V.
Lakshmipathy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 Kant 57.
Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Karnatake Municipal Corporations
Act, 1976; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976.
The
petitioners in this writ petition were aggrieved by the location and operation
of industries and industrial enterprises in a residential area in violation
of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
In respect of these areas, agreements were executed between the City Improvement
Board and the owners to develop them in accordance with law but this was
not done. The health and Municipal Administration department of the State
of Karnataka issued directions so as to hand over these to the Corporation
in 1972 but this was also not done. Taxes were being imposed and collected
by the Corporation. Essentially, the land had become no-man's land due
inaction and abdication of power and responsibility by the CITB [City
Improvement Trust Board]. Another grievance of the petitioners was that
of acute pollution affecting the environment on account of pollutants
such as smoke, vapour and noxious emanations posing a danger to the health
and hygiene of the residents. There was also a complaint of noise pollution.
The
petitioners sought a declaration that the change in land use from residential
to industrial was violative of the Town Planning Act and therefore all
consequential actions relating to such land use are illegal and all licenses
issued in pursuance of the same are void.
The
Court allowed the writ petition. It also issued a mandamus to the Corporation
and its Health Officer to abate the pollution and also a direction to
the Bangalore Development authority to stop operation of the industrial
units and carry out the lay-out work in accordance with the law. The Court
also directed that action should be taken within 60 days and awarded costs
to the petitioner.
In
the judgement, an elaborate discussion has been made with regard to the
protection of environment. The court has considered the problem in the
case as larger problem that affects the future generation. The court has
recognised various constitutional provisions to protect environment.
The Court held that the movement for restoration and maintenance of a
livable environment requires curbing the power of narrowly oriented administrative
agencies in the appropriation of dwindling average of land and water not
already irrevocably appropriated.
The court held that the explosion of grave concern for environment at
any private phenomenon of recent times. The sporadic and unorganised struggle
of environment stragglers. The wild life and bird lovers, wilderness wanderers
have identified the conservation movement of the environment and are focusing
their attention on denuded forests, balding hills, disappearing prairie,
actinide species of rate fish, thinning wild life and vanishing birds.
The movement has become the crusade of any one almost everywhere for a
"livable environment". There is an increasing awareness that is cleansing
up our environment, if not in wilderness, lies the preservation of the
World.
Further the court held that it is looking into a decade in which most
of the people who are living in urban areas are chocked by traffic, poisoned
by water, suffocated by smog, deafened by noise and terrorized crime.
Further the Court held that restoring nature to the natural state is a
cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of
all the people. Particularly the young Indians, because they will reap
the grim consequences of our failure to act on the programmes which are
needed now if we are to prevent disaster later. An onerous obligation
which we owe to posterity is clean air, water, greenery and open spaces,
and held that there ought to be elevated to the status of birth right
to every citizen.
Further the Court had recognised the Constitutional provisions to protect
environment such as Art. 48A which lays down that the state shall endeavour
to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wild life of the country. And Art. 51A(g) which exhorts the citizens to
protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. Part
IVA which impose fundamental duties.
Finally the Court held that the mandate of our constitution is to build
a welfare society and legislations made in that behalf to give effect
to directive principles of state policy have to be respected. If the constitutional
obligations are not discharged by due enforcement by the administrative
agencies, the court cannot turn a Nelson's eye. The fundamental duties
are inclined to promote people and participation in restructuring and
building a welfare society and the Directive principles under Part IV
are intended to build environment and its preservation is a subject of
both, thus emphasising the importance given to it by the constitution.
Protection of environment is a constitutional priority. Neglect of it
is an invitation to disaster.
By recognising till the above mentioned points the court held that environment
protection is not a pre occupation of the educated and the affluent. It
has the socio political dimensions. The disposal and control of toxic
water and governmental regulation of polluting industries is public interest
oriented. The effective implementation of environmental legislation is
a social learning process which could fundamentally change the character
of public administration in the country. From a global perspective, the
struggle to preserve a livable environment is the part of a border struggle
to create a more just global society both within and between nations.
The impact of the human dimensions on the economically and educationally
dis advantaged who inhabit the developing areas cannot be underscored.
The court held that the right to life inherent in Art. 21 of the Constitution
of India does not fall short of the requirements of qualitative life which
is possible only in an environment of quality. Where on account of human
agencies, the quality of air and quality of environment are threatened
or affected. The court would not hesitate to use its innovative power
within its epistolary jurisdiction to enforce and safeguard the right
to life to promote public interest. Specific guarantees in Art. 21 unfold
penumbras shaped by emanations from those constitutional assurances which
help give them life and substance. In the circumstantial context and factual
back drop, judicial intervention is warranted especially since the Supreme
Court of India has already laid the foundation of juristic activism in
unmistakable language of certainty and deep concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment