AP POLLUTION BOARD VS MV NAYUDU

1.  In this case the respondent industry is ought to be establish a new factory for the
production of vegetable oils in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent industry purchased a
piece of land in Indore village named Peddashpur. Within the range of the village the
reservoirs that provides drinking water for the 5 million of people around the area.
2. In the year 1988 the Ministry of Forest and Environment prepare the red list of hazardous
industries. In that red list, name of respondents’ industry was also listed.
3. This notification was issued by the Central Government based on its power under the Eater
prevention and control of Pollution Act of 1974 as well as the Air prevention and control of
pollution Act of 1981.

4. In 1994 under the Directive Principles of Central Government, the State Government
imposes a notification in which it was mentioned that establishment of any industry within 10
kilometre of reservoirs is to be prohibited by law.

5. In 1995 couldn’t applied for getting the NOC from the state of Andhra Pradesh Pollution
Control Board for the establishment of his industry into that area. It was accepted by the
environment authority of the state.
6. Government reaffirmed the rule in 1996. Thus,State of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control
Board rejected the application because of that rule .

7. The Commission of Industries informed the respondent he must selectin alternative area
but he didn’t listen to the commission of industries various civil works and installed
machinery.

8. Once again, respondent applied for an NOC from the State of Andhra Pradesh Pollution
Control Board.

9. Then also the Board rejected the application.

10. Then responded contended that he invest a large amount of money on the establishment
of the industry and its operations

11. Afterwards ,State Government after taking an account of request made by the respondent

12. Then the permission and the prescription along with the guidelines to the respondent were
given to be followed water pollution.

13. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board prepared a list of precautions to be followed but
does not accepted the application of NOC by the respondent.

14. Afterwards respondent filed an appeal in front of appellate Authority under Section 28 of
Water Act.
15. Appellate authority reverse the orders made by the state of Andhra Pradesh Pollution
Control Board by giving reasoning that the respondent had used the latest means of to prevent
environmental pollution.

16. Finally, issuing of NOC is permissible to the respondent.

HP STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS NU-CHEM INDUSTRIES

Himachal Pradesh State Board of Prevention and Control of Water Pollution

(hereafter 'Pollution Board') filed a complaint under Sec. 39 of the Air Prevention
and Control of Pollution Act, 1981 (hereafter 'Air Pollution Act') against the accused
complaining that accused -1 is an industry engaged in the production of lime while
accused -2 is the Managing Director and incharge of and responsible for the conduct
of the business of the company, operating since October, 1983. It is a specified
industry under the Air Pollution Act within the air pollution control area, but was
operating without the previous consent of the Pollution Board as required under Sec.
21 of the Air Pollution Act. On this complaint, the accused were summoned. Accused
Niraj Gupta appeared and accusation was put to him on September 5, 1986 to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, complainant examined
P.J.S. Dadhwal (PW -1), Yash Pal Verma (PW -2) and R.R. Gautam (PW -3). Certain
documents were also filed in support of the allegation.

JAVED VS STATE OF HARYANA

A writ petition was filed by disqualified candidates in the Supreme Court challenging the
constitutionality of an election law that disqualified persons having more than two living
children after a certain date from holding certain public offices in the Panchayat, a local
government system, of the state of Haryana (Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Haryana
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994). The objective of these disqualification provisions was to
“popularize” the family planning programs of the government. The challenge alleged that
these disqualification provisions violated the right to equality before the law guaranteed by
the Indian Constitution under Article 14 (as persons with two or less than two children
qualified for public offices); the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution (as it prevented individuals from exercising liberty in their personal life
as it relates to the number of children one chooses to have); and the right to religious
freedoms under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution (as the practice of polygamy in Muslims
often leads to more than two children).
MC MEHTA VS UOI

The reliefs claimed in this application under Article 32 of the Constitution are for issuing
appropriate directions to cinema exhibition halls to exhibit slides containing information and
messages on environment free of cost; directions for spread of information relating to
environment in national and regional languages and for broadcast thereof on the All India
Radio and exposure there of on the television in regular and short term programmes with a
view to educating with view to educating the people of India about their social obligation in
the matter of the upkeep of up the environment in proper shape and making them alive to
their obligation not to act as polluting agencies of factors. There is also a prayer that
environment should be make a compulsory subject in schools and colleges in a graded system
so that there would be a general growth of awareness. We had issued notice to the Union of
India on the petition and the Central has immediately responded.

SUBHASH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR

The petition was filed by the way of Public Interest Litigation by Subhash Kumar for
preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro from the discharge of sludge/slurry
from the washeries of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament
enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for maintaining the
wholesomeness of water and for the prevention of water pollution. 

SK GARG VS STATE OF UP

The Petitioner, S.K. Garg, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India (original writ jurisdiction of High Courts). The petition brought to
the Court’s attention the appalling and unhygienic condition of Government hospitals in the
city of Allahabad. It was alleged that indigent patients had been refused treatment at the
hospital, medicines were in short supply and there was garbage and filth everywhere in the
hospitals.

The petition invoked Article 47 of the Constitution, which makes it a duty of the State to
improve public health.

