AIR POLLUTION RELATED JUDGEMENTS

Chhetriya Pardhushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2060. 

Chhetriya Pardhushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2060.

Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.I. and K.N.Saikia, I.

Facts:

In this case a letter written by the Chhetriya Pardhushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti (hereinafter Samiti) a social organisation alleging environmental pollution in Sarnath was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was alleged that the smoke and dust emitted and the effluents discharged by Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and refinery plant located in that area were causing environmental pollution and ecological imbalance. The population of this area was exposed to health hazards and their lives were at risk on account of such pollution.

On the basis of facts and circumstances the Court found that there was a long history of enmity and animosity between the two parties and the allegations have been made due to this. Since prima facie the respondents had complied with the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and there was no violation of any fundamental right, this case was dismissed.

As obiter dicta the Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution provides every citizen with the fundamental right to enjoyment of quality of life and living. In case of any violation or derogation of law endangering or impairing this right recourse to Article 32 could be taken. Article 32 is a safeguard for the preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens and must be invoked and utilised with caution and circumspection. It was held that it is the duty of the court to ensure that Article 32 is not misused and such misuse should be strongly discouraged.

The Court held that Art. 32 is a great salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens. Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Art. 25 of the Constitution of India. Anything which endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws, that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to be taken recourse of Art. 32 of the environment. Further the Court held that this can be done by any person interested genuinely in the protection of the society on behalf of the society or community. This weapon as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of circumspection and caution. Where it appears that this is only a clock to feed fact ancient grade: and enmity this should not only be refused but strongly discouraged. And held that it is the duty of the Court to enforce fundamental rights, and also it is the duty to ensure that this weapon under Art. 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottle neck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court. And that would result in an act or conduct which will defeat the purpose of preservation of fundamental rights.

Ajeet Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cri.L.I. 1596.
A.K. Mathur, J.

A complaint was filed by the petitioner against the non-petitioners to the effect that stocking of various kinds of fodder, their loading and unloading by the non-petitioners caused pollution in the whole locality where they reside and inhalation of such particles causes a health hazard. The City Magistrate, Jodhpur held that the non-petitioner's business in fodder was causing a health hazard to the neighbours and ordered removal of their business. On revision by the non-petitioners, the Additional Sessions Judge reversed this decision. This revision petition was filed against this decision.

The Court hearing the revision, held that stocking of fodder constituted pollution of the atmosphere. The Court also held that the liberty and freedom of any individual cannot be compromised by another person by causing nuisance, be it trivial or major, except in accordance with law. The court also held that work for personal gain, causing discomfort to others should not be permitted. Thus public health cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the personal business of any individual. Hence, the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge was quashed and the revision petition allowed. The court ordered removal of stocking of fodder and stoppage of the business of fodder in that locality and six months time was granted to remove the fooder and for searching out a new place for their business.