Case Laws on Environmental Protections

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RATLAM VS. SHRI VARDHICHAND

- WATER POLLUTION CASE, RATLAM
• Some of the residents of Ratlam had filed a complaint before the Sub - Divisional Magistrate alleging
that the municipality is not constructing proper drains and a lot of stink has been caused by the
nearby slum dwellers. The Sub - Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district instructed the municipality to
prepare a proper development plan within 6 months. Then, the Municipality came in appeal before the
apex court of India and alleged that it doesn’t have proper financial support to comply with the sub
divisional magistrate.
• Further, the respondents argued that water pollution is being caused by a runoff from a nearby
alcohol plant resulting in form of malaria.
Judgment: The Supreme Court instructed the Municipal Corporation of Ratlam to follow
the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam City and take necessary steps to protect
the area from pollution due to alcohol plant flowing. The court also said it can raise its
demand of financial support from the State Government.
M.C. MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA - GANGA
POLLUTION CASE
• MC Mehta, a noted Supreme Court Lawyer had filed a writ petition to the Supreme
Court to prevent leather tanneries from disposing of the domestic and industrial waste
in the river Ganga. He requested the court to stop the disposal of effluents into the river
till the time a certain treatment plan has been incorporated to curb water pollution.
JUDGMENT:

• The court highlighted the importance of certain provisions which protect our
environment. Article 48 - A also made sure that the State will take right steps to protect
and safeguard wildlife of the country. The court stated the importance of Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act) which helps maintain
water quality. In the historic judgment of 1987, the court said that “Just like an industry
which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers should not be allowed to exist, a
tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant should not be allowed to
continue its existence.
M. C. MEHTA VS. KAMAL NATH & ORS - THE DIVERSION
OF RIVER BEAS CASE

• Let’s move to another landmark environment protection act judgment. The Indian
Express had published an article reporting that a private company, Span Motels Private
Ltd has initiated a project called Span Club. This article came under the notice of
Supreme Court. The company owner had the direct link with the family of Kamal Nath, a
former Minister of Environment and Forests. When Kamal Nath was minister in 1994, the
Span Motels had encroached 27.12 big land which was inclusive of forest land. The motel
had used bulldozers to turn the course of the River Beas and divert the river’s flow. The
river was diverted to save the motel from future floods. The raised issue was whether
the construction activity carried by the Motel Company justified.
• Judgment: But the Supreme Court held that the forest lands which are given on lease
to the Motel by the State Government are situated at the bank of river Beas. The area is
ecologically fragile and therefore should not be converted into private ownership.
Doctrine of Public Trust was applied in this case and held that the properties like river,
seashore, forests and the air cannot be used for general public. The Motel was asked to
pay compensation and construct a boundary wall with a distance of not more than 4
meters. The Court also restricted the Motel from discharging untreated effluent into the
river and asked HP Pollution Board to keep a check on it.
SAMIR MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA – MARINE
POLLUTION CASE DUE TO SHIP SINKING
• An environmentalist – Samit Mehta had filed application regarding the damage caused by
the sinking of ship which was carrying fuel oil, coal and diesel. Due to sinking, a thick oil
layer was formed on the surface of sea causing damage to the marine ecosystem. The
tribunal has further held that it is the big negligence on the part of respondent and
upholds the principle of ‘polluter pay’ and ‘precautionary principle.’
• Judgment: National Green Tribunal held that ship sinking accident has led to the marine
pollution. Therefore, environmental compensation of Rs. 100 crores was imposed. It is
one of the biggest compensation ever made by the private entity to Government.
SUBHASH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR - BOKARO
RIVER POLLUTION CASE
• The petition was filed by the public litigation in the prevention of water pollution of river
Bokaro from the discharge of slurry from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner
alleged that the Parliament enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1978 for the prevention of water pollution. The State Pollution Control Board failed to
take actions against the company and permitted its operation. The State of Bihar did not
take any actions against this, instead granted a lease on the payment of royalty. The issue
was whether the river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of the slurry from the
company.
• Judgment: The apex court held that the right to get pollution free water and air is the
fundamental right under Article 21. But gradually, the fact came into the picture that
before granting the discharge of effluents to the Bokaro river, the Board had analyzed and
monitored that the effluents generated did not pollute the river. Therefore, there was no
good reason to accept petitioner’s contentions. However, the bench found that effective
steps must be taken by the State Pollution Control Board to check pollution. Hence, the
petition was dismissed.
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA VS.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS - DEHRADUN VALLEY
LITIGATION
• In the activity of quarrying, the Limestone was being extracted by blasting out the hills of
Dehradun valley with dynamite. This practice also resulted into the slumping because the
mines dug deep into the hillsides. The lack of vegetation had occurred many landslides
which killed villagers and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural land. The mining
operators contended that the case should be dismissed and let the administrative
authorities should decide as per Environmental laws. But the court rejected this
argument and later on a monitoring committee was made.
• Judgment: In an application filed by the company, the court held that the mining activity
secretly carried on by Vijay Shree Mines had caused immense damage to the area and
directed it to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs to the monitoring committee. After years, the Supreme
Court also held that pollution caused by quarries adversely affect the health and safety of
people. Therefore, it should be stopped. It highlighted the need to balance the
environment and ecological integrity against industrial demands on the forest resources.
ALMITRA H. PATEL & ORS.VS. UNION OF INDIA -
MUNICIPAL GARBAGE DISPOSAL CASE
• Mrs. Almitra Patel had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the
Apex Court, whereby the petitioner sought the immediate and urgent improvement in
the practices of Municipal solid waste or garbage treatment in India. The Tribunal found
that the magnitude of the problem was gigantic because over Lakh tones of raw garbage
was dumped every day. The Tribunal noted the requirement of converting this waste into
a source of power and fuel to benefit society’s benefit. That’s why Tribunal asked all the
states and UTs to strictly follow this and implement the Solid Management Rules, 2016.
• Judgment: A complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands was made after this,
including landfills.