Contents hide

1. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[1]

2. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [2] (Ganga River Pollution Case)
3. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayadu[3]
4. S Jagannath v. Union of India [4]
5. Goa Foundation v. Konkan Railways Corporation[5]
6. Narula Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India [6]
7. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [7]
8. Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra[8]
9. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Case / Oleum Gas Leakage
Case][9]
10. M. C. MEHTA v. Union Carbide Commission[10]
11. Sachidanad Pandey v. State of West Bengal[11]
12. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India [12]
13. Pradeep Krishnen v. Union of India [13]
14. Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v. Union of India [14]
15. Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India [15]
16. Animal and Environmental Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India [16]
17. Centre For Environmental Law WWF-I v. Union of India [17]
18. Fatehsang Gimba Vasava v. State of Gujarat[18]
19. Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) v. Union of India [19]
20. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[20]
21. T. Damodar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad[21]

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[1]

 This is a leading case in which the Supreme Court critically analyzed the
relationship between environment and development.
 The petitioner- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, filed a Public Interest Litigation
U/A 32 of Indian Constitution against the large-scale pollution caused to River
Palar due to the discharge of untreated effluents by the tanneries and other
industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The water of River Palar is the main
source of drinking and bathing water for the surrounding people.
 Further, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore found
that nearly 35,000 hectares of agricultural land has become either totally or
partially unfit for cultivation.
 The question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was
whether the tanneries should be allowed to continue to operate at the cost of
lives of lakhs of people.
 The Supreme Court examining the report delivered its judgment making all
efforts to maintain a harmony between environment and development.
 The Court admitted that these Tanneries in India are the major foreign
exchange earner and also provides employment to several thousands of
people. But at the same time, it destroys the environment and poses a health
hazard to everyone.
  The court delivering its judgment in favor of petitioners directed all the
Tanneries to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the office of Collector as
fine
 The Court further directed the State of Tamil Nadu to award Mr. M. C. Mehta
with a sum of Rs. 50,000 as appreciation towards his efforts for protection of
Environment.
 The Court in this case also emphasized on the constitution of Green Benches
in India dealing specifically with matters relating to environment protection
and also for speedy and expeditious disposal of environmental cases.

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [2] (Ganga River

Pollution Case)
 On a PIL filed by the Mr. M. C. Mehta U/A 32 of Indian Constitution, it was
observed by the Supreme Court that water of River Ganga was highly toxic
near Kanpur city- as the Tanneries in the area were discharging their untreated
effluents into the River.Also, nine nallahs were discharging sewage effluents
and sludge into the river. Similarly, dead bodies and half-burnt bodies were
also been thrown into the river. Also, the water supply and sanitary conditions
in the entire city was inadequate and not up to the marks of a normal city.
 The petitioner demanded the issuance of a writ/order/direction to restrain the
State of U.P from letting out trade effluents into River Ganga.
 It was contended by the respondents that the Tanneries from the Kanpur city-
due to their lack of physical facilities and technical know-how and funds- it
was not possible for them to install the proper treatment facilities.
 The Court rejecting their contentions said that “the financial capacity of a
tannery should be considered irrelevant while requiring them to establish
primary trea6tment plants… Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum
wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, the tannerieswhich cannot set
up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue.”
 Further, the court observed that the contents of iron and manganese were
higher from the ISI limits of river water which was found to be very harmful for
consumption.
 The court ordered the Tanneries which did not appeared before the court
should stop functioning and before they restart , they must install pre-
treatment machineries for trade effluents.
 Therefore, the court held the Kanpur Mahanagarpalika liable and also passed
several direction for the PCA (Prevention, Control and Abatement) of pollution
of River Ganga, some of which were:
 Increase of size of sewers in labor colonies;
 Construction of several numbers of latrines and urinals;
  Preventing the throwing the dead bodies and half-burnt bodies or ashes after
Funeral ceremonies into the river;
 Installing treatment plants in tanneries and other factories;
 Observe the ‘Keep the village clean week’
 Addition of slides relating to importance and purity of water in the theatre at
the time of intervals.

Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. M. V.

