Disposed

Prabhat Mohan Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh

NGT8 Jan 2024Original Application No. 2/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged letters directing the State of Madhya Pradesh to allot forest plantation and afforestation works through tender. The NGT Bench held that policy decisions under Article 14 are generally non-justiciable unless arbitrary or unreasonable. Finding no violation of environmental rules or arbitrariness, the Tribunal dismissed the application as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application No. 02/2024 is held not maintainable and disposed of accordingly.

Prabhat Mohan Pandey vs State of Madhya Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No. 02/2024(CZ)

¶4

Prabhat Mohan Pandey Applicant(s)

¶5

Verse

¶6

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 08.01.2024

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant(s): Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

None

ORDER

The grievance of the applicant is the letters dated 29.05.2023, 17.08.2023 and 06.10.2023 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh to the forest official with the direction that the work of plantation, digging pits, compensatory afforestation works etc. has been directed to be done by adopting the recourse of tender. These letters have been challenged on the ground that:-

¶14

i. Due to adopting of tender procedure, it would be impossible to carry out timely and efficient operations in the forest areas;

¶15

ii. Tender procedure shall have a detrimental effect over the plantation activities to be done in the forest areas, as in order to carry out plantation, almost 2 Years prior planning for execution of works is conducted by the forest officials;

¶16

iii. The works performed by the Forest Department is more of Silviculture which requires expertise of the internal forest officials,

¶17

¶18

for which, they are properly trained after long trainings and exposures. This work is impossible for a contractor to perform, as he lacks the expertise which exists in the forest officials.

¶19

The contention of the applicant is that previously these works were done by the officials of the Forest Department and now it is being allocated by means of tender to the contractors. The apprehension of the applicant is that the contractor have to complete the work within a time frame and there is a likelihood that the person given the contract may not complete the work in a particular way.

¶20

It is a purely policy decision for the allotment of the work of a particular department which is required to be done by the Government and it is sole discretion of the executive/the government to execute the work in the manner which is more appropriate and thought to be economical to the State/Department and generally the Court/Tribunal should not interfere in the policy decisions.

¶21

In exercise of power of judicial review, the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide, render the policy unconstitutional. Unless a policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason or discriminatory or infringing any Statute or the Constitution, it cannot be a subject of judicial interference. However, if the policy cannot be touched on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it may affect business interests of a party does not justify invalidating the policy. (Vide M/s. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1447; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Padam Dev & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 510; Balco Employees’ Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 350; State

¶22

¶23

of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lata Arun AIR 2002 SC 2642; and Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289).

¶24

In Union of India & Anr. Vs. International Trading Company & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 437, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Policy of the Government, even in contractual matters, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and every State action must be informed by reason. Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. The Court further held as under:-

¶25

“15. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious

¶26

¶27

test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.

¶28

16. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in a different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labeled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary.” (Emphasis added).

¶29

In Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corpn. & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 491 the Supreme Court observed as follows:-

¶30

“.........Where the decision of the authority is in regard to a policy matter, this Court will not ordinarily interfere since these policy matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned and courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision. But then this does not mean that the courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinise whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record………. . Any decision, be it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so, then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

¶31

In Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128; the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the judicial review of policy decision is permissible in

¶32

¶33

exceptional circumstances only when the Court is of the view that the order suffers from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The Court observed as under:-

¶34

“To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial if a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, Court should avoid embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy.”

¶35

Publication of a tender document cannot be said to be unreasonable or unfair or any mala fide on the part of the authority who is issuing it unless and until it is shown that it is unreasonable or unconstitutional or violating any rules particularly the environmental rules.

¶36

Nothing has been shown in the petition or in the argument which shows in violation of environmental rules. The method of labour work is solely the discretion of the executive authorities and contents as mentioned in the petition are not covered under Schedule-1 of the NGT Act, 2010 and there

¶37

¶38

is no violation of environmental rules. This Original Application

¶39

No. 02/2024 is not maintainable, disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶41

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶42

08^th January, 2024 O.A. No. 02/2024 (CZ) PN

¶43

Prabhat Mohan Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Mohan Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panna Lal vs

Deepak Rai vs State of Uttar Pradesh

All Dwarka Residents Federation through President Secretary vs Delhi Jal Board

Mohan Lal Rebari vs State of Rajasthan

News Item Titled "Nadi-Nalo Ka Seena Kiya Chhalani Dekhen Video Ret Ka Avaidh Utkhanan" Appearing in Patrika Dated 18.12.2023 vs

Mahendra Square Rehwasi Rakhrakhaw Shahkari Sanstha Mariyadit Bhopal through Its President Madhu Verma vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ajit Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Megh Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Pratap Vaare Parshad vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Mohan Lal Rebari vs State of Rajasthan

Umesh Prajapati and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Mamta Devi W/O Vinod Kori vs the Principal Secretary Department of Urban Administration and Environment, State of Madhya Pradesh

Jitender Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Ajit Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh