED VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
A K ROY THAN SINGH TYAGI DR VASANTKUMAR PANDIT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NANDLAL JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDANAND PANDEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
PODDAR STEEL CORPORATION VS. GANESH ENGINEERING WORKS [REFERRED TO]
M P OIL EXTRACTION K N OIL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GAJANAN MAHARAJ SANSTHAN [REFERRED TO]
B S N JOSHI AND SONS LTD VS. NAIR COAL SERVICES LTD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-16] [REFERRED TO]FEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-135] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
IMPERISHABLE SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
DECCAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-11-364] [REFERRED TO]
BELABAHALI ANCHALIKA PANCHAYAT SURAKHAYA MANCHA AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-8-129] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET RAI VS. STATE M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH YADAV VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
DANDELI BACHAO ANDOLAN SAMITHI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1334] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-108] [REFERRED TO]
NILA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND OTHER VS. SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHER [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-210] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAM SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA GOVERNMENT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
SLL-SML (JOINT VENTURE CONSORTIUM) AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHAN CHOUDHARY VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT JHUNJHUNWALA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-220] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECT VS. HARI RAM [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-570] [REFERRED TO]
SANJUKTA TIWARY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-1141] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT THANUR KARMUSE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2023-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL SAW LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-198] [REFERRED TO]
ARINDAM GHOSH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2022-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU ELECTRICALS VS. TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-205] [REFERRED TO]
RUPESH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2019-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-197] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA TIWARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-66] [REFERRED]
GYAN PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-8-146] [REFERRED TO]
ALL GUJARAT FEDERATION OF TAX CONSULTANTS VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
P. KAVITHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-301] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN GUPTA VS. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR AND OTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2016-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
SAMDARIYA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-177] [REFERRED TO]
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT VS. P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA, REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER VS. VASAVI ACADEMY OF EDUCATION [LAWS(APH)-2018-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH DAS & ANR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-8-119] [REFERRED TO]
MONJULI DEV VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2016-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS VS. TATHAGATHA GHOSH & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2019-4-214] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHAN CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These appeals by way of special leave have been preferred against the common judgment and final order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in three public interest litigation petitions filed by the Petitioners K.P. Sharma, Dharohar Bachao Samiti, Rajasthan and Heritage Preservation Society respectively against the State of Rajasthan and the beneficiary of the project who was Respondent No. 7 in the High Court and is now the Petitioner/Appellant in Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP(c) No. 17701/2012. The three petitions were D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 6039/2011, D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 5039/2010 and D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 4860 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to cancel an Environment and Monument Improvement/Preservation and Tourism Development Project at Jaipur by declaring it as illegal which was awarded to the Petitioner/Appellant Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited via global tender floated in 2003 and finally granted in 2005 after all requisite approvals as per the Petitioner/Appellant under the Environmental Law including Environment Imp Assessment under the Environment Protection Act and the Notifications issued thereunder of the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board. However, in view of the cancellation of the project, the High Court has directed immediate dismantling act and removal of the entire project and diversion of the two drains which was done to purify waters of a man made artificial water body and detritus.
(3.)Other three Special Leave Petition bearing SLP (Civil) Nos. 22467/2012, 22820/2012 and 24341/2012 had also been preferred by the State of Rajasthan challenging the impugned judgment and order of the High Court referred to hereinbefore. But after the arguments were finally advanced by the learned Attorney General and the same also stood concluded, permission of this Court was sought by the senior Counsel Sri Jaydeep Gupta to withdraw these special leave petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan which were permitted by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2014. The petitions preferred by the State of Rajasthan assailing the impugned judgment and order thus stand dismissed as withdrawn. However, Sri Gupta submitted that he can still address the Court on merit in the connected special leave petitions bearing SLP (Civil) Nos. 17701 of 2012, 19239/2012 and 19240/2012 preferred by the Petitioner/Appellant Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. against the PIL Petitioners before the High Court since the State of Rajasthan is still a party Respondent in these matters and hence it can support or oppose the impugned judgment of the High Court in spite of withdrawal of the special leave petition filed by the State assailing the judgment and order of the High Court. However, at this juncture we refrain from expressing further on its implication and would deal with the same, if necessary, at the appropriate stage.
(2.)These appeals by way of special leave have been preferred against the common judgment and final order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in three public interest litigation petitions filed by the Petitioners K.P. Sharma, Dharohar Bachao Samiti, Rajasthan and Heritage Preservation Society respectively against the State of Rajasthan and the beneficiary of the project who was Respondent No. 7 in the High Court and is now the Petitioner/Appellant in Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP(c) No. 17701/2012. The three petitions were D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 6039/2011, D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 5039/2010 and D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 4860 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court was pleased to cancel an Environment and Monument Improvement/Preservation and Tourism Development Project at Jaipur by declaring it as illegal which was awarded to the Petitioner/Appellant Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited via global tender floated in 2003 and finally granted in 2005 after all requisite approvals as per the Petitioner/Appellant under the Environmental Law including Environment Imp Assessment under the Environment Protection Act and the Notifications issued thereunder of the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board. However, in view of the cancellation of the project, the High Court has directed immediate dismantling act and removal of the entire project and diversion of the two drains which was done to purify waters of a man made artificial water body and detritus.
(3.)Other three Special Leave Petition bearing SLP (Civil) Nos. 22467/2012, 22820/2012 and 24341/2012 had also been preferred by the State of Rajasthan challenging the impugned judgment and order of the High Court referred to hereinbefore. But after the arguments were finally advanced by the learned Attorney General and the same also stood concluded, permission of this Court was sought by the senior Counsel Sri Jaydeep Gupta to withdraw these special leave petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan which were permitted by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2014. The petitions preferred by the State of Rajasthan assailing the impugned judgment and order thus stand dismissed as withdrawn. However, Sri Gupta submitted that he can still address the Court on merit in the connected special leave petitions bearing SLP (Civil) Nos. 17701 of 2012, 19239/2012 and 19240/2012 preferred by the Petitioner/Appellant Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. against the PIL Petitioners before the High Court since the State of Rajasthan is still a party Respondent in these matters and hence it can support or oppose the impugned judgment of the High Court in spite of withdrawal of the special leave petition filed by the State assailing the judgment and order of the High Court. However, at this juncture we refrain from expressing further on its implication and would deal with the same, if necessary, at the appropriate stage.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.