Nayadu[3]
 The respondents applied for the consent for establishment of the industry to
the Commissioner of industries. The issuance of license was subjected to
various conditions which include3d a condition to obtain a certificate from the
SPCB for pollution control and equipment proposed to be installed met their
requirements.
 The application was rejected by A. P. PCB as the industry was a polluting unit
and fell under “Red Category” and the proposed site was within the radius of
102kms of the two lakes- Himayat Sgar Lake and Osman Sagar Lake- which
were the primary source of drinking water for the cities of Hyderabad and
Secunderabad.
 The Corporation again, after a year applied for the permission and clearance
but the APPCB rejected the application again on the same grounds.
 Aggrieved the respondents moved before the Appellate Authority. The
Appellate Authority issued directions to APPCB to grant its consent fir
establishment of industry.
 But before this order was passed by the Tribunal, the Respondents had
already filed a PIL before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating the order
of APPCB to be arbitrary. The High Court allowing the PIL also directed the
APPCB to grant its consent for the same.
 Aggrieved, the APPCB went in appeal u/A 136 to Supreme Court against the
orders of High Court. The Supreme Court made various observations and
allowed the appeal agreeing to the decisions of the APPCB for not granting
the consent.
 The court observed that “In the environmental field, where the uncertainty of
scientific opinions have created serious problems for the courts- Uncertainty
becomes a problem when scientific knowledge is institutionalized in policy-
making by agencies and courts.” The judges realized that Precautionary
Principle and Polluter Pays Principle are now part of environmental
jurisprudence of the country.
 The court also referred to cases of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum and Shri
Ram Food and Fertilizers Gas Leakage case.
S Jagannath v. Union of India [4]
 The petitioner through the present PIL has sought the enforcement of CRZ
Notification, 1991 for prohibiting the intensive and semi-intensive type of
prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas and constitution of a
National Coastal Management Authority for safeguarding the marine life and
coastal areas.
 Due to the commercial aquaculture farming there is a considerable
degradation of the mangrove ecosystems, pollution of potable waters, and
reduction in fish catch. The groundwater has become contaminated sue to
seepage of impounded water from the aquaculture farms. Further. The court
observed that most of the coastal land recently converted into shrimp farms
was previously used for food crops and traditional fishing.
 Further, the expansion of the modern Shrimp ponds in the coastal area has
meant that the local fishermen could reach the beach only after trespassing
these Shrimp farms or by taking a long detour.
 The court observed that sea coasts and beached are the gift on nature to the
mankind. The aesthetic qualities and the recreational utility of the said area
have to be maintained. Any activity which has the effect of degrading the
environment cannot be permitted.
 The effluents discharged by the commercial shrimp culture farms are covered
by the definition of environmental pollutant, environmental pollution and
hazardous substance. The NEERI Report indicates that these effluents are in
excess of the prescribed standards. Further, no action is being taken by the
authority Under the EPA, 1986 or the Hazardous Wastes (Management and
Handling Rules), 1989 or the Water Act, 1974 or the Fisheries Act, 1897or the
WPA, 1972 etc.
 The court ordered the following:
 No part of the agricultural land and the salt farms could be converted into
Aquaculture farms;
 An authority shall be constituted under the Central Government under Sec
8(3) of the EPA, 1986;
 The authority so constituted shall implement the Precautionary Principle and
the Polluter Pays Principle.
 No shrimp culture ponds can be constructed in the coastal areas;
 Aquaculture industries functioning at present within 1km radius of the Chilika
Lake must compensate the affected persons;
 Aquaculture functioning outside the CRZ should obtain prior permission and
clearance from the authority within the prescribed time limit failing which they
must stop their operations.

Goa Foundation v. Konkan Railways Corporation[5]

  It was a longstanding demand of the people in the region for a cheap and fast
transport to improve the economic conditions and to make accessible the
hinterlands in the State of Maharashtra, State of Goa and State of Karnataka.
The Central Government was considering providing a railway line for a
considerable length of time but the project was postponed from time to time
due to lack of requisite funds. Ultimately the Central Government took a
decision to provide the line and to achieve that purpose. The Konkan Railway
Corporation Ltd., a public limited Company, was set up.
 The petitioner claims to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, river and wild life and to have compassion for living
creatures. The petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition
under Art 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the Corporation should
be compelled to procure environment clearance for the alignment passing
through the State of Goa from the Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India, and until such clearance is secured all the work in
respect of providing railway line should be withheld.
 The grievance of the petitioners is that the proposed alignment has been
planned and undertaken without an adequate Environment Impact
Assessment (E.I.A.).
 The petitioners claimed that the proposed alignment is wholly destructive of
the environment and the eco-system and violates the citizens” rights
under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners also claim that even though
the ecological damage will not be felt immediately, such damage will be
gradual and will lead to the deterioration of the land quality and will affect
large number of people.
 The court observed that: “The Courts are bound to take into consideration the
comparative hardship which the people in the region will suffer by stalling the
project of great public utility. No development is possible without some
adverse effect on the ecology and environment but the projects of public
utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the
people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. The balance has
to be struck between the two interests and this exercise must be left to the
persons who are familiar and specialized in the field.”
 Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Narula Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India [6]

 The’ petitioners — Industrial units have challenged the action of the State
Government taken under Sec. 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
giving directions to them to stop production activities and take necessary
steps to make the waste water being discharged by the units to conform to
the standards specified by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and not to
 restart the production activities without the permission of State Government
and Forest and Environment Department.
 On behalf of the State Government and other respondents, it was contended
that these units were not having an operative effluent treatment plant and
that they had not abided by the terms of the consent letters given by the
State Board under Sec 25(2) of the Water Act.
 Sec 25 of the Water Act prescribes restrictions on new out-lets and new
discharges. It inter alia provides that no person shall, without the previous
consent of the State Board, establish any industry or process which is likely to
discharge sewerage or trade effluent into the stream or well or sewer or on
land. The consent of the State Board can be obtained by an application made
under Sec 25(2) of the Water Act. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 25 the
State Board may grant its consent subject to conditions as it may impose. The
State Board may impose conditions including conditions as to the nature and
composition, temperature, volume or rate of discharge of the effluent from
the premises from which the discharge is to be made.
 The court also agreed with the Respondents contention and held that the
State Board has all the powers to impose conditions upon the said industry in
the light of Sec 25 of the Water Act, 1974 in order to PCA of the Water
pollution
 Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the petitioners were directed to
comply with the directions of the State Government.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of

India [7]
 In this case, 5 factories were producing Hyaluronic Acid [H-acid] in Bicchari
village, Udaipur. These units were discharging highly toxic untreated effluents
i.e. iron and gypsum based sludge.
 The result was long-lasting damage to the underground soil, underground
water and environment in general. The water in around 60 wells spread over
350 hectares turned red and became unfit for drinking and other household
purposes. The entire land of 350 hectares became infertile.
 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting under the powers given to him under
Sec 144 Cr.P.C ordered to show cause as to why these factories should not be
shut down.
 Accordingly, a writ petition was filed by the Environmentalist organization-
Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action before the Supreme Court to look into
the above matter.
 The court dealt in detail the matters concerned above referred to the cases of
Rylands versus Fletcher, Oleum Gas Leakage case, Bhopal Gas Tragedy etc.
and applied the Principle of Absolute Liability.
  The Court ordered closure of factories and also ordered them to pay damages
up to the tune of Rs. 4 Crores for reversal of ecology of the area.
 The Court also suggested setting up of Green Benches in all the State High
Courts.

Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of

Maharashtra[8]
 This writ petition was brought forward by the petitioner- Bombay
Environmental Action Group, in order to challenge the permission granted by
the Central and State Government for construction of a 500MW Thermal
Power Station at District Thane against environmental norms.
 The petitioners contended the project would ruin the ecology of that area,
further leading to adversely affecting the aquatic life nearby.
 The defendants contended that there was no possibility of any loss to the
surrounding environment as there was no vegetation in that land which could
be felled; the land was almost infertile and useless. In addition to this, there
was no habitation anywhere near the site area.
 The court therefore, analyzed the provisions of EPA, 1986 and the CRZ
Notification and found out that the environmental clearance given by the
MoEF was contrary to the Environmental norms.
 But still the petition was not allowed as the greater good requires no
electricity cut in India.
 The Court held that- “environmental issues are relevant and deserve
consideration. But the needs of the environment require to be balanced with
the needs of the Community at large and the needs of developing countries. If
one finds that all the safeguards have been taken and followed properly, there
is no need for Judiciary to interfere.”