DIGVIJAY SINGH & BALDEV SINGH VS. BHAGWAN SINGH

Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals are that Civil Suit No.
17-S/l of 2005 and Civil Suit No. 20-S/l of 2005 were filed by Bhagwan Singh and 54 other
plaintiffs who were residents of Mauzas Ded, Mahi, Ghalie, Mahi, Jokhri, Srinagar, Dolang,
Kadhar, against defendants Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh, respectively. In both the suits
Jai Parkash University of Information Technology and Hotel Destination Luxury Resort were
arrayed as defendants No. 2 and 3. The allegations in both the plaints are similar. According
to the plaintiffs they get water for drinking, both for humans and animals and for irrigation of
their agricultural land from a water source system known as Kalaun Ki Kuhal. According to
the plaintiffs this water system consists of three water sources, i.e. Kalaun Ki Kuhal, Shooli
Ka Nullah and Chandi Ka Nullah. The plaintiffs alleged that they have customary rights
which are recognized in the Wajib-ul-Urj of the villages and also find mention in the Riwazat
Abpashi (irrigation by custom) and Riwazat Abnoshi (drinking water by custom). According
to the plaintiffs, defendants Baldev Singh and Digvijay Singh only have a right to use the
water of the said water system for drinking and irrigation purposes and cannot commercially
exploit the water sources by selling water.

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS UOI

Sardar Sarovar Dam was constructed on Narmada river that run in four States (Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan) in India starting in 1987. In April 1994,
Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a writ petition inter alia praying that the Union of India and
other respondents should be restrained from proceeding with the construction of the dam and
they should be ordered to open the aforesaid sluices. Narmada Bachao Andolan cited
displacement and rehabilitation problem that the project would cause. It called for further
study as well as postponement of construction pending completion of such study. It has also
argued for reduction in the height of the dam so as to reduce the extent of submergence and
the consequent displacement.

DELHI WATER SUPPLY & SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNDERTAKING VS STATE OF

HARYANA
The plight of residents of Delhi in not getting sufficient water even for drinking, led
Commodore S.D. Sinha to approach this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
by filing a public interest petition, which came to be registered as Writ Petition (C)
No. 537 of 1992 seeking inter alia, a direction to the concerned Governments to
maintain regular flow of water, in Jamuna river so that the residents of Delhi do not
face problem of drinking water, which however, was being so faced because of non-
release of sufficient quantity of water from Tajewala Head. As intricate questions of
law were found to be involved, on the suggestion of the court, Commodore Sinha.
agreed to have the guidance and assistance of a senior lawyer through the Supreme
Court Legal Aid Committee.

S. JAGANNATH VS UOI
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India - in public interest - has been filed
by S. Jagannathan, Chairman, Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organisation working for
the upliftment of the weaker section of society. The petitioner has sought the enforcement of
Coastal Zone Regulation Notification dated February 19, 1991 issued by the Government of
India, stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically
fragile coastal areas, prohibition from using the waste ands/wet lands for Prawn farming and
the constitution of a National Coastal Management Authority to safeguard the marine life and
coastal areas. Various other prayers have been made in the writ petition.

Krishna Gopal v. The State of M.P (2016)

In this case, a complaint was registered against a glucose factory which was
causing air pollution due to the discharge of steam in the air resulting in fly
ash and noise pollution. This all cumulatively caused discomfort to the
residents of that locality.  

K. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. VS STATE OF KERALA

Plaintiff, K. Ramakrishnan, sought to have smoking declared a criminal public

nuisance under the Indian Penal Code.  The High Court of Kerala reviewed the
existing literature on the health threat posed by smoking and environmental tobacco
smoke and urged the Government of India to fulfill its obligations under pre-FCTC
WHO resolutions. 

NARESH DUTT TYAGI VS STATE OF UP

In the case of Naresh Dutt Tyagi v State of Uttar Pradesh[vi], the Supreme Court
held the leakage of fumes from a pesticide plant which caused the death of four
people, to be clear case of negligence. 3. Trespass is an unlawful interference with
the property in the possession of another.

MC MEHTA VS UOI AND MC MEHTA VS SHRI RAM FOODS & FERTILISER

INDUSTRIES
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India originated in the aftermath of oleum gas leak from Shriram
Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the
infamous Bhopal gas leak and created a lot of panic in Delhi. One person died in the incident
and few were hospitalized. The case lays down the principle of absolute liability and the
concept of deep pockets.
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO LEGAL ACTION VS UOI

This was a writ petition filed by an environmentalist organization called Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action (Petitioner) against a group of chemical industries (Respondents 4 to 8),
owned and operated by the same group of individuals and situated in the same geographical
region. This group was located in Bicchri, a small village set in the Udaipur District of
Rajasthan, India. North of this village is where the first major industrial establishment,
Hindustan Zinc Limited (a public sector concern), was established. It did not cause any
issues; however, the real trouble began in 1987 when a chemical plant, Hindustan Argo
Chemicals Limited (Respondent 4), started production of certain chemicals like Oleum
(concentrated form of sulphuric acid) and Single Super Phosphates. And the real calamity
took place when a sister concern of it, Silver Chemicals (Respondent 5), started the
production of ‘H’ acid in their plant exclusively for export purposes. The manufacture of ‘H’
acid gave rise to huge quantities of highly toxic effluents – in particular, iron-based and
gypsum-based sludge – which, if not treated properly, posed grave threats and consequences
to the Earth. These by-products were essentially poisonous.

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS UOI

In April 1994, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a writ petition inter alia praying that the Union
of India and other respondents should be restrained from proceeding with the construction of
the dam and they should be ordered to open the aforesaid sluices. Narmada Bachao Andolan
cited displacement and rehabilitation problem that the project would cause. It called for
further study as well as postponement of construction pending completion of such study. It
has also argued for reduction in the height of the dam so as to reduce the extent of
submergence and the consequent displacement.