Rajasthan High Court says Udaipur’s hills are “on the verge of extinction”, questions Hill Policy framed without environmental experts; seeks records before deciding on suo motu PIL.
Rajasthan High Court Shocked by Udaipur Hills ‘Being Replaced by Hotels’, Mulls Suo Motu PIL
The Rajasthan High Court on July 24 expressed shock over the “pitiable”condition of Udaipur, observing that the city’s hills were“on the verge of extinction”and were effectively “being replaced by hotels”.
The Court also indicated that it would consider initiating a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) to examine the city’s ecological survival.
Justice Sameer Jain made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Basant Hotels Private Limited, which has challenged demolition and enforcement action taken against its hotel project in Udaipur.
Although the dispute before the Court concerns the petitioner’s property, the proceedings have expanded into a wider examination of the legality of hill construction across Udaipur and the validity of the State’s hill policies.
Court Commissioner’s report triggers wider environmental concerns
The latest order follows an interim inspection carried out by Court Commissioners. Advocate Kamini Joshi and retired IAS officer Rajendra Bhanawat, appointed by the Court earlier this month to inspect the petitioner’s property and its surrounding area through aerial photography.
According to the report placed before the Court, numerous hotels have already been constructed on the surrounding hills, with the petitioner’s property differing mainly because it is situated on a steeper slope.
More significantly, the inspection revealed that the surrounding hills and mountains had been “brutally cut and constructed upon until they are on the verge of extinction, effectively being replaced by hotels.”
The Commissioners also informed the Court that the Hill Bye-laws and the Hill Policy of 2018 had been prepared by private external agencies without consulting statutory authorities dealing with climate, wildlife, pollution or environmental protection.
The inspection further revealed that officials of the Udaipur Development Authority (UDA) themselves appeared unaware of the applicable policy framework and legal provisions governing hill construction.
“City of Udaipur reduced to a pitiable state”
After examining the inspection report and aerial photographs, Justice Jain made strong observations regarding the city’s environmental condition.
The Court recorded that Udaipur, historically known for its lakes, hills (Magris) and wildlife sanctuaries, had now been “reduced to a pitiable state.”
It observed that under the guise of sustainable development and “arbitrarily crafted policies,” hundreds of hotels, resorts and commercial establishments had mushroomed around sanctuaries, ecologically sensitive areas, lakes and hills.
The Court further remarked that such development was being facilitated by policies drafted by entities “lacking any expertise.”
Referring to the constitutional balance between development and environmental protection, the Court observed that while Articles 14, 19 and 21 protect equality, business rights and quality of life, those rights remain subject to reasonable restrictions flowing from the Public Trust Doctrine.
Court questions Hill Policy, says State ignored expert agencies
Justice Jain also recalled that an earlier Division Bench PIL (Jheel Sanrakshan Samiti v. State of Rajasthan), had been disposed of in 2023 after the State assured the Court that it would faithfully implement the Public Trust Doctrine and formulate appropriate policies for environmental protection.
However, the Court observed that instead of honouring those assurances, the State had framed a policy “completely devoid of application of mind, expertise, or Research & Development,” relying merely upon the assistance of a private agency while bypassing the Ministry of Environment, Climate, Wildlife and Pollution Control authorities.
Calling these revelations “shocking to the conscience,” the Court questioned the manner in which the policy had been prepared.
High Court considers suo motu PIL
Considering what it termed the “shocking revelations”concerning the ecological survival of Udaipur, the Court stated that on the next date of hearing it would not only hear the hotel dispute on the merits but would also examine whether a suo motu PIL should be registered by invoking the Public Trust Doctrine in the larger public interest of Udaipur’s residents.
The Court directed all concerned authorities to remain personally present on the next date with complete statistical data and original records.
It also required the Court Commissioners to remain present for further assistance and directed the respondents to produce details of all commercial permissions granted in the vicinity, identify the authors of the Hill Policies of 2018 and 2024, and place before the Court the complete records relating to their formulation, including reports prepared by the private agency involved.
Additionally, the respondents are directed to place the following documents and records before this Court on the next date of hearing:
i. Complete details of all construction/commercial permissions granted in the nearby vicinity of the petitioner’s property, along with the names and designations of the top officers who granted such permissions.
ii. The name of the author of the impugned Hill Policy of 2018 and author of the Hill Policy of 2024, along with all related primary documents.
iii. The entire record pertaining to the creation of the said hill policies, their rationale, and the private agency’s report qua the said Hill policies.
The case originates from a challenge by Basant Hotels Pvt. Ltd. to demolition proceedings concerning its hotel project.
The petitioner contends that it had obtained all necessary permissions, invested substantial sums in the project and that its construction is governed by the earlier regulatory framework rather than the subsequent Hill Policy of 2024.
It has also alleged that the authorities have selectively targeted its project while permitting numerous similarly situated hotels to continue operating.
In an earlier order dated July 16, Justice Jain had already noted that around 43 hotels, resorts and residential properties, including establishments of major hospitality brands, existed in the surrounding area.
The Court also observed that while framing the Hill Policy, no consultation had been undertaken with the Union <a href="https://absafricatv9491.live-website.com/duale-proposes-system-where-majority-party-forms-government/” title=”Duale proposes system where majority party forms government”>Government or departments dealing with climate change, forests, wildlife or pollution.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the Court emphasised the need for minimal ecological damage in ecologically fragile zones and appointed Court Commissioners to inspect the site.
Case Title: Basant Hotels Private Limited v. The State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