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [Shri Ram Food and

Fertilizers Case / Oleum Gas Leakage Case][9]
 The rule of Absolute Liability which is a more stringent rule than Strict Liability
was laid down in this case. This case is more popular as the oleum gas leakage
case.
 Shri Ram Food and fertilizers Industry is a subsidiary of the Delhi Cloth Mills
Ltd. Located in a thickly populated area of Delhi.
 On 4th December 1985, there was a leakage of oleum gas from the Sulphuric
acid plant resulting in the death of an advocate and several injuries to other
persons. Again, on 6th December 1985, there was a minor leakage of Oleum
gas from the same plant. Against a complaint under Sec 133 Cr.P.C., the
District Magistrate directed the management of Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers
 Industry to close the unit and to show cause the reason within seven days in
writing.
 The petitioner Mr. M. C. Mehta files a PIL u/A 32 of Indian Constitution. The
petitioner in his petition requested the Court to direct the Government to take
necessary steps to avoid such leakages from the industries engaged in
dangerous and hazardous manufacturing processes. He also reminded the
Court of the recent incident of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and prayed the Court
to direct the management to shift these industries somewhere far from the
city.
 The issues before the Supreme Court in this case were:
 Whether the plant can be allowed to continue or not?
 If not, what measures are require to be taken to prevent the leakages,
explosion, air and water pollution?
 Whether there are any safety devices existing in the Plant or not?
 The Supreme Court after great debate and discussion, decided to permit Shri
Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry to restore its operations. The Court
observed that although such industries are dangerous, they are very essential
for the economic and social progress of the country.
 The court directed the management to deposit in the court Rs. 20 lakhs as
security for payment of compensation to the victims. Further, all the
recommendations of the expert committees are to be complied by the
Industry and safety equipment are to be installed at the first instance.
 The court further directed the industries to establish and develop a green
belt of 1-5 kms in width around such industries.
 The court appreciated the petitioner Mr. M.C. Mehta for filing a number of PIL
and ordered the Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the
costs.
 The court directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court.

M. C. MEHTA v. Union Carbide Commission[10]

 On December 1984, there was a leakage of poisonous gas – Methyl Isocynate
(MIC) from the Union Carbide Corporation India Limited, located at Bhopal
which is a subsidiary of UCC, U.S.A.
 This disaster is described as the world’s worst industrial disaster ad it claimed
lives of 2,260 people and caused serious injuries to about 6 lakh of people.
 The Government of India, on behalf of the victims filed a suit in U.S District
Court, New York. The U.S District Court dismissed all the suits and petitions an
representations on the ground of forum non-conveniens i.e. the suits can be
more conveniently tried in India.
 Again the UOI filed this present suit through M.C. Mehta versus UCC in the
District Court of Bhopal claiming 3.3 billion U.S dollars i.e. Rs. 3900 crores as
 compensation. The District Court ordered UCC to pay interim relief of 270
million U.S. Dollars i.e. Rs. 350 crore to the victims.
 Aggrieved the UCC filed a civil Revision petition before the High Court at
Madhya Pradesh, which reduced the amount from rs. 350 Crores to Rs. 250
Crores.
 Aggrieved both the parties preferred appeals before the Supreme Court on
different issues. Several municipal and international issues were involved in
this case for considerations. Some such issues were:
 Whether the Parent Company is liable for the torts of its Subsidiary Company
abroad? The UCC has maintained it is only morally but not legally liable for its
actions.
 Whether the Home State i.e. USA can be held responsible for the hazardous
activities of UCC’s Subsidiary Company abroad?
 Whether the Host State i.e. India responsible for enforcing the safety
standards for the protection of life and environment and the extent of liability
to the victims for the rehabilitation in the event of accidents?
 When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court another incident
took place in the Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers Industry of New Delhi. In that
case, the Supreme Court evolved the Principle of Absolute Liability from the
1868 Principle of Absolute Liability.
 Keeping that decision in mind the Supreme Court directed the UCC to pay
sum of 470 Million U.S. Dollars i.e. Rs. 750 crore towards compensation to the
victims for the full and final settlement in satisfaction of all past, present and
future claims and the same was accepted by both the parties.
 The Court by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction quashed all proceedings
civil, criminal etc against the UCC.

