Vellore citizens case :

Abstract:
India has been a key player in the establishment and implementation of the
Sustainable establishment Goals (SDGs). It was the sole country advocating for
the establishment and implementation of nationally determined contributions
as a means of measuring and tracking progress toward the SDGs. Furthermore,
India has demonstrated a strong commitment to providing financial resources
to the United Nations trust for the SDGs organisation. India was one of the first
countries to participate in Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) because it was
proactive in commencing SDG planning prior to their finalization.

The Supreme Court of India issued a significant decision in the matter of

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India. This decision was a crucial
step toward highlighting the 'Precautionary Principle' and the 'Polluter Pays
Principle' as essential components of sustainable development in Indian
environmental law.

The 'Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum' filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming extensive environmental
degradation and water pollution as a result of unchecked discharge of
untreated effluents into the Palar River by tanneries and other industries in
Tamil Nadu.

Facts:
An NGO called Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum has filed a PIL under Article 32
of the Indian Constitution regarding pollution caused by massive discharges of
untreated sewage by tanneries and other industries in Tamilnadu. Untreated
sewage is dumped into agricultural lands, open lands, and rivers, eventually
ending up in the Palar River, which serves as the primary source of water
supply for the population of that area. It was said that the entire surface and
subsoil of the water surface had been polluted as a result of this untreated
sewage discharge, resulting in a lack of water for the population of the area.

According to a survey conducted by the Tamilnadu Agricultural University

Research Centre, more than 35,000 hectares of agricultural lands in the
tanneries belt have become either partially or completely unfit for agriculture
due to the excessive use of chemicals and dyes, which has harmed soil quality
and contaminated groundwater. 350 of the 467 wells were contaminated. It

1
was also revealed that just 443 tanneries out of 584 had filed for the board's
approval.

Issue Raised:

• Whether the tanneries should be permitted to keep on working at the

expense of environment and health & lives of lakhs of individuals?

Arguments:
Petitioner: The Petitioner's Learned Counsel contended in court that the
discharge of untreated effluents from the tanneries contaminated the whole
surface and subsurface water of the Palar River. This contamination has made
it difficult for residents to obtain safe, drinkable water.

A survey report from Peace Members, a non-governmental group, was given

by the petitioner. This survey examined 13 towns in the Dindigal and Peddiar
Chatram Anchayat Unions and discovered pollution in 350 of 467 drinking and
irrigation wells. It was emphasized that percolation polluted groundwater,
resulting in acute water scarcity for the inhabitants. Women and children were
frequently required to go considerable distances to obtain safe drinking water
for their families.

The petitioner provided another survey report requested by the Legal Aid and
Advice Board of Tamil Nadu, which was done in Solur village by lawyers M.R.
Ramanan and P.S. Subramaniam. This survey discovered 176 compounds in the
tannery effluents, indicating substantial levels of pollution. It was noted that
processing just one kilogram of leather requires around 40 litres of water,
resulting in an alarmingly large volume of harmful effluents from tanneries.

Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural

University Research Centre in Vellore, nearly 35,000 hectares of land in the
tanneries belt have become completely or partially unsuitable for agricultural.

The petitioner argued that despite the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and
the government urging tanneries to establish Common Effluent Treatment
Plants or set up their own effluent treatment plants for about a decade, most
tanneries were still operating without any treatment plants, even when the
Central Government offered subsidies for setting up common treatment
facilities.

Respondent:
2
The tanneries' counsel contended that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
Board's Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) limits were unjustifiable.

On April 9, 1996, however, the Court invited the National Environmental

Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to investigate and provide expertise on
this matter. The NEERI assessment affirmed the Board's requirements as
reasonable.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF) has yet to develop definitive
guidelines for the release of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), sulphates, and
chlorides into inland surface water. Individual State Pollution Control Boards
have the authority to make these decisions based on local site conditions.

The TNPCB's criteria for inland surface water release can be met for tannery
wastewater by implementing adequate control measures throughout the
tanning process, as well as effectively operating and correctly designed
wastewater treatment facilities (ETPs and CETPs).

Judgement:

• The court directed the central government to establish an authority

under section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act of 1986 and
prescribed some guidelines for the authority's operation:
1. The authority was given the necessary powers to deal with issues
concerning tanneries and other polluting industries in Tamilnadu
State.
2. The authority has the authority to give directives under Section 5
of the Environment Act. It should apply the precautionary
principle as well as the polluter pays principle.
• It should divide compensation into two categories: payments to
individuals and reversing the ecosystem. A statement should be
prepared that shows the entire amount of compensation to be given,
the names of polluters and affected families, and the total money that
must be deposited with the district magistrate/collector of the affected
region, who will repay the impacted.
• The court imposed a pollution fine of Rs.10,000 each on all tanneries in
North Arcot Ambedkar, Dindigul Anna, Erode Periyar, Chennai M.G.R.,
and Trichi and ordered them to pay before October 31, 1996. The
amount should be paid to the district magistrate/collector, who must

3
 collect it under the head of environment protection fund, which will be
used to reimburse the affected people and restore the damaged
environment.
• It has also directed the establishment of common treatment facilities or
individual pollution control devices, as well as the obtaining of board
approval for continuing operation.
• The court has ordered the superintendent of police and the
collector/magistrate of specified areas to immediately close or move
tanneries that have failed to acquire approval from the board.
• It went on to say that the board's TDS guidelines were in effect and that
all companies and tanneries in Tamil Nadu had to follow them.
• The court has directed the Madras High Court to form a special bench
known as the "Green Bench" to handle this issue and other
environmental matters.
• The court ordered the state of Tamil Nadu to pay MC Mehta Rs.50,000 in
legal fees and other expenditures and praised him for his active
engagement.

Conclusion:
This is one of the major decisions in environmental protection. The Supreme
Court used the concept of sustainable development in its decision in this case.
It demonstrated that, while industrial growth is important for the country's
economic progress, it is not pursued at the expense of people's health and
lives.

4
MC MEHTA V UNION OF INDIA (unit D)

ABSTRACT

The following is a brief Case Analysis of the case titled M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others
[(1997) 1 SCC 388].In this case, there was massive encroachment of land and of the Beas River
by Span Motel Pvt Ltd. This case is considered to be a landmark case in Indian Environmental
Law due to the fact that Public Trust Doctrine and The Polluter Pays Principle were applied.
This case has been read, summarized and analyzed broadly under the following heads : Brief
Facts of the Case, Issues in Arguments,Legal Aspects Involved,Precedents of High Court and
Supreme Court, Critical Overview of the Judgement and Suggestions for the same. This case
focuses on the Public Trust Doctrine and The Polluter Pays Principle and its application in India,
as well as in USA and the UK. The Supreme Court of India, via this landmark case reinstated
the application of the Public Trust Doctrine and The Polluter Pays Principle as well as
established a precedent for future cases. They stated that these principles were of relevance
with the laws in India and had discussed the lack and need for relevant legislation regarding
the above. Span Motels was ultimately held liable for this destruction and was made to pay
compensation.

INTRODUCTION

M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others1 is a landmark case in Indian environmental law. The
Supreme Court of India held in this case that the Public Trust Doctrine and The Polluter Pays
Principle will be applied in India.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The Indian Express published an article stating that Span Motels Private Limited, which owns
Span Resorts, had floated another ambitious enterprise, Span Club. Indian politician Kamal

1
M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others(1997) 1 SCC 388

5
Nath's family has direct connections with this business. The club was constructed in 1990 after
occupying 27.12 bighas of land, including extensive forestland. On 11 April 1994, the land was
later regularized and leased out to the company.

The regularization was done when Kamal Nath was the Minister of Environment and
Forests.This occupation and encroachment caused the Beas River to swell, and the swelling
river reversed its course and washed it downstream, engulfing the Span Club and the
surrounding lawns. For acourse of five months, the management of Span Resorts had been
moving earth movers and bulldozers for a second time to alter the Beas River’s course to save
the Motel from future floods by creating a new channel. Three private companies were
engaged to reclaim huge tracts of land around the Motel.

The Supreme Court took notice of the news item and the facts disclosed, in the view of the
fact that it was a serious act of environmental degradation on the part of the Motel.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. The first issue was whether the acts of Span Motels Private Limited was
environmentally degrading or not?
2. The second issue was whether there was a breach of The Public Trust
Doctrineby Span Motels Private Limited or not?
3. The third issue is regarding the liability of Span Motels Private Limited.

