Case Analysis

NARENDRA
Good morning, everyone!
Today we, group no. 5 are presenting case analysis of K. M. Chinnappa V. Union of India,
2002.
These are the details of the case.
This case dealt with mining activities in Kudremukh National Park and the corresponding
concerns about flora and fauna. The forests in the area were among 18 internationally
recognized “Hotspots” for bio-diversity conservation in the world.

MUSKAAN
In 1916, Kudremukh region was declared as reserved forest which later on in the year of
1987 was declared as National Park u/s 35(1) of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
In 1969 Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (KIOCL) for mining.
In 1995 a writ petition was filed for ----------
The Bhahra river flows just below the mining site of KIOCL. As you can see on the screen,
the left side of the bhadhra river is clear stream while the right stream has been polluted by
the mining residue. The other pic is a news report on the water crisis which is direct impact of
pollution. The mining has adversely affected the agricultural activities in the region, as per
the statistics, there is 68% of deposition of iron ore in the agricultural fileds which have
rendered them infertile which has directly affected the food supply.
In 1996 an order was passed directing compulsory approval of government for non-forest
activities in forest areas. And an order injuncting removal of trees from National Parks,
sanctuaries and Forests was passed in 2000.
Even after these two orders and leased expired in 1999 the KIOCL has continued the mining,
therefore this interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner in writ petition no. 202 of
1995.

MOHIT
The issues were:
1. Whether the approach should be “dollar friendly” or Eco-friendly”?
2. Whether to direct KIOCL to stop contaminating the Bhadra river?
3. Whether KIOCL should be prosecuted for illegal forest encroachment and forest
devastation in the Kudremukh National Park?
The Provisions discussed are:
1. Section 35 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 for declaration of National Parks
 2. Section 3 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 under which Forest Advisory
Committee can be constituted.
3. Art 21 which is your right to healthy environment.
4. Art. 48A and 51A(g) which are duties of state and citizens respectively to improve
and protect environment.
The following international principles were referred to:
1. Convention on Biodiversity of 1992 which has 3 major objectives:
i. Conservation of biodiversity
ii. Sustainable development which is enshrined in article 3 of convention
iii. Transfer of relevant technologies
2. Article 14 of convention which talks about impact assessment and minimising adverse
impacts.
3. Principle 3 of Stockholm declaration of 1972 which talks about right to adequate life
conditions and sustainable development.
SWATI
Upheld the time period fixed by the forest advisory committee to WIND UP business of kioc
that means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 subject to the fulfillment of the
recommendations made by the committee on ecological and other aspects.
Proceedings against the company for alleged violation of various STATUTES shall be
considered by the respective forums/ courts uninfluenced by any observation made in the
judgement.
Public Trust Doctrine
As stated in M. C. Mehta V. Kamal Nath & Ors, the state is the trustee of all natural
resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment.
Sustainable Development
Development without adverse effect on natural resources on the quality of which continued
activity and further development depend.
As highlighted by The Council on European Economic Committee, Importance of
Impact Assessment
1. To take action of concerns to protect human health,
2. To contribute by means of a better environment to quality of life,
3. To ensure maintenance of diversity of species,
4. To maintain the reproductive capacity of ecosystem as a basic resource of life.

ANANTHA