Sachidanad Pandey v. State of West Bengal[11]

 There was in Alipore- a zoological garden which was in the outskirts of the
Calcutta city but overtime the city has grown so much so that now the
Zoological garden is in the heart of the city.
 In May 1980, the Taj Group of Hotels wanted to construct a five-star hotel in
that area. Accordingly, it was proposed that a four-acre land could be carved
out from the Zoological garden for the construction of the hotel.
 Later on looking at the blueprint of the hotel, the Managing Committee of the
Zoo raised various objections which were withdrawn later after a compromise.
This compromise was settled on the terms of construction of not a 60-storey
hotel but a garden hotel.
 Accordingly, 5 petitioners filed a PIL to restrain the Zoo authorities from giving
this land to the Hotel Group. The Single Bench High Court judge dismissed the
petition and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of the same High
Court.
  Hence, the Appeal was preferred u/A136 to the Supreme Court.
 It was argued from the petitioner’s side that the Principles of Natural Justice
has not been observed and those who were interested in the welfare of the
zoo were not heard in the matter before the decision was taken.
 This however, was rejected by the court referring to trhe fact that all required
precautions have been taken by the Taj Group.
 The Apex Court in unequivocal terms pronounced that “whenever the matter
of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court are not to shrug its
shoulders saying that it is a matter for policy making authority.”
 But the court at the same time also observed that the approach of the Taj
Group of hotels has been credibly fair as they have given all the assurances to
preserve the Zoo and its inmates. They also agreed to build a garden hotel
keeping in view the ecology of the area and for the protection of the
migratory birds.
 The appeal was therefore, dismissed and the construction was allowed.

Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India [12]

 The petitioners have brought this PIL for enforcement of certain notifications
under the WPA, 1972; EPA, 1986; and various Forests Laws in areas declared as
Reserved Forests in Alwar District of Rajasthan.
 The area now more popular as the Sariska Tiger Park has been declared as the
Game Reserve, a Sanctuary, a National Park, a Reserved forests and a
Protected Area.
 Thus it is very obvious that any mining activity in that area shall be contrary to
and impermissible as under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980
 The Government of Rajasthan has illegally and arbitrarily issued about 400
mining licenses and thereby enabled them to carry on the mining operations-
which according to the petitioners will tend to degrade and diminish the
ecology of the area.
 The Court after observing various laws and facts went on praising the
importance and beauty of the ecology and its resources and said that “every
source from which man has increased his power has been used to diminish
the prospects of his successors.”
 The Court directed the Central Government to act under Sec 3 of the EPA,
1986 and appoint a Committee to ensure the enforcement of the above laws
and to prevent devastation of the environment and wild life within the
protected area. The committee shall access the damage alone to the
environment and wildlife and make appropriate recommendations to this
Court as to ascertain the remedial measures.
 The Court further declared that no mining activity can be carried out in the
said area.
Pradeep Krishnen v. Union of India [13]
 The petitioner filed a PIL U/A 32 challenging constitutional validity of an order
issued by the State of M.P. permitting collection of Tendu leaves from
sanctuaries and National Parks by villagers living around the boundaries –
contending it to be contravening the provisions of WPA, 1972 and violative of
Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties.
 He further contended that illegal felling of trees and excessive grazing has led
to loss of vegetation cover.
 He also argued that the State of M.P. had rightfully imposed a ban previously
in the year 1992 but the said ban was lifted because of the growing business
pressures.
 The petitioners contended that by lifting the said previous ban the State has
ignored the Flora and Fauna of the area and further that the presence of
human beings is a huge threat to the environment and wildlife of the area.
 The court highlighted the importance of Art. 48A and Art 51 A (g).
 Further, the court held that for the tribal to acquire any rights over the forest
land in the sanctuaries and national parks- proper procedures have to be
followed under the WPA, 1972. Till such procedure is complete, the State
government cannot bar entry of the villagers or tribal into the Forest- until
such entry is likely to result in the destruction or damage to the environment
of the area.

Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v.

