ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

ASSIGNMENT

[LEADING CASE LAWS]

ANNANYA SINGH____________

_______ (Section- A)(A3256121144)____________

1-KINKRI DEVI vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (1988)
FACTS: -
A: This was the first case in Himachal Pradesh which involved issues relating to the environment and
ecological balance.

B: The petitioners instituted petition seeking the reliefs that the mining lease for the excavation of
limestone, which was granted in favour by one respondent to another, to be cancelled in such a
manner where the respondent who has been provided with the favour is now restrained from
operating in mines as it poses threat and danger to adjoining lands, water resources, pastures, forests,
wildlife, ecology, environment and inhabitants.
C: Respondent one also seeks
- that a Commission should be appointed to assess the damage caused as a result of the uncontrolled
quarrying of the limestone by the third respondent &
- the respondents be directed to pay compensation for the damage caused
E: The learned counsel of petitioners was allowed to public an article in the INDIAN EXPRESS which
highlighted the excruciating damage caused to the Shivalik Hills which are ruthlessly blasted for the
purpose of extracting limestones.
DECISION: -
A: Court was of the view that based on the reports submitted by 4 senior officers, affidavit given by
Deputy Commissioner (Sirmaur) and various other materials placed on record points that emergent
action is necessary to avert real danger, present and potential.
B: The court ordered the that concerned Committee will prepare a report seeking help of experts for
scientific and technological information and submit it to the court as well as the State Govt.
It will contain conclusions on the matter of
-maintaining proper balance between tapping mineral resources for development, industrial growth
and ecology, environment.
-whether those mines are being scientifically operated or worked in an erratic and uncontrolled
manner posing a present and potential danger to the environment as well as the people & their
property.
- It will also incorporate its recommendations for evolution of a long-term and/or scheme for grant of
mining leases in the State, along with measure and machineries to ensure that mining leases are
operated in scientific manner.
-If the Committee finds out that any indiscriminate mining operation is being carried out which is
affecting the environment hazardously; it will consider & suggest remedial measures to the inhabitants
for the repair of damaged natural wealth and resources along with a payment of compensation to the
people inhabiting in the affected area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2- M.C MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (SHRIRAM GAS LEAK CASE) (1987)
FACTS: -

A: Shriram Food and Fertilizers situated in a densely populated region of Kirti Nagar in Delhi
consisting of over 2 lakh people who were involved in the manufacturing of hazardous
products like caustic soda, oleum and chlorine etc.
B: A writ petition was filed by a social activist lawyer named MC Mehta before the Supreme
court seeking closure and relocation of the industrial establishment to a place where it would
not pose a threat to people’s lives. But the Supreme Court allowed the industry to continue its
operations as usual.
C: During the pendency of this petition, there was a leakage of Oleum gas from one of its units
on 4th and 6th December 1985 which caused a huge amount of harm to its residents including
the death of an advocate.
D: Another tragedy of the same kind occurred two days later though a minor one.
E: Soon after the 2nd incident, all the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and Delhi Bar
Association filed for compensation for all the citizens who suffered damage due to the
accident.
F: The Delhi administration ordered for ceasing of all the operations and to remove all such
hazardous substances from the establishment within 7 days or to appear before the court to
show cause as to why this order should not be enforced against them.
DECISION/JUDGEMENT: -
A: Justice Bhagwati after taking into account the health and safety concerns of the citizens held
that these industries must continue to operate because they contribute to a large portion of
the country’s economic and social development, therefore stating that the petition to
eliminate these toxic industries cannot be allowed.
B: He held that the risk/danger factor can be reduced to a considerable extent by taking all the
possible measures to ensure that these industries must be situated in an environment where
the citizens are the least-affected and all the safety protocols must be strictly adhered by these
industries.
C: He also added that elimination would lead to unemployment of 1400 people which would
pose a serious concern.
D: So, the industry was ordered to be reopened on a temporary basis under 11 conditions and
a panel of experts were appointed to control its operation.
E: These were some of the important conditions which were laid down by the court:
- The Central Pollution Control Board must appoint an Inspector for the purpose of inspection
and to see that the pollution levels are under control according to the standards set by Water
(Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981.
-To constitute a safety committee for all the employees.
-The industry must publicize the appropriate methods of usage, disposal and treatment of
chlorine.
-To train and instruct the employees regarding the safety of the plant through audio-visual
services and install loudspeakers to alert neighbours in case of gas leakage.
-To make sure that the workers must use safety equipment such as belts and helmets.
- workers to furnish undertaking from Chairman of DCM Limited, that in case of escape of gas
resulting in death or injury to workmen on people living in vicinity they will be “personally
responsible” for payment of compensation of such death or injury (Hence, court here applied
Absolute Liability)
F: Court also decided that for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article
32, some new methods and approaches (not just preventive but remedial measures also)
should be adopted.
G: It was held by the court that all the exceptions laid down in Rylands vs Fletcher cannot be
applicable to hazardous industries and therefore the court introduced a new ‘no-fault/absolute
liability’. (The only exception available was either a natural calamity or harm caused by some
other party/third party, but here that was not the case. In this particular case the incident was
due to mechanical errors and ignorance to some extent on the part of the staff and/or
industry. And that is the reason why absolute liability was applicable.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3- M.C MEHTA vs UNION OF INDIA (TAJ TRAPEZIUM CASE) (1997)
FACTS: -
-According to the petitioner, the damage or deterioration to The Taj Mahal was caused by the
chemical industries, foundries and refineries placed at Mathura by their pollutants. This is what
instigated the petitioner to file a petition in the Apex Court.
-He was of the view that various emission of gases like Sulphur- dioxide with oxygen led to the
damage of the monument and this mixture turned into the acid rain, due to which the
moisture in the atmosphere was retained which eventually resulted into “Acid rain”.
-Such rain was slowly damaging the white marble of the great monument and the damage
became so visible that there were magnified yellow, black as well as brown spots.
-The petitioner rightly raised the matter and asked the court to provide with all the necessary
measures and the required directions which would help to prevent any further degradation.
-It is important to note that writ petition had Report on Environmental Impact of Mathura
Refinery attached with it. The report showed various sources of pollution in the TTZ (Taj
Trapezium Zone).
- A remarkable attempt to classify the industries in Agra and its outskirts into 7 different
categories was made. It provided statistics on the pollution levels and the pollution levels came
to be exceedingly high.
JUDGEMENT: -
-The court applied the principle of Sustainable Development and realised that there is urgent
need to strike a balance between economic development and environmental protection.
-Basing its judgement on various reports that came into light and thus being persistent upon
prevention of any further degradation, the court ordered the neighbouring 292 factories to
either shift to natural gas or to shut down and relocate outside the Taj Trapezium Zone.
- Furthermore, the court recognized two more important principles known as the Polluter Pays
Principle and the Precautionary Principle. In order to prevent any further damaged and repair
the destruction already caused the court said that the concept of Sustainable Development
should be applied and the polluter should be held liable to the suffering parties and must also
pay the cost for repairment.
- The Court relied upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees protection of
life and personal liberty and also upon the directive principles of state policy and the
fundamental duties enshrined under Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution.
-Talking about the Precautionary Principle, the court held that the ‘Burden/Onus of Proof’ is
upon the industries to show how the operation of industries with coke/coal would not be
environmentally degrading.
-However, it was proved that the emissions generated by the use of coke/coal by the
industries in TTZ were the main polluters of the air.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 – ABHILASH TEXTILE vs RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (1988)
FACTS: -
-The petitioners had business of printing and dyeing at various places in the city of Rajkot.
-When they challenged the notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner, all 165 petitioners
were called to prevent the discharge of polluted water from the industry on the public road
(thereby causing public hazard) within the period of 7 days.
-The petitioners asserted that they are doing this business for about last 20-25 years and that
the industry is providing employment to almost 20,000 to 30,000 families. The proposed action
as per the notice issued will have unpleasant-harsh consequences on numerous families and
also affect the right to carry one’s own business.
JUDGEMENT: -
-The court observed that no one has the right to carry a business if it causes public health
hazard; that no one can conduct a business which causes nuisance in the society.
-Discharging dirty water on the public road or in the public drainage system will pollute the
environment and that is where we are reminded that the fundamental right to carry on your
own business/trade [Article 19(1)(g)] is subject to reasonable limitations and restrictions which
can be applied for the general public interest.
-The Supreme Court held that the petitioners cannot assert their fundamental right without
keeping in mind their fundamental duties and that too without incurring any obligation for
general well being of the others and the society.
-The court further stated that if the petitioners wish to continue with their business, then they
