Supreme Court Rejects Madhya Pradesh Tourism Corporation's Appeal Against NGT Order To Protect Bhopal Taal

Supreme Court Rejects Madhya Pradesh Tourism Corporation's Appeal Against NGT Order To Protect Bhopal Taal

An environmentalist raised the grievance of serious damage being caused due to the operation of motorized and cruise boats

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal of the Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation and expressed surprise at the organization’s nerve for challenging an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that aimed at saving the lakes in the State.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked, "By the impugned order, an effort is made by the National Green Tribunal to save various lakes in the State. We fail to understand how the State tourism corporation can be aggrieved with a direction issued to protect the lakes.”

The order was passed in an original application filed before the NGT, Bhopal by an individual Subhash C Pandey (respondent No.1).

An environmentalist, and resident of Bhopal, Pandey had raised the grievance of serious damage and deterioration being caused (due to the operation of motorized and cruise boats) to Bhopal Lake, popularly known as Bhoj Taal or Bhoj Wetland comprising the 'Upper Lake', the 'Lower Lake' and other water bodies.

The green tribunal had allowed the application after much deliberation. It restrained the authorities from running motor-operated boats in Bhopal Lake at the Ramsar site and other designated wetlands. It further restricted the authorities from raising any permanent construction within the 'Zone of Influence' of water bodies/wetlands. It further ordered the demolition of any permanent construction that had been raised.

The Madhya Pradesh tourism corporation appealed before the Apex Court against the NGT’s directions. Its counsel wondered why at six other Ramsar sites the motorized boats were permitted and plying.

At this, Justice Oka countered, "We will stop there also."

While responding to the contention of the appellant that the NGT did not mention there was an absolute ban, the judge remarked, "Let's proceed on the footing that there is no absolute ban. What is wrong? As an instrument of the State, you should be welcoming such orders that more and more lakes will exist. You are the tourism development corporation. In the cities, if there are more lakes, it will attract more tourists."

Thus, while dismissing the appeal, the bench suggested that the government agency should rather ensure that more lakes existed.

The Court advised, "As a state instrument, you should be careful to protect the lakes and not challenge such orders; they are passed for the protection of the lakes.”