Delegated legislative power in town planning cannot be controlled by tribunal directions, while a safeguarded development plan may proceed.

The Supreme Court's discussion confirms that a tribunal cannot dictate how a delegated legislative authority frames or finalises a development plan under town planning law; the planning power remains with the State and its authorities, and the NGT's contrary directions were unsustainable. It also emphasises judicial propriety where parallel proceedings are pending, so a later tribunal order passed while the High Court was already seized of the matter could not stand. At the same time, the final Shimla Planning Area development plan was allowed to proceed because it reflected statutory consultation and environmental safeguards, showing an attempt to balance urban development with ecological protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the National Green Tribunal could direct the State and planning authorities to frame and finalise the development plan in a particular manner, thereby controlling the exercise of delegated legislative power under the town planning statute; (ii) Whether the later order of the National Green Tribunal, passed while the High Court was seized of the same subject matter, was sustainable; (iii) Whether the final development plan for Shimla Planning Area could be permitted to proceed in light of the need to balance development with environmental protection.

Issue (i): Whether the National Green Tribunal could direct the State and planning authorities to frame and finalise the development plan in a particular manner, thereby controlling the exercise of delegated legislative power under the town planning statute.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the town planning law treats preparation of the draft development plan, consideration of objections, modification, and final approval as part of a delegated legislative process. The power to constitute planning areas, prepare plans, invite objections, and approve the final plan is vested in the Director and the State Government, with public participation built into the statute at more than one stage. A tribunal cannot usurp that legislative field or impose fetters on the manner in which subordinate legislation is to be framed, especially when natural justice requirements are not to be implied into legislative action unless the statute itself so provides.

Conclusion: The direction issued by the National Green Tribunal encroached upon delegated legislative power and was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the later order of the National Green Tribunal, passed while the High Court was seized of the same subject matter, was sustainable.

Analysis: When the High Court was already in seisin of proceedings concerning the draft development plan and the interim restraint order of the Tribunal was under challenge, the Tribunal ought to have exercised restraint. Continuation of parallel proceedings created the risk of conflicting judicial directions and was inconsistent with judicial propriety. Since the later order was founded substantially on the earlier order, and the earlier order itself could not be sustained, the later order also could not survive.

Conclusion: The later order of the National Green Tribunal was liable to be set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the final development plan for Shimla Planning Area could be permitted to proceed in light of the need to balance development with environmental protection.

Analysis: The development plan was framed after considering expert reports, objections and suggestions, and the statutory safeguards under the planning law. The plan contained controls relating to core areas, green belt areas, sinking and sliding zones, building height, reconstruction, tree felling, and soil investigation, showing an attempt to reconcile urban development with ecological concerns. The Court reiterated that sustainable development requires a balance between environmental protection and the needs of development, and that a plan so finalised need not be stalled in its entirety merely because individual provisions may be separately challenged in appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion: The final development plan was permitted to proceed, subject to the observations made by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tribunal orders were quashed, and the State was allowed to implement the final development plan, while leaving room for independent challenge to any particular provision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot direct the manner in which a delegated legislative authority frames or finalises subordinate legislation, and where a planning scheme is prepared through the statutory consultative process with environmental safeguards, it may proceed unless a specific provision is separately shown to be unlawful.

---