Union of India [14]
 There are two sets of writ petitions in this case. The first was with regard to the
challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the WPA, 1972
as amended in 1991 and the second was the challenge to the same thing
except that the petitioners contended that they deal with ivory derived from
the mammoth, an extinct species of the wild animals, not covered by the WPA,
1972
 The provisions of WPA, 1972 as amended in 1991 put a ban on all dealings of
ivory and which was contended by the petitioners as unreasonable, unfair and
arbitrary and violative of their Freedom of Trade as provided under Art. 19 (1)
(g).
 The petitioners further contended that even though theb1991 Amendment
Act extinguishes their title over the imported ivory which was lawfully acquired
by them- they should be at least allowed to sell their stocks of ivory and the
products made therefrom and the Government should buy the same.
  They also contended that the Parliament is not competent to legislate on the
matter of remains of ivory coming from an extinct mammoth and the
WPA,1972 specifically does not deal with this kind of ivory at all.
 On the other hand, the respondents argued that the WPA, 1972 has been
enacted to provide protection and conservation to the wild life and further
that the trade in wild life or any part thereto is antithetic to conservation. They
further contended that these restrictions were reasonable and necessary in
Public Interest and were meant to give efforts to the DPSP’s. further, after the
Amendment Act coming into force from 1991 till July 1992, the petitioners
have enough time to liquidate their stocks but they did not do so.
 The Court observed that the Principal Act of 1972 and the Amendment Acts of
1982, 1986, 1991 case to the conclusion that the population of elephant has
gone down and it has now become endangered species.
 The Parliament judged the situation has rightfully prohibited trade in ivory
articles by fulfilling its constitutional obligation u/A 48A and international
obligation under CITES, 1973.
 The court declared that trade and businesses at the costs of disrupting life
forms cannot be permitted even once.
 Further, the reiterated that rights under Art 19 (1) (g) are not absolute rights
and restrictions can be imposed on them in Public interest.
 The Court realized that 50 years ago, the urgency to preserve the elephant
may not have been the upper most priority of human beings as at that point
of time it was not at the verge of extinction as it is now and therefore, the
Court held that the State was totally justified in imposing restrictions on killing
of elephants.
 The court declared that:
 No citizen has the Fundamental Right to trade in ivory and ivory articles
 The prohibition is in the public interest
 The ban is not violative of Art.14 and does not suffer from any un
reasonableness, unfairness and arbitrariness.

Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India [15]

 The question on issue in this case was whether putting a prohibition on the
trade of Indian ivory is constitutional or not?
 The case runs on the same lines as that of the case of Ivory Traders and
Manufacturers Association versus UOI.
 The Supreme Court held that trade in ivory is totally prohibited under Chapter
II-A and any person who has obtained a certificate from the Chief Wild life
Warden (CWW) may keep possession of such product but cannot sell it
further. Such restriction is a reasonable restriction u/A 19 (1) (g).
Animal and Environmental Legal Defence Fund v.
Union of India [16]
 The petitioners are an association of lawyers and other persons challenging
the validity of the order of CWW granting 305 fishing permits to the tribal
residing in the Pench National Park situated in the heart of Pench National
Park Tiger Reserve. The said area was also a reserve forest.
 U/S 19 of the WPA, 1972 the Collector of the area was required to publish a
proclamation and allow the opportunity to people to claim their forests rights.
 Since 1977, no one came to claim their rights on account of illiteracy and
unawareness. However in the year 1994 three applications regarding claims
had been received. The tribal people have claimed that their fishing rights
should be preserved as this is their only source of livelihood.
 The petitioner prayed that if 305 fishing licenses are granted, it will seriously
affect the ecology of the area and further, it humanly impossible to monitor
305 fishing licenses operating together.
 Further the petitioners are of the view that the population of Crocodiles,
turtles and Migratory Birds might face severe extinction.
 The Court noticed that some efforts have already been made by the State of
Maharashtra of limiting the damage by imposing conditions on these licenses.
 The court therefore, issued additional conditions on these licenses:
 Each permit holder shall hold photo ID along with his photograph
 These permits are neither transferable nor heritable.
 Each permit holder shall have the right to enter the National Park and reach
the reservoir using the highway only.
 A daily record of entry and exit of such permit holders has to be maintained in
a register.
 The fishermen shall be prohibited from lighting fires in the forests for cooking
purpose.

