Writ Remedy – Trace Your Case

M.C. MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH

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

The Public Trust Doctrine first used in Indian jurisprudence in this case states that certain natural resources which have a great significance to the public because of which these resources being privately owned is wholly unjustified. These resources are held in trust by the State and not to be commercially exploited, and the State has a duty to protect the sanctity of nature. Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution extend to natural resources for the purpose of protecting the ecosystem.

The Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle, which originated in the OSPAR Convention, sets its crux in the prevention and protection of the environment and health of the people. The burden of proof, which lies on the developer must ensure that the absolute liability for harm extends to compensate the victims as well as restore environmental degradation.

‘Span Motels Pvt Ltd’, a private company which was controlled by the owners of Span Resorts curated and built a new club, “Span Club” on the bank of River Beas.
The “Indian Express” published an article headlined “Kamal Nath defies the powerful Beas to keep his dreams floating” which revealed issues with the Clubs’ development.
After the piece was published, it was discovered that the then Minister of Environment and Forests, Mr. Kamal Nath had direct connection with the establishment of the Club.
Vide letter dated November 24, 1993, the Ministry of Environment and Forests released prior consent to the company leasing 27.12 ‘bighas’ of additional forest land, which gave the owners of Span Resorts permission to build the Club which led to overrunning of the river.
Due to pressure from the bulldozers and other equipment used to construct heavy embankments, it led to washing away of the adjoining lawns.
A flood caused by the Beas River in 1995 then destroyed property worth Rs. 105 crores.

The Apex Court by virtue of one primary principle, being “Public Trust Doctrine” held that the doctrine should be included in the law of the land.
The Court also rejected the prior approval granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and the lease instrument in favor of access to 27.12. bighas of land.
The Court highlighted the duty of the Himachal Pradesh Government to take cognizance and return the land to its natural state.
The Court also ordered Span Resorts to pay for all environment and ecological restitution settlements under the Polluter Pays principle.
The Court ordered the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to investigate the pollution control strategies, for which the Hotel was bound to create 4-meter boundary wall, beyond which access to the river basin was not permitted. The Hotel was ordered not to use even a portion of the river’s basin for any purposes.
The Hotel was prohibited from dumping sewage into the river, and the Board was ordered by the Court to inspect all hotels and institutions in the said Kullu – Manali area, where strict action was compelled to be taken against those who are releasing untreated sewage into the river.
Finally, the Court directed the Hotel to give an explanation as to why an extra-pollution fee was not mandated, the documents of which were to be submitted and enlisted by December 18 1996.

Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549

Whether the Urban Development Authority could be given primacy over the need protect environment?
Whether the need of principle of sustainable development can be ignored over and above the Urban Development?
Whether there is a conflict of public interest?
Whether the action of Arunachal Pradesh Government intaking the impugned decisions is permissible under the light of Article 21 of Indian Constitution?

The Principle of Sustainable Development, enunciated in the Stockholm Convention is the notion that development and the environment should not be a ‘chalk-and-cheese’ matter, but must go hand in hand with each other, portraying a balance between urban development and environmental conservation and protection.
The three main remnants of the Public Trust Doctrine are that the property must be available for use by the general public, it must not be sold even for a fair equivalent of money and it should be maintained for particular uses. The Doctrine emphasises on the importance of the management of resources and the environment.
Keeping in mind the importance of preserving and protecting natural resources for future generations as well, the principle of Inter-generational equity sets a base for man to bear the responsibility of protecting and improving the environment and safeguarding it through appropriate management.
Articles 48-A and 51A of the Constitution holds the State and citizens respectively accountable for protecting and safeguarding the natural resources, which are pivotal to the governance in the country.

The appellants in this case complained about the systematic destruction of two percolation, irrigation and drinking water tanks in their town, namely the Avilala Tank and the Peruru Tank, which were alienated to two different authorities. The instant case involved preservation and restoration of these tanks, which were historical in nature as well.
The grievances raised by the Appellants was in subject matter of alienation of these tanks by the government in favour of some Governmental agencies for the construction of houses.
The aggrieved Appellants filed two writ petitions before the High Court, which were subsequentially dismissed, and it was submitted that the High Court had given precedence to economic growth by ignoring the importance and urgency of protecting the environment.

The Apex Court held that since migration from rural to urban areas is common for obvious reasons, it is unable to prevent the said Government from going ahead with urban development in the town in question since that is for the welfare of the people.
However, the importance and urgency of the matter of the tanks, which is a public and community property was noted, and the Court held that the government cannot be permitted to commit any act(s) against the rights of the community, and no tube-wells or bore-wells were allowed in the said area.
The Court gave out guidelines to be followed by the government and other authorities in order to restore and improve the environmental conditions, with the motive being a balance between the right to shelter and the critical need to protect the environment.