will have to provide a compensating amount for the purification of the plant before any further
discharge of polluted water.
-Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, the Municipal Commissioner has the
authority to give some more time to the petitioners so that they can mend their ways, before
taking any coercive step. This was done in the view that the workmen should not be left
unemployed on behalf of their owner’s doing ie doing business in an unregulated manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 – M/S IVORY TRADERS & MFG. ASSCN. vs UNION OF INDIA (1997)
FACTS: -
- The petitioners were dealers and artisans in ivory who did business and trade including the
manufacturing of articles derived from ivory, which were lawfully imported into India prior to
the ban. They imported some part of the stock of mammoth ivory from Russia and other part
of it from Hong Kong for the purposes of the business.
-It was also asserted that an ivory from a mammoth and an ivory from a elephant cannot be
treated at par as mammoth was an extinct wild animal.
- The court reasoned that the 44th amendment act 1991 explicitly bans the use of ivory for
commercial use: “no person can commence or carry-on business as a dealer in ivory imported
into India or articles made, there from, or as manufacturers of such articles”. The court puts
special emphasis on the word ‘ivory imported into India’ as being designed deliberately. The
intention is to cover all descriptions of ivory, including from mammoth.
-Thus, they plead that they are people affected by the amendment act and that such a ban is
unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair.
JUDGEMENT: -
-The court dismissed the appeal petition based on the reason that the State has the power to
completely prohibit a trade or business which has an adverse impact on the preservation of
species of wild life which are on the verge of extinction, both because it is inherently
dangerous practice to destroy such animals in terms of ecology and also because of the
directive principles contained in Article 48A of the Constitution.
-And that to give permission to trade in Articles made from mammoth ivory would result in
laundering of Indian ivory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 – SACHIDANAND PANDEY vs STATE OF BENGAL (1987)
FACTS: -
-This case was known as the town planning case. In this case the Government of West Bengal
granted lease to the Taj Group for 4 acres land belonging to Calcutta Zoo logical Garden for the
establishment of a 5-star hotel for the purpose of increasing tourism.
-This give away of 4acres land to the Taj Group was challenged by a Public Interest Litigation by
Secretary of the union of workmen of zoological garden.
-Appeal was made in the Apex Court that building a hotel at the on that land would lead to
disturbance to animals of the zoo as well as the ecology. Secretary expressed its opposition to
the proposal of construction of a hotel on land of zoo in two points:
(a) multi-storied building on the land of the zoo will disturb the animals, the ecological balance
as well as the bird migration.
(b) land was already used for various purposes like fodder cultivation, burial ground for
animals, hospital, operation theatre, quarantine area, post-mortem room and nursery.
- The allegations levelled by the Managing Committee were first brought up before Minister for
Metropolitan Development, who submitted a note to the Chief Minister pointing out the same
issue. The Chief Minister after going through the allegations, stated that these facilities were
necessary for the zoo.
- Thereafter, the Managing Committee reversed its previous stand and agreed to the proposal
on the assurance that an adjacent land and matching grants would be provided to the zoo.
JUDGEMENT: -
- In this case the honourable judges gave their decision in favour of the respondent and
rejected the prayers made by the appellant.
-The court held that whenever a problem of ecology comes before the court, the court is
bound to consider Article 48 and Article 51 A of the Constitution of India.
- In the face of all the material provided and submitted, court does not observe any serious
threat to the zoo by the respondent’s industry. The Court is satisfied that the Government of
West Bengal acted perfectly in a bona fide manner by issuing the lease of Begumbari land to
the Taj Group of Hotels for the construction of a Five Star hotel in Calcutta.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 – T. DAMODAR RAO & OTHERS vs SENIOR OFFICER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
HYDERABAD (1987)
FACTS: -
-A petition was filed by the residents, who were living around the marked area which was
specifically left for the development of a park, and by the rate payers of the Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation.
- They filed a petition before Andhra Pradesh High court challenging the permission granted by
municipality to the Life Insurance Corporation of India and Income Tax Department to
construct their residential houses in the area to which the park was allotted.
-The petitioners requested the court to give orders to the Municipal Corporation that they
should proceed with the previously made development plan, in which it was decided to cover
99.19 cents acres of land by the park.
-However, 37% of the land was acquired by the LIC and some other small portion was sold to
Income Tax Department for the same purpose of building houses.
-So, the issue which was raised in this particular case was that whether the Income Tax
Department or/and LIC can legally use a land, which was allotted for park development, for the
purpose of building their residents.
JUDGEMENT: -
-The Supreme Court after hearing arguments of both the parties held in its judgement that the
LIC and the IT Department are well withing their limits and legal powers as owners of the
property to build up residential houses. That under the growing environmental law , the right
of the owner to enjoy his land granted under the common law doctrine of ownership is being
curtailed .
-The court also observed that besides enjoyment of life and fulfilment guaranteed by Article
21, it also embraces the protection and preservation of nature’s gift without gift life cannot be
enjoyed. Thus, slow poisoning by polluted atmosphere caused by environmental pollution
should be regarded as a violation to Art.21.
-This is the very case where development plan was prepared in order to maintain an
environmental balance and because building residents on the same land is contradicting to the
law then it is also contradicting to the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
-The court said that once approved, the development plan can only be amended/altered by a
complex procedure directed in the A.P. Urban Area (Development) Act, 1975. And stated that
using of that particular land by the LIC and the IT Department is amounted to be illegal.
-For the same purpose, the Court issued that writ of Mandamus, forbidding the respondents
from raising any structures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 – BANGALORE MEDICAL TRUST vs B.S. MUDDAPPA (1991)
FACTS: -
-The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) allotted an open space for the construction of a
hospital which was earlier reserved for the purpose of development of a park or a playground.
-This allotment was challenged by the residents of the locality and objected that such an action
violated the erstwhile provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 as well as its intent to
preserve and protect the environment.
-So, the issue/question which was raised in this case was whether such a de-reservation and
allotment of an open space for construction of a hospital, which was reserved for building up a
park or playground, breaches the fundamental values of individual’s dignity, liberation and
quality of life or not.
JUDGEMENT: -
-The court held that a nursing home cannot be considered an amenity or an improvement over
necessity, and public park/playground is a necessity. Therefore, open spaces and parks are
required for the purpose of maintain and preserving of ecological balance in the urban areas
and for the preservation of environment at large too.
-The Court further stated that any act which causes a menace to the fundamental values of an
individual, of freedom, dignity and quality of life which is guaranteed to every citizen, is
straight away contrary to the constitution itself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------