A Bench2 consisting of 2 judges examined the aforesaid matter.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE

2
The judges were Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.

6
 • It was argued that the construction activities and the act of attempted
diversion of the river flow which were taking place was illegal and went
directly against the lease.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

• Mr. Kamal Nath of the respondent’s side has firstly declared that he has
been wronged in the above petition as he has no right, title or interest in
‘Span Resorts’. He also further states that the allegations made in the
press reports are exaggerated and mala fide in nature and have been
published to harm his reputation.
• Mr. Banwari Lal Mathur, the Executive Director of Span Motels also
disclosed the shareholding of Span Motels Pvt. Ltd, wherein, almost all
the shares in the Motel are owned by the family of Mr. Kamal Nath. The
Court, however, chose not to comment on this issue.
• Mr. S. Mukerji, President of the Span Motels Pvt Ltd. tried to defend the
actions of the Motel by stating that the act of restoring the river to its
original course was done in the view of good faith towards the
environment and in the interest of the community living in the nearby
villages.
• The Motel had also stated that they had taken actions which protected
the land from erosion such as constructing crated, retaining walls and
embankments along the river, but were unable to finish the work due to
the allegations against them.

LEGAL ASPECTS

7
The case revolves around The Public Trust Doctrine and whether there was such breach by
Span Motels Private Limited. The case also considers the “Polluter Pays Principle” to be of
major significance owing to the present issue.

The Public Trust Doctrine

The Public Trust Doctrine is the principle that the sovereign holds in trust for public use some
resources, irrespective of private property ownership.

This legal theory was established by the ancient Roman Empire. It was based on the principle
that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by
Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use by the general public. Under the
Roman Law, these resources were either owned by nobody (Res Nullious) or by all in common
(Res Communious).

The Polluter Pays Principle

In environmental law, the polluter pays principle is enacted to make the party responsible for
producing pollution responsible for paying for the harm done to the natural environment.

CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, in this case, analyzed the construction activities and the interference with
the natural flow of the river and has declared that this activity, being degrading to the
environment, is illegal in nature. There was a direct breach of The Public Trust Doctrine by the
Himachal Pradesh Government due to the fact that the land granted through lease was
ecologically fragile and was for commercial purposes. The Court quashed the lease- deed by
which the forested land was leased to the Moteland held that the construction activity carried
out by the Motel was not justified. The Motel was ordered to pay compensation by way of
cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area. The Motel was ordered to
construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 meters for the building of the
motel beyond which they were not allowed to use the land of the river basin. The Court
restricted the Motel from discharging untreated effluent into the river. Himachal Pradesh
Pollution Control Board was directed to inspect and keep a check on the Motel.

8
The Court also discussed the clash between the struggle between those members of the
public who would preserve out environment and those charged with administrative
responsibilities find it necessary to encroach upon the environment. They however, held that
the aesthetic use and the ecosystems of the country cannot be permitted to be eroded for
private, commercial or any other good use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith,
for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources. They had stated
that the resolution to this conflict is for the legislature and not the courts.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court was of the view that the attempts to divert the river stream and the
construction activities was degrading to the environment, which led to the application of “The
Public Trust Doctrine” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” in India. The Court quashed the lease-
deed by which the forested land was leased and ordered the Motel to pay compensation by
way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area.

9
INDIAN COUNCIL (UNIT d)

Introduction
Being motivated from the 1972-Stockholm Declaration, a broad variety of
environmental regulations have been developed by India which includes
the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act of 1974, the Air Prevention
and Control of Pollution Act of 1981, the Environment Protection Act of
1986 and the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.

An environmental policy was developed which mandated the polluter to face

the costs and accountability with respect to the pollution caused and the
consequences that are connected to such pollution, this concept came to be
known as the Polluter Pays Principle. The above principle was expressly
conveyed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in
1972, when there was a necessity to adopt policies or strategies which would
discourage pollution and preserve the environment as well as the population
at large from dangers posed by environmental pollution being caused due to
industrial development. The concept of the Polluter Pays Principle was
developed by the OECD on the Recommendation of the Council on Guiding
Principles relating to Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies. With regard
to both domestic and global environmental policies, this concept presently
plays a very significant role.

Background facts
An environmental association called the Indian Council for Environmental
Legal Action lodged a writ petition regarding this case. This Environmental
group raised a particular issue to shed more light on the miseries of
individuals residing in a village called Bichhri Village, which was occupied by
chemical industries plants. This is a tiny village situated in the Udaipur
district, Rajasthan. The village’s northern section is held by plants such as
Hindustan Zinc Limited and several other Chemical Industrial Plants. The
emphasis in this case was made that such businessmen see these
opportunities which have the potential of causing pollution in the area as
ways to increase their profit margins by encouraging industrialization and
from exports.

10
The fourth defendant Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited in 1987, began
manufacturing a concentrated type of sulphuric acid called oleum together
with a single super-phosphate, that posed a serious threat to the inhabitants
of that specific region. The true crisis began when the fifth respondent
TataSilver Chemicals began the manufacturing of ‘H’ acid within the very
same compound as well, which was being produced for export purposes
majorly. The eighth respondent Jyoti chemicals was situated in another
compound which was producing ‘H’ acids mostly, along with several other
toxic chemicals. Various other chemical industries were also created for
production fertilizers as well as other such chemicals which were contributing
in some or other way towards pollution. All the defendants, in this case, were
generating hazardous waste-discharge in this specific region, which was not
even being adequately treated by these industrial plants. Whether it be
water, air, soil, or anything else as soon as it was coming in contact with
these industrial effluents it was getting poisoned.

As per the submitted report which showed that there were about 2,500 tons
of extremely poisonous sludge being generated along with that
approximately 375 tons of ‘H’ acid was also being manufactured, which was
intended solely for export purposes. Without any proper treatment, all the
waste products were being dumped into the village region.

All such harmful materials polluted the soil, groundwater, and contaminated
the underground water stream. Over the years, these poisonous substances
have rendered all the wells as well as other sources of water extremely toxic
and unfit for human consumption. The water sources utilized for drinking,
irrigating, feeding cattle, and other such purposes, along with the soil
fertility, which was the primary source of survival for many residents, was
getting impaired because of contamination. Pollution caused by hazardous
chemicals further leads to a variety of disorders, diseases, and deaths in the
village and neighboring regions.

Even the Parliament has expressed concern over the severe damages done
to the earth, with the ministers being worried about the environmental
degradation of the area. They had ensured that appropriate action would be
taken but nothing transpired. Therefore, as a consequence of this, there was
a virtual protest by the inhabitants of that region, which led to the district
magistrate enforcing Section 144 of CrPC in the area and closing of these
plants.

Issues
• Whether the industries involved in the manufacture of toxic
chemicals had taken any environmental protection measures?

11
 • Whether the defendant would be legally responsible for paying the
sum of money required to carry out the necessary corrective
actions?

Arguments and proceedings

Arguments by petitioner
Defendant industries started the manufacturing of ‘H’ acid along with other
chemicals in a plant situated in the same complex in the Bichhri village. The
manufacturing process of which leads to the formation of large quantities of
extremely poisonous industrial effluent, which are particularly iron-based and
gypsum which mainly facilitates the generation of sludge. The waste products
which mostly are sludge was never adequately treated and contributed to the
development of air, soil, water pollution, and contamination of numerous
other environmental resources.

This posed a significant danger to the nature of that region. It was further
contended that because of the respondents’ industrial plants, greater levels
of pollution were being created in the surroundings of that region and
therefore the plants had to be closed down instantly. In addition, it was
further asserted that, firstly, manufacturing should be suspended until the
waste is adequately treated so as not to cause any damage to the
environment and its resources.

Moreover, the petitioner claimed that industries of nearly all of the

respondents had requested for a ‘No Objection Certificate’ regarding the
manufacture of these hazardous chemicals and was refused and dismissed by
the authorities which itself is a piece of evidence as it shows as to how the
manufacture of such chemicals would only lead to environmental degradation
of the neighboring area in numerous ways.

Arguments by respondent
For the purpose of counter-arguments, the defendants filed a counter-
affidavit to sustain their statements. The assertions presented by them were:

Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited: As per their affidavits this plant had
already been granted by the Pollution Control Board a “No-Objection
Certificate” for the production of sulphuric acid and alumina sulphate. The
permission was given by the board, but with some terms and conditions. In
response, the Board further issued a ‘No- Objection Certificate’ under the
Water [Pollution Prevention and Control] Act, 1974 and Air (Pollution
Prevention and Control Act) Act, 1981, which was again conditional in nature.

12
After which they began with the production of Oleum and Single Super
Phosphate [S.S.P.] rather than producing sulphuric acid. They further
submitted that the treatment is quite difficult since most of the toxic
substances found are resistant in nature.

Analysis of polluter pays principle

In this case, the Principle of “Polluter Pays” was expressly implemented, as
the Court ruled that, under Section 3 and Section 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, the Court has the authority to undertake steps to put
such a rule into effect. It was introduced under Principle 16 of the Rio
Summit of 1992 which specified that the polluter must principally pay for the
pollution charges.

