M.
C. Mehta (Badkhal and Sujratkund Lakes Matter) vs. Union of India (W.P.
(C) No.4677/ 1985 decided on Oct.11, 1996)
Writ
petition was filed by well know lawyer and Magsaysay award winner, M.
C Mehta, seeking a direction to be issued to the Haryana Pollution Control
Board, to control the pollution caused by the stone pushers, pulverizes
and mine operators in the Faridabad-Balabgargh area. The Court had earlier
ordered the Pollution Control Board to inspect the impact of mining operations
on the ecology of these areas. Report submitted by the Board stated that
the mining operations were carried out without any environmental planning
and were causing much ecological degradation. Certain recommendations
were made to minimize ecological harm, one of which was to stop all mining
in the radius of 5 kms from the lake. In accordance the State passed an
order stopping all such mining. The miners approached the Court and challenged
the above order as unjust as pollution does not extend beyond 1 km. Requested
the Court to take a second opinion from a body such as the National Environmental
Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). The Court requested the NEERI
to submit its report to the Court on the above point. It submitted its
report with recommendations as to mining activities and the green belt
development project.
The
main issue in the case was to preserve environment and
control pollution during mining operations within the radius of five kilometers
from the tourist resorts of Badkal Lake and Surajkund be stopped?
On
the basis of the two reports before it the Court concluded that the mining
activities were harming the environment and must be stopped. The Court
considered the geographical features of the area to determine the extent
to which the ban must apply. It ordered that no mining activities would
be carried out in a two km radius around the tourist spots of Badkal lake
and Surajkund and no construction work would be undertaken in a five km
radius. Also ordered the Forest Department and Mining department to enforce
all the recommendations made by NEERI.
The
court applied the "precautionary principle" in this case. It also observed
the judgement of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 463 where
the court held that:
"The
financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant
while requiring them to establish primary treatment plants. Just like
an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed
to exist, the tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot
be permitted to continue to be in existence for the adverse effects on
the public. Life, public health and ecology have priority over
an employment and loss of revenue problem".
Further, the court held that, "precautionary principle" has been accepted
as a part of the law of the land.
The court also held that Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A (g) of the Constitution
of India give a clear mandate to the state to protect and improve the
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures. The "precautionary principle" makes it
mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the
causes of environment degradation.
No comments:
Post a Comment