Trace Your Case

Author: TYC

Categories
Introduction and Principles of Environmental Protection

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products AIR 1996 SC 149

ISSUE:

Whether the Government of Himachal Pradesh had the authority to refuse or revoke approvals granted by IPARA for establishing katha manufacturing units?

Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel barred the government from withdrawing approvals after entrepreneurs had acted upon them?

RULE:

The power to approve includes the power to refuse or revoke approval. Approval by IPARA does not create a vested right, as final discretion lies with the government.

Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and must be applied flexibly. It does not bind the government if enforcement would be inequitable or against public interest.

The government must consider the availability of raw materials and the impact on forest resources before granting industrial approvals.

Courts should not interfere with executive policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or in violation of statutory provisions

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Introduction and Principles of Environmental Protection

M.C.Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 382

ISSUE:

Whether the State has a constitutional obligation to actively promote environmental awareness among citizens?

Whether mandating cinema halls and public broadcasters to disseminate environmental messages is a justified exercise of regulatory power?

Whether environmental education should be made a compulsory subject at all levels of education to ensure compliance with environmental laws?

RULE:

Law alone cannot effectively work unless there is an element of acceptance by the people. No law operates smoothly unless its purpose is understood and voluntarily followed. For environmental laws to be effective, citizens must be made aware of their duty to protect the environment.
2
Regulation in public interest is a valid exercise of State authority. Businesses, including cinema halls and broadcasters, function under State regulation and can be required to promote social welfare. Spreading environmental awareness through such mediums is necessary to educate the public and instill responsibility.

Education is the most effective means of securing compliance with environmental laws. Human conduct aligns with legal requirements when people understand their necessity. Teaching environmental awareness at all levels ensures that individuals internalize these principles, making legal enforcement more effective and sustainable.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Introduction and Principles of Environmental Protection

M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union Of India AIR online 2021 SC 209

ISSUE:

Whether overhead power lines in the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican pose a critical threat to their survival and require immediate mitigation?

Whether undergrounding power lines in priority GIB habitats is necessary, and if not feasible, whether alternative measures must be implemented?

RULE:

The ecocentric approach recognizes that wildlife has intrinsic value, and conservation efforts must prioritize species protection over developmental concerns.

The public trust doctrine imposes a duty on the state to act as a guardian of natural resources, ensuring that endangered species are preserved for future generations.

Sustainable development requires that infrastructure projects must not cause irreversible harm to critically endangered species, and feasible mitigation measures must be adopted.

Article 21 of the Constitution includes the protection of biodiversity, obligating the state to take proactive conservation measures against species extinction.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Introduction and Principles of Environmental Protection

S. Jagannath v. Union Of India AIR 1997 SC 811.

ISSUE:

Whether aquaculture farms, particularly intensive and semi-intensive shrimp farming, violate environmental laws and fundamental rights by operating in ecologically fragile coastal areas?

Whether shrimp aquaculture industries, which are not directly dependent on the waterfront or foreshore facilities, are prohibited under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification of 1991?

Whether commercial shrimp farming, which causes environmental degradation, is liable under the ‘polluter pays’ principle and should be made responsible for ecological restoration?

Whether the failure of regulatory authorities to prevent environmental damage from shrimp farming amounts to a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution?

RULE:

Environmental protection must not wait for scientific certainty; where there is a serious risk of environmental harm, preventive action must be taken. The burden lies on the industrial entity to prove its activities are environmentally benign.

An industry that profits from the environment must internalize the cost of its pollution. Liability extends not only to compensating victims but to reversing environmental damage.

Shrimp farming is neither an industry directly related to the waterfront nor one that requires foreshore facilities. Mere dependence on seawater does not justify its presence in ecologically fragile areas.

A healthy environment is an integral part of the right to life. Any activity that substantially impairs water sources, biodiversity, or the livelihood of local communities violates constitutional guarantees.

Shrimp farms, by obstructing natural drainage, altering salinity levels, and destroying mangroves, destabilize the coastal ecosystem. The law does not permit economic benefits to outweigh ecological and social harm.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Introduction and Principles of Environmental Protection

Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338

ISSUE:

Whether the ex post facto environmental and forest clearances granted on 19.4.2010 and 22.4.2010 were vitiated due to suppression of material facts regarding the nature of the land?

Whether the process followed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in granting clearances satisfied the requirements of judicial review?

RULE:

Ex post facto clearances are valid if granted after due diligence and not vitiated by suppression of material facts. A project proponent cannot be faulted for relying on official classifications of land unless there is deliberate misrepresentation.

Judicial review of environmental clearances is limited to assessing whether the decision-making process was fair, informed, and free from bias. Courts do not reassess the merits of policy decisions if these conditions are met.

Sustainable development requires balancing environmental protection with economic considerations, including the rights of local and indigenous communities. Environmental regulation should not impose an absolute bar on development but must ensure mitigation of adverse effects.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Introduction and Principles of Environmental Protection

M.C.Mehta v. Union of India 1992 (Supp.2) SCC 633

ISSUE:

Whether industries discharging untreated effluents into the Ganga can continue to operate without adequate pollution control measures?

Whether the State Pollution Control Board has the power to order closure of industries failing to comply with environmental regulations?

Whether industries that have not installed primary effluent treatment plants can be permitted to function?

Whether failure to deposit the required contribution towards pollution control measures warrants closure of industrial units?

RULE:

Industries cannot discharge untreated effluents into water bodies; installing and operating effluent treatment plants is a mandatory obligation.

The Pollution Control Board has the authority to order closure of industries that fail to comply with environmental regulations.

The right to carry on business is not absolute and is subject to compliance with pollution control laws to prevent environmental degradation.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Dispute settlement IDA

Avon Services v. Industrial Tribunal (1979) 1 LLJ 1(SC)

ISSUE:

Whether the Government, after initially refusing to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, can later reconsider and make such a reference?

Whether the termination of the workmen’s services constituted retrenchment under Section 25F or closure under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Whether the painting section of the factory constituted an independent undertaking, justifying termination under Section 25FFF?

Whether the retrenchment of the workmen was legally valid in the absence of compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

RULE:

The Government’s power to refer an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) remains intact despite an earlier refusal. The phrase "at any time" negates the argument that a prior rejection exhausts this power. The formation of opinion is an administrative function, not subject to judicial scrutiny, and reconsideration does not require fresh material but may arise from concerns of industrial peace and fairness. A refusal does not extinguish the dispute but may, in fact, escalate tensions, warranting a later reference.

An "undertaking" under Section 25FFF must be a distinct and separate industrial or business activity, not a minor segment of a larger manufacturing process. A cessation of a specific function does not constitute closure but retrenchment. Employers cannot bypass Section 25F’s mandatory notice and compensation by labeling internal adjustments as closures. Allowing such a classification would enable circumvention of statutory protections, rendering the retrenchment unlawful.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Dispute settlement IDA

Karnal Leather Karamchari Sanghatan (Regd.) v. Liberty Footwear Company (Regd.) AIR 1990 SC 247

ISSUE:

Whether non-publication of the arbitration agreement in the Official Gazette under Section 10A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, renders the arbitral award invalid?

Whether the State Government, after parties opted for arbitration under Section 10A, could validly refer the same dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)?

RULE:

Publication of the arbitration agreement under Section 10A(3) is mandatory. Collective bargaining requires that workers be aware of the dispute, the arbitrator, and the issues involved before arbitration begins. The arbitration process is not just between the union and the management but affects all workers. Without publication, workers lose the opportunity to present their views, making the process unfair. An award made without prior publication is invalid as it violates this essential safeguard.

Section 10 and Section 10A are alternative remedies, and once arbitration under Section 10A is chosen, a reference under Section 10(1) is not permitted. Arbitration under Section 10A creates binding obligations, and allowing a parallel reference would disrupt industrial peace. Voluntary arbitration is designed to be a quicker and more efficient means of resolving disputes. Permitting a Section 10(1) reference after arbitration would negate the purpose of arbitration and lead to prolonged litigation, defeating the objective of industrial adjudication.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Dispute settlement IDA

Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat (2000) 3 SCC 93

ISSUE:

Whether the State Government was justified in refusing to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that the respondent was not a "workman"?

Whether the High Court erred in directing the State Government to make a reference despite the administrative nature of its decision under the Act?

RULE:

The determination under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is an administrative act requiring the Government’s subjective satisfaction based on material before it. Courts cannot scrutinize this decision as if it were a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. However, if irrelevant or foreign considerations are taken into account, judicial review may be warranted.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Dispute settlement IDA

State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan AIR 1960 SC 1223

ISSUE:

Whether the Government’s refusal to refer the industrial dispute under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, solely on the ground that workmen resorted to a go-slow strategy, was legally valid?

Whether the discretion of the Government under Section 12(5) is absolute, or must it refer a dispute when a prima facie case for reference exists?

RULE:

The discretion conferred on the Government under Section 12(5) is not absolute and must be exercised on a consideration of relevant facts and circumstances. The Government’s satisfaction that there is no case for reference must be based on legally germane reasons, not punitive or extraneous considerations. The refusal to refer must stem from defects inherent in the dispute, such as it being stale, frivolous, or legally untenable—not from a desire to discipline workmen.

Industrial adjudication serves to resolve disputes, not to punish misconduct. The Government cannot refuse to refer a dispute solely on the ground that the workmen resorted to go-slow tactics. Misconduct may justify disciplinary action by the employer, but it is not a valid reason to deny adjudication of an otherwise legitimate industrial dispute, particularly when the claim (e.g., bonus) is based on financial and economic factors independent of past worker behavior.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now