This principle in the Indian context was a result of the continued evolution of
the ‘absolute liability’ principle which was set down in the M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India case, in which the court-mandated that the polluters must pay
a penalty for causing pollution, which will be used for improving the
environmental and residential conditions for the inhabitants of the regions
affected. The concept developed further with the case of Indian Council for
Environment-Legal Action v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, in which the Court
also included accountability, remuneration to the people affected from the
environmental deterioration with the absolute liability rule for the damage
caused to the environment of the region.

Although the principle of Polluter Pays was accepted by the courts in India,
however, its reference does not seem to be included in the prevailing or
prospective laws. The Court established in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum
v. Union of India and Ors, case that this principle was regulated by Articles
48-A and 51-A(g) of the Indian Constitution and that the principle may be
inferred with the prevailing legislation. In many cases even where the
pollution created was well within the limitations which were placed on them,
the Courts have still made the polluters pay adequately. For instance, in the
case of Oleum Gas Leak, in which even though Shriram Factories complied
with applicable laws like the Air Act of 1981, the Supreme Court found them
responsible for the leakage of oleum gas and for the deterioration of the
environment.

There is also a debate about whether only a civil action against the polluter is
satisfactory or whether there is a necessity to make the polluters criminally
liable as well. The provisions of Sections 268 and 290 of the Indian Penal
Code were already being utilized to declare the accused criminally
responsible for public nuisance in relation to environmental disturbance,
which was way before the adoption of the Stockholm Declaration in 1972.
Following the Stockholm Declaration, the Water Pollution Prevention and
Control Act of 1974, and the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1981

13
contain the provisions for the initiation of criminal proceedings against such
polluters.

The environmentalists generally describe a ‘polluter’ in a broader sense and

not just as an individual who causes harm to others but rather as people who
use their own assets and resources in such a manner that damages the
environment. Since, there are no victims requiring compensation in such
situations, the payment amount is generally assessed by the degree that it
would further discourage such kinds of conduct. The reimbursement,
irrespective of the presence of real victims, is generally made in the form of
a tax to the government. In these kinds of situations, the Polluter Pays
Principle is applied to support an environmental program instead of ensuring
that the true polluters pay remuneration for their activity to the actual
victims.

Judgment
Upon considering the facts and findings of this case, Judges ruled that the
industries will have to deposit the penalty, as ordered by the Court vide its
judgment dated 11 April 1997, along with compound interest. Since 11 April
1997, the respondent industries have intentionally failed to comply with the
court’s directions. A significant amount of residents have already been
seriously impacted as there have so far been no effective corrective
measures taken. The respondent industries have accomplished in their
strategy with respect to refusing to comply with the decision of the court by
maintaining the case going on for more than fifteen years by submitting
interlocutory requests that were absolute without any substance and
therefore, were subsequently rejected with costs.

As a result, following 11 April 1997, the respondent industries were ordered

to pay Rs. 37,385,000 INR together with a compound interest of 12 percent
per annum until the sum would have been fully paid or compensated. In
addition to this, the respondent industries were mandated to pay the
litigation fees for deliberately wasting the court’s time and resources, as the
case was carried on for nearly fifteen years, long after the Court’s final
decision and for all these years the applicants were forced to carry on the
case. Taking into account the sum total of the facts and findings of the case,
regarding both the interlocutory applications, the court ordered the
respondent industries to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000 INR as costs. This sum
of money would also be used, under the direction of the respective
authorities, for performing corrective actions around the Bichhri village and
neighbouring regions within the Udaipur district, Rajasthan, India.

Basically, the court implemented the concept of polluters pay, which implies,
as per the court, that if an activity carried out, is of a harmful nature, then
the individuals conducting these very activities will be required to
compensate to make up for the damage caused to any other person

14
irrespective of whether appropriate precautionary measures were taken or
not while carrying out such an activity.

Conclusion
It is an irrational interpretation of the polluter as somebody who results in
harm to, not anyone, but perhaps the environment. As the environment can
not really be actually recompensed, this allows for a justification to levy
taxes upon guilty entities along with the assurance that the sum will be
utilized to reverse the harm done. But in practice, these “polluter penalties”
mainly help to boost the earnings of the government officials, advisors, and
attorneys, most of whom profit from the method. As presently interpreted,
the polluter pays concept actually winds up as just a mechanism for
transferring money from polluters to non-victims who are politically very well
connected.

