Hamid
Khan v. State, AIR 1997 MP 191.
The
State of M.P. had provided tube-wells for the supply of drinking water
to certain villages. Before digging the tube-wells, certain tests had
to be performed to determine the potability of the water. There was no
test for fluoride content among the tests prescribed. Due to the high
fluoride content of the water, a number of people had contracted skeletal
and dental fluorosis. This matter was brought to the notice of the Court
through this PIL.
The
Court recognised that the State had failed in its duty under Art. 47 of
the Constitution and under A. 21, to improve the health of public providing
safe drinking water. The Court directed that all the persons who are suffering
from skeletal and dental fluorosis as mentioned in the list prepared by
the Collector of that district be given free medical treatment, and if
surgery be required, the person be given Rs. 3000 over and above the cost
of treatment, and the others, Rs. 200.
The
relief in the judgement is mainly based on the duties imposed on the state
under various articles of our constitution. The Court held that, under
Art. 47 of the Constitution of India, it is the responsibility of the
State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its
people and he improvement of public health. It is incumbent on State to
improve the health of public providing unpolluted drinking water. The
Court also held that under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India it is
the right of citizens of India to have protection of life, to have pollution
free air and pure water. The court also observed the Case, Subhash
Kumar v. State of bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420, where it was held that
a right to life includes right to live properly and have the benefit of
all natural resources ie,e unpolluted air and water.
Further a court held that, right to live is a fundamental right under
Art. 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of
pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers
or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right
to have resource to Art. 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution
of water or Air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
Motor
Vehicles Rules
The
petition was filed in public interest in respect of pollution of the air
of the city of Gwalior and the area around on account of plying of a large
number of motor vehicles using unauthorised kerosene oil and diesel, causing
health hazard to the residents.
The
petitioners contended that the policy of pollution control adopted by
the government of Maharashtra was inadequate. The respondents revealed
that they had already begun to take measures for the reduction of pollution
by vehicles, by checking vehicles and fuel for unauthorised use of fuel.
The Court, however, found that the checking staff were inadequately equipped
and that the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Motor
Vehicles Rules (Control) were not being followed.
The
Court issued directions that 4 smoke meters and gas analysers be provided
for Gwalior, other latest and less time consuming instruments be provided
to check emissions of carbon monoxide. The Court directed the State Government
to direct the necessary authorities to ensure compliance with the laws,
and to identify the roads that could be converted into one-way lanes.
The Additional Advocate General for Gwalior would obtain reports in respect
of the compliance with the Motor Vehicles Rules and submit the same to
the Court within three months.
In
the judgement, the Court have stressed for strict compliance to the provisions
of Air Act and to Central Motor Vehicles Rule. It has been held by the
court that, though a scheme was prepared for checking the pollution by
the State government and necessary directions were given to different
departments, a strict compliance have not been ensured and the pollution
is increasing every day.
The necessary compliance of Sec. 20 of Air Pollution Act and Rule 116
of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules are not being made. No efforts are
being made for strict compliance of sec. 20 of the Air Pollution Act and
the machinery concerned is not strictly observing the provisions of Rule
116 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The Court held that, no doubt
that the human life is more important than the vehicle and traffic. The
law and the rules are framed in this respect to ensure environmental cleanliness
and the authorities are under statutory obligation to maintain the atmosphere
pollution free and to take necessary measures in this respect as provided
under the statutes.
Concern
for Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, 1996 (1) CHN 123.
West
Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984; West Bengal Town and Country (Planning
and Development) Act, 1979; Calcutta Metropolitan Development Act, 1972;
Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980; Calcutta Municipal Corporation
Building Rules, 1990.
The
authorities of the Indian Museum decided to erect a multi-storeyed complex
by encroaching and filling up the major portion of a 200 year old water
tank in the campus of the museum. The petitioners filed the petition against
this decision of the authorities to go ahead with the said cosntruction.
The
petitioners urged that under the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984,
the tank could not have been filled up for the purpose of construction
of any building thereon. They also pleaded that similar restrictions were
imposed under the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development)
Act, 1979, unless permission to build was given by the appropriate authority.
No permission had been obtained from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.
The petitioners also submitted that the tank had been notified as a protected
water body and that great ecological imbalance would be caused by the
proposed filling up. The respondents agreed on the historical, ecological,
educational and environmental importance of the tank. The CMD had recommended
the museum proposal be accepted on the condition that the present 2 premises
of the museum be amalgamated. Conflicting reports by different people
were submitted to the Court regarding the impact on bio-diversity.
The
Court held that when the ultimate area of a water body was not going to
be affected by raising a construction, there was no chance of ecological
imbalance. It also observed that unless a water body was being used for
pisiculture, the Inland Fisheries Act would not apply to it. The Court
also held that under the existing law, no permission was required to be
taken for the purpose of development on any land. The Court also observed
that it would be inappropriate for the Court to interfere where the appropriate
authorities have allowed the construction, unless a serious ecological
and environmental problem can be shown to have been caused by it.
Regarding the provisions of the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act 1984,
and the provisions of Sec. 17A there of, the Court held that, the Act
was enacted to provide for the conservation, development, propagation,
protection, exploitation and disposal of Inland fish and fisheries in
West Bengal.
With regard to Sec. 17A the Court held that this provision prohibit the
filling up of any water area with a view to covering it into solid land
for the purpose of construction of a building there on or for any other
purpose. Makes it clear that the water bodies which were being used as
fisheries clause (c) of sub -sec. 91) of Sec. 17A indicates the nature
of water area and provides that the same should not be put to any use
which may result in abolition of the fishery . The provisions of clauses
(b) and (c) of Sub. Sec. 91) of Sec. 17A of the Act refers to holdings
of the nature indicated in clause (a) namely, water areas used for purposes
of pisci culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment