https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461844 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. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 May 2025 19:18:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461844 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461844