They accurately interpreted that the polluter pays principle draws attention
to the fact that on one side there is almost no stress between individual
liberty, economic prosperity, and private ownership of a property, and on the
other, adequate environmental sustainability. As per the Indian scenario,
legislation with respect to the imposition of criminal liability against
defaulting corporations is still not found. Some even have commented that
the principle of ‘polluter pays’ has now degenerated into the concept of ‘pay
and pollute’, as a result of delay and insufficiency in providing executive
action in such cases. The punishment given to industries ought to be such as
to reimburse the victims as well as repair the damaged environment and
somehow also discourage the polluters from performing such an act again.

15
Unit 3 case 1.

Statues Referred:

1. Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 – Section 12

2. Forest Rights Act – Section 2(o), Section 3, Section 2, Section 6

Facts;

1. Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), approached the Supreme court seeking a

writ Certiorari to quash the order passed by Ministry of Environment and
Forest dated 24.08.2010, rejecting the stage II forest clearance for the diversion
of 660.749 hectares of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh
Bauxite Mines in Kalahandi and Rayagada districts of Orissa and also for
consequential beliefs.
2. OMC urged that the above order passed had the neutralizing effect of two
orders passed by Supreme Court. (Sterlite case)
3. Ministry of Environment and Forest, later, considered the request of the State
of Orissa on 28.02.2005 seeking for prior approval of MOEF for diversion of
660.749 ha of forest land in accordance with Section 2 of Forest Conservation
Act, 1980.
4. MOEF after considering the proposal of the State Government and referring to
the recommendation of FAC dated 27.10.2006, agreed in principle for
diversion for the forest land with certain conditions.
5. MOEF then granted environmental clearance to OMC vide its proceedings
dated 28.04.2009
6. Four member committee was constituted headed by Dr. Naresh Saxena to study
and access the impact of various right and to make a detailed investigation.
Saxena committee submitted its report to MOEF on 16.08.2010.
7. State government then submitted their written objection on 17.08.2010 to the
Ministry of Environment and Forest on the saxena committee report.
8. Violation of the provisions of Forest Rights Act, Forest Conservation Act,
1980; Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and also the impact on ecological
and biodiversity values of the Niyamgiri hills upon which the Dongaria Kondh
and Kutia Kondh depend.
9. The primary responsibility of any ministry is to enforce the laws that have been
passed by parliament.
10. . The order dated 24.08.2010 was communicated by MOEF to the State of
Orissa vide its letter dated 30.08.2010, the legality of those orders were the
subject matter to this writ petition.

Issue

What is the egality of orders passed if it violates the law passed by the
parliament or either by way violates the act passed by the parliament?
16
Contentions by Parties –

Appellant’s Arguments

1. Appellant’s counsel referred to the judgements of Supreme Court in Vedanta

and Sterlite case and submitted that those judgements are binding on the parties
with regard to various questions raised and decided and also to the questions
which ought to have been raised and decided.
2. MOEF itself after the above, mentioned judgements had accorded Stage I
clearance vide its proceedings on 11.12.2008. Consequently, there is no
impediment in the MOEF granting Stage II clearance for the project.
3. Stated that the reasons submitted by Saxena committee as well as FAC are
untenable and have nothing to do with the Bauxite Mining Project undertaken
by Orissa Mining Corporation.
4. Various reasons stated by the MOEF for rejecting the Stage II clearance are
unsustainable in law as well as in facts. Also the reasons stated alleging
violation of Environment Protection Act, 1986 were totally unrelated to bauxite
mining project.
5. Learned council also submitted that Saxena Committee as well as Ministry of
Environment and Forest have committed factual error in taking into account the
alleged legal occupation which has no connection with regards to mining
project. It is a totally independent project.
6. Rejecting the Stage II clearance by Ministry of Environment and Forest was
arbitrary and illegal.

Respondents Arguments:

1. Various grounds stated in Saxena report as well as in the order of MOEF dated
24.08.2010, where urged before the court when Vedanta and Sterlite case were
decided and it was following those judgements and the details of the same had
been furnished along with the written submissions filed on 21.01.2013.
2. Stage I approval was on the recommendation of FAC.

