Daily Court Digest: Major environment orders (February 12, 2025)
SC hearing on encroachments over Rispana river, Uttarakhand
The Supreme Court (SC), on February 10, 2025, stayed an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) concerning the removal of 20 encroachments from the riverbed and floodplain of the Rispana river in Uttarakhand.
The SC directed the Uttarakhand government to approach the NGT again and file an application seeking appropriate directions. The court instructed that this be done within two weeks, while the NGT order has been placed in abeyance for three weeks. The Uttarakhand government had appealed against the tribunal’s decision.
The key issue before the NGT was whether the 20 encroachments — allegedly established before March 11, 2016 — were protected under the Uttarakhand Reforms, Regularisation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement and Prevention of Encroachment of the Slums under the Urban Local Bodies of the State Act, 2016, particularly Clause 5, as well as the Uttarakhand Special Provisions for Urban Bodies and Authorities Act, 2018.
The tribunal had ruled that the notification issued on October 7, 2016 by the erstwhile Union Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, under sections of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, would take precedence. Under Clause 6(3) of the notification, the 20 admitted encroachments would have no protection, regardless of state legislation.
Based on this finding, the tribunal issued directions for legislative amendments and the issuance of executive orders.
Before the SC, the Uttarakhand government contended that Clause 6(3) of the notification included a second provision mandating that, before the removal of completed construction, a review must be conducted by the National Mission for Clean Ganga. The state argued that the NGT had not considered this provision in its order.
Gujarat HC hears on allegations of failure by Nagarpalika Kutiyana to use state grant
The Gujarat High Court on February 5, 2025 ruled that Nagarpalika Kutiyana cannot simply deny allegations of failing to properly utilise a state government grant but must provide details. The HC further stated that if necessary, the Gujarat government should call for records and details from Nagarpalika Kutiyana.
The petitioner, Kandhal Sarmanbhai Jadeja, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly elected from the 84 Kutiyana-Ranavav constituency in Porbandar district, raised concerns over discrepancies in the administration of Nagarpalika funds meant for public utility projects.
The Gujarat government had allocated grants under various schemes for the development of Kutiyana Nagarpalika. These funds were intended for the establishment of 18 anganwadis, construction of a compound wall, a platform with a religious statue, an office room, and the renovation of a crematorium, along with the creation of two public parks.
However, despite the funds being earmarked for these purposes, they were reportedly misused or left unutilised. The petitioner filed multiple RTI applications before the Chief Officer of Kutiyana Nagarpalika, seeking information on developmental work carried out over the past 20 years, particularly concerning anganwadis, crematoriums, public parks, and other related projects.
The requested details were not provided. Moreover, land designated for a garden had been converted into a dumping ground, the crematorium remained undeveloped despite receiving funds, and the administration of Anganwadis had been outsourced to private individuals.
In summary, the petitioner alleged that state funds were not being utilised for their intended purposes.
Following this, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Municipal Administration, and the Regional Commissioner under Section 262 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. However, as no decision had been taken, a petition was filed before the High Court.
The High Court noted that, in its affidavit, the Nagarpalika had merely denied the allegations without providing any supporting details.