Ooty & Kodaikanal Tourism : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Hoteliers' Plea Against E-Pass Limits For Tourist Vehicles

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a challenge to the Madras High Court order which imposed restrictions on the number of vehicles plying to the Nilgiris and Kodaikanal this summer to manage congestion in tourist places.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh opined that the High Court order was "perfectly correct" and declined to interfere with the same. However, as the petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Hotels Association, prayed for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach the High Court, the Bench permitted it to do so.To recap, on March 13, after taking note of the carrying capacity of the hill stations, the High Court directed that only 6000 vehicles be permitted to the Nilgiris and 4000 to Kodaikanal on weekdays. On weekends, this number was increased to 8000 and 6000 respectively. It was clarified that the restrictions would not be applicable to government buses carrying tourists, government vehicles and vehicles involved in trade and business. The vehicles of local residents were exempted from the daily limit.Prior to that, in April last year, the High Court had directed the state to make e-pass mandatory for vehicles entering the hill stations during summer (in May and June). While implementing the system, it had emphasized the importance of protecting the entire Nilgiris biosphere and the Western Ghats. Noting that human beings cannot exist without biodiversity, the Court had noted that it was critical to preserve the pristine places in their interest. District Collectors of Nilgiris and Dindigul were asked to implement the system from May 7 to June 30. It was also said that there shall be no limit to the number of e-passes issued and that the local residents will be exempted from the system.By way of the impugned order, the High Court asked the state to give priority to e-vehicles while issuing the e-pass and directed the system to be introduced by April (to continue till June). The vehicle limit imposed was to be be in addition to the existing e-pass system.Challenging the March 13 order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. Its contention was that a report from Indian Institute of Technology was awaited and the High Court directed implementation of the policy from April, even though it had data based on February. "There is no data before the High Court as to the number of vehicles entering, because the cameras are being installed now. Tourist season is April, May, June and the data which the Hon'ble High Court had was for the month of February. February cannot have correlation with what is to be done in April and May", he urged."What prevented you from going and becoming party before High Court?", Justice Kant asked in response.On the counsel's challenge to the High Court decision being rendered based on data of February, the judge said that in the summer months, the footfall only increases and the High Court has taken the minimum figure of February to pass its order. "6000 vehicles you take there, and still you are not satisfied! You want to have havoc there", Justice Kant further remarked.Explaining the decision to approach the top Court, the petitioner's counsel said that only state had notice of the proceedings before the High Court and the order passed on March 13 requires implementation from April 1. "This has come out of the blue", he said. When the bench appeared disinclined, the counsel prayed that the order may be kept in abeyance for some time to enable the petitioner to approach the High Court. But, the bench refused to do so. The petition was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to approach High Court.Case Title: TAMIL NADU HOTELS ASSOCIATION Versus G. SUBRAMANIA KOUSHIK AND ORS., Diary No. 15768-2025 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Ooty & Kodaikanal Tourism : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Hoteliers' Plea Against E-Pass Limits For Tourist Vehicles

Debby Jain

"6000 vehicles you can take there, still you are not satisfied! You want to have havoc there", the Court said to the petitioner.

Tags