Judgement

The Supreme court bench comprising of Aftab Alam, K.S. Radhakrishnan and
Ranjan Gogoi disposed of the writ petition and held the following:

1. The aspect of the matter have not been placed before Gram Sabha for their
active consideration. Adding to it, Gram Sabha is also free to consider all
community, individual as well as cultural and religious claims which have
already been received from Rayagada and Kalahandi Districts.
2. Therefore, the direction to the State of Orissa to place this issue before the
Gram Sabha with notice to the ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India
and Gram Sabha would take a decision on them within three months and

17
 communicate the same to Ministry of Environment and Forest through the
State Government. On the conclusion of the proceeding before the Gram
Sabha, the MOEF shall take a final decision on the grant of Stage II clearance
for the bauxite mining project in light of the Gram Sabha decision within two
months.
3. The Alumina Refinery project as well is advised to take steps to correct and
rectify the alleged violations by it of the terms of environment clearance
granted by Ministry of Environment and Forest.
4. The proceeding of Gram Sabha was to be attended as an observer by a judicial
officer of the rank of District Judge, nominated by Chief Justice of High Court
of Orissa who would sign the minutes of proceedings, certifying that the
proceedings os Gram Sabha took place independently and completely
uninfluenced either by project components or Central or State Government.

Rule of law:

The provision of law which was under examination by Hon’ble Apex Court of
India was subsequently forwarded to Gram Panchayat with provided
guidelines.

Conclusion:

It can be concluded that Supreme Court through its judgement in this case
established the factual disposition of matter and tactfully handed over to
Gram Panchayat under its jurisdiction.

18
Introduction

A written question with the Supreme Court, which was entered in

1995 with the medium of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad to defend
the land of Nilgiris Woods of Deforestation by means of illegal wood
activities. However, it was felt that some key points on positive
aspects of forest regulation in the US, which control the use, logging
and improvement of the timber in the Kingdom, were desirable with
a view to ensuring the publicity of the forests.

The court files even go through all the components of the state
forestry process, forest protection has a comprehensive effect to
stabilize the forests. T.N.Godavarman has provided an essential
component in terms of safety and protection of the environment. He
has various public instances on his behalf from fans overseeing safety
considerations and being in tune with nature. Normal regulation is an
area of public concern that has been made visible with the help of
various NGOs and personal affiliations.

The application of pressure to protect natural issues through the

articulation of different compliance options. This has hastened the
improvement of an unprecedented period of universal rule that
began with absolute accountability. From now on, thoughts, for
example the cause, are consolidated. Payment Rule, Conservative
Improvement, and Really Appropriate Rules.

Facts of the Case

By T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Association of India, the

Supreme Court left at the back of the not unusual place career of an
interpreter of the law. This milestone case is commonly called ‘the
Forest Case in India’ This is due to the fact there has been a criminal
violation of the installed command whilst the Supreme Court
everyday command over the inquiries of this example. It became
regarding the manipulate and oversight of the woods of India. T.N.
Godavarman halted a writ declare withinside the 12 months 1995
withinside the summit courtroom docket of India. The primary goal
19
of the writ call for become to guard and steady the forest area in
which there may be the Nilgiris because it became mishandled thru
deforestation through illegal lumber works out. The key issue of this
example become that it become to shop the backwoods. It became
trailed through a meeting at complete period regarding the National
Forest Policy.

This becomes visible as wreck orientation that become required

withinside the fabric issue. This became to have a take a observe the
need and execution of forest legal guidelines and policies withinside
the subcontinent of India. The Supreme Court supplied requests to
apply the timberland land and its assets financially. Moreover,
advised that it’s the whole thing besides a self-checking element on
the identical time. The courtroom docket communicated that an
execution machine ought to be moulded on the nearby and country
level. This become to govern the transportation of timber.

Godavarman Thirumulpad had several pundits. It offers with the

ordinary honours of all and the intercession of the courtroom docket.
Just intercession or the encroachments of the courtroom docket may
be rehearsed precisely whilst they may be required. Legitimate
interventions show up whilst the country misses the mark in its
dedication to paintings.

The maximum outstanding interventions made through the

courtroom docket bear in mind the blacklist for the tree felling, direct
timber adventures, the forbiddance of mining in Kudremukh, and
with Aravallis, the guideline of thumb of sawmills. Most of the
putting judgment on woods employer is the load of responsibility
called Present Value for the usage of backwoods land for non-officer
management purposes, the underpinning of the Compensatory
Afforestation Fund, or CAMPA, and henceforth the direction of
motion of looking for preceding aid from the Supreme Court for any
commercial enterprise activity.

20
Subsequently, exclusive’s paintings to prevent timberland
annihilation in Gudalur incited a watershed criminal intervention,
which has basically introduced to the guarantee of forests.
Godavarman Thirumulpad will stay interior valid history.