Centre For Environmental Law WWF-I v. Union of

India [17]
 In this case, the court suo motu gave the directions to 17 States to comply
with the provisions under Sec 33-A and Sec 34 of WPA, 1972
 Sec 33-A deals with immunization aloof the livestock in the sanctuaries
 Sec 34 deal with the Registration of the persons in the forest area possessing
arms within 2 months

Fatehsang Gimba Vasava v. State of Gujarat[18]

  The petition has been brought forward by the poor adivasis in the State of
Gujarat as they were deprived of the forests rights conferred upon them by
the State Government.
 The petitioners contended that they have certain rights in the reserved forests
(residence and collection of forest produce) for their hutment and livelihood.
 On the other hand, the forest officers thinking that these articles are covered
under the term ‘minor forest produce’ under Sec 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act,
1927- refused them permission for collection of these articles from the forest
areas without a transit permit.
 The Court in this case observed that the sole purpose of grating certain
special privileges to the residents of forest villages is to give them a source of
livelihood.
 The court further observed that the term ‘forest produce’ under Sec 2 (4) of
the Indian Forest Act, 1927 definitely include bamboo within its ambit but it
does not include products made from bamboo, because once the produce
becomes a product brought about by human labor- it cases tho come within
the ambit of the Section.
 The Court directed the State officials to restore the rights of the aadivasis and
allow them with the bamboo to earn their livelihood.

Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) v. Union

of India [19]
 This is the first environmental PIL in India.
 RLEK, a voluntary organization, wrote a letter to Supreme Court which was
treated as a petition. The letter disclosed the unauthorized and illegal mining
activities carried in the entire stretch of Doon Valley.
 There was reduction in the Green Belt from 70% to 10%.
 The reckless mining operations, careless disposal of mine debris and
unregulated blasting operations disturbed the natural water systems and the
supply of water for drinking and irrigation purposes went down.
 Further the quarrying operations destroyed the homes of many migratory
birds and compelled the residents of that area to shift from that place.
 The Supreme Court acting promptly prohibited the mining operations with a
view to determine if the mines were operated with the safety standards.
 The Supreme Court appointed the Bhargava Committee- to assess the total
effects of the mines in the ecology of the area. On the recommendations of
the Bhargava Committee, the court ordered that these operation in such an
ecologically sensitive area has to be stopped.
 The court further observed that preservation of ecology is a task which not
only the States but also the Citizens must undertake u/A 51 A (g).
  The court directed the State to pay Rs. 10,000 to RLEK for their efforts and
take steps towards restoration of the ecology.

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[20]

 The present writ petition alleges that the west Bokaro Collaries and the Tata
Iron and Steel Co. are polluting River Bokaro by discharging slurry from their
washeries into the river.
 The petitioner further alleges that the State of Bihar and SPCB have failed to
rake appropriate steps under the Water Act, 1974 for PCA of water pollution.
 The respondents denied the petitioners allegations by saying that all effective
steps have been taken by them to prevent the pollution.
 The court agreeing with the respondents dismissed the petition for the
following reasons:
 A person whose fundamental right has been violated can take recourse to Art
32 for prevention of water pollution. But PIL cannot be invoked by a person or
a group of person to satisfy his/her personal grudge. It is the duty of the court
to discourage such actions.
 The court then went into the facts and observed that the petitioner has been
purchasing the slurry from the respondents for the last several years. With the
passage of time, the petitioner wanted more and more slurry but the
respondents refused to sell additional slurry.
 The petition was accordingly dismissed.

T. Damodar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal

Corporation, Hyderabad[21]
 The question involved in this case whether the Life Insurance Co. can legally
use that land owned by them in a recreational zone for residential purposes
which was an act contrary to the developmental plans of the Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad.
 In this case, the writ petition was filed by some of the residents who lived
around the Park claiming that construction of residential colony in an area
reserved for recreational purposes amounts to violation of their Right to Life
u/A 21.
 The court in this case held that any construction of residential house on the
land allotted for recreational park would upset the environmental balance of
the area.
 The court directed the Government to remove any such construction on
recreational zones.