Kinkri Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh 44

iii. Kinkri Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh 44

In this case, the Hon’ble High Court of the State of Himachal Pradesh was of the opinion that no real economic growth and development is possible by industrial growth, achieved by reckless mining, which ultimately results in the loss of life, property and amenities like water supply and also destroys the ecological balance.

iv. Better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal

The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that it is important for a developing country to have development, but it should be done in harmony with nature.

v. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium case)

In this case, a public interest litigation suit was filed due to the danger posed by the industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ). These industries were the major contributors to the air pollution which in turn deteriorated the beauty of the Taj Mahal. It was found that these industries in the Mathura region released harmful gases into the atmosphere, which in turn react with the moisture to form acid, mainly sulphuric acid.

43 Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184429/. 44 Available at: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/fundamental-principles-of-

environmental-protection-755-1.html.

When it rains, the acid comes down along with rain to be called as ‘acid rain’. This reacts with the white marble of the Taj and reducing the brightness.

The Court in this case took cognizance of four reports submitted by NEERI, two reports submitted by the Varadharajan Committee, and several reports submitted by the State Pollution Control Board. The four NEERI and the two Varadharajan Committee reports strongly recommended that these industries need to be relocated.

It was also found that these industries use coal or coke instead of natural gas and out of 510 industries, only 292 industries were the main contributors to the air pollution.

The Court held that these 292 industries need to shift to natural gas and those which cannot afford natural gas should stop functioning immediately.

The court also gave the following guidelines:

a. The employees of these industries can still continue employment at the new location,

b. Those employees willing to relocate will be given shifting bonus,

c. Any compensation which needs to be paid to the employees shall be paid, and

d. If any employee is not willing to shift, his employment will be terminated but he shall receive any wages due or any amount of insurance or compensation.

vi. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India

In this case, the Court held that as part of restoring a damaged society which is a part of the doctrine of sustainable development, the polluter pays principle is also

a part of sustainable development.

vii. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu

The Court observed that while ensuring sustainable development, it should be noted that damage should not happen to the environment or to the ecological balance. Matters like this should be given for scientific research and expert opinion shall be considered.

viii. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

The court in this case held that in cases where the impact of the pollution is uncertain and non-negligible, the precautionary principle shall be used. In this case, majority of the judges agreed to the application of this principle.

ix. N.D. Jayal v. Union of India

The court in this case held that right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also include the right to clean and healthy environment. The court also looked into the principle of sustainable development to achieve the objective of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

In this case, the Court found that the conditional clearance given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests for the construction of the Tehri Dam was not properly applied.

The court also held that due to the construction of the dam, all the people in those areas had to relocate, and those people shall have the right to life and should be given the chance to earn livelihood, and that the rehabilitation should take place within 6 months before the construction.

x. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited. Employees Association v. Law Society of India

The Court held that if the pollution is being caused by a public sector undertaking which manufacture chemicals and fertilizers, then it would not be appropriate to ask such an undertaking to relocate as they function for the larger benefit of the community. Instead, such industries should take measures to prevent the risk of an environmental damage in future.

xi. Shobha Rama Subramanayyam v. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Authority

The court in this case held that nuisance by way of noise pollution cannot be accepted as an excuse for digging foundation for a multi-storied building. It is the duty of the builder to see that the neighbors are not disturbed.

xii. S. Jagannath v. Union of India

The court in this case held that degradation of mangrove ecosystem, depletion of plantation discharge of highly polluting effluents and pollution of potable as well as ground water along the sea beaches and sea coasts due to shrimp (prawn) farming using modern techniques cannot be permitted.

xiii. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors (Calcutta Tanneries case)

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the decision in the Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India case. The court held that those industries which are relocating should pay 25% of the cost of the land which has been polluted under the polluter pays principle and those which cannot pay should stop functioning. Court also said that these industries should install treatment plants for the emissions.

xiv. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (Span Motel case)

This particular case is very unique in its subject matter. The case deals with the Span Motels in the Kulu Manali valley in which a prominent politician’s family had a direct interest. The motel used to face hardship as it was located in the valley of the river and when it floods, damage was caused to the motel.

Hence, it was decided that the course of the river Beas be diverted to prevent any damage in future to the motel. But later during the process, the diversion of the river led to the flooding of the area downstream resulting in habitat loss and destruction of property.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the license given to the motel for the diversion process and asked them to pay a fine under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 but later it was found that the motel did not result in any sort of pollution and there was no substantial evidence, but the motel was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 10lakhs as exemplary damages which they agreed up on.

xv. M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu

In this case, the municipality allowed the construction of an underground shopping complex underneath a park. The High Court found that the park was of historical importance and very important from the environment point of view. The municipality contended that they gave permission to ease the congestion on public roads. High Court did not grant permission. On appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the court held that if the construction happens, then it would violate the sole purpose of the public trust doctrine.

The court held that the doctrine of public trust rest upon three principles mainly:

a. Natural interests like air, sea etc is for all the citizens of a nation and shall not be made the subject of private ownership, a. Natural interests like air, sea etc is for all the citizens of a nation and shall not be made the subject of private ownership,

c. That the aim of the government shall be to promote the general public

interest rather than redistributing the public goods for private benefit.