Insides of Case

On the point of convergence of the contention is an exceptionally

large task of the Uttar Pradesh government at Noida. Consistent with
the candidates, the enterprise is a “significant unapproved
development”. The candidates specific that innumerable bushes
were hacked down to clean the floor for the challenge. Those timber
outlined a “woodland” because the time period became deciphered
by way of this court in its solicitation dated December 12, 1996, in
T.N. Godavarman Tirumala vs Association of India and Ors., (1997) 2
SCC 267 (1) and the action of the Uttar Pradesh government in
cleaving down an actual wooded area without the prior authorization
of the significant authorities and this court, turned into in net
encroachment of section of the wooded area (Conservation) Act,
1980.

The important Empowered Committee CEC on an idea approximately

the general huge range of materials made available to it, such as the
report of the FSI, held that the undertaking website online was not a
forest place or a considered forest or woodlands just like the district
similar to the solicitation for SC, fundamentally, due to the fact the
timber inside the endeavour locale that have been cleaved down for
representing the enhancements were hooked up trees and not more
often than not advanced trees, and because the place turned into
neither exhorted “wooded area region” nor recorded as “woodland
region” inside the government file.

The court docket held that the enterprise web page isn’t woodlands
land and the development of the task without the preceding assent
from the central government doesn’t in any way move against phase
2 of the FC Act.

21
Issue raised with the case

• Whether the new translation for section 2 of the wooded area

Conservation Act and wooded area land is violative and irrespective
of whether the usage of wooden for enterprise purposes is justified?
• The issue is concerning the willpower of the environment and
majorly harms the woodland which have been wealthy within the
herbal assets begin to depress with the increasing desires of
character emerging because of a past industrialization, migration of
an urban place, need greater land for cultivation housing and
different purposes.

Judgement

It is a fundamental circumstance of the environment specifically of

the weather. T.N. Godavaraman, know-how the circumstance of the
backwoods and being a careful inhabitant of India, couldn’t as yet
avoid depending upon defying such illegal practices. He went to the
Indian lawful chief attempting to find some help from the splendid
court.

On 12 December 1996, a seat drove with the aid of leader Justice J.S.
Verma passed an interval request organizing that tree-felling and
non-ranger provider administration improvement in forestland the
United States over be ended. The manner-breaking request
redescribed the that means of forestland and loosened up protection
to all areas with normal woods irrespective of what their
proprietorship.

It set out that ‘timberlands’ can be seen by way of its promise

reference meaning and the association of the wooded area
(Conservation) Act 1980, will practice to all thickly lush areas. States
have been composed to frame ace chambers to recognize backwoods
as characterized and file reviews.

Senior counsel Harish Salve turned into assigned Amicus Curie to

assist the superb court docket. What observed become outstanding.
22
more than one north-eastern States, wherein backwoods had been
being assaulted through corporations and unregulated sawmills
laboured straightforwardly, have been shaken.

An issue at the advancement of illicit lumber become restrained.

Ninety-four rail course vehicles of wrongfully despatched wood were
seized. At that stage, even the very best court docket no doubt didn’t
anticipate that the problem might be saved open for near to twenty
years. But happily, it's far alluded to within the set-up rule because
the Writ of persevering with with mandamus. greater than 1,000
Interlocutory applications have on account that been recorded,
masking a scope of problems regarding boondocks safety, inclusive of
mining, tree-felling, the leaders of included areas, and wooded area
encroachment. thinking about the growing number of IAs and u
notion of the issues being mentioned, the courtroom requested the
constitution of a consultant frame, The significant Empowered
Committee (CEC), In September 2002 it became educated as a lawful
leading body of legal administrators with huge-going powers to
supervise forthcoming IAS, hear new programs, and skip orders in
consonance with the ones of the ultimate court docket. Any other
angle within the affiliation of forests were made.

The omnibus backwoods case is at this factor open yet under unique
listening to any longer into its 20th year. The CEC keeps, but no
longer as a valid caution accumulating. Conclusion This situation
covered the need for staying aware and watching for timberland
helpfulness. It really works with the guarantee of organic variety.
Similarly, safeguarding and getting biological situations had been
mentioned for the existing circumstance.

The consequence of the T.N. Godavarman vs Union of India and Ors

notices the diminishing and the finish of different wooden ventures.
It furthermore settled herbal mindfulness for many of the occupants
of India. It refused deforestation stringently and set an example for
development in environmental safeguarding and coverage for a big
scope. The important obligation of this example become the

23
powerful and smooth movement of various legal guidelines in doing
herbal sports.

24