In Supreme Court of India
1990 AIR 2060, 1990 SCR (3)
Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Samiti
State Of U.P & Ors
Date of Judgement
Justice Shri Sabyasachi Mukherjee, JusticeK.N Saikia
1. The Petitioner of this case represents a Social Organisation named Chetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti, Sarnath.
2. The petitioner writes a letter which is considered as writ petition under Article 32 of Indian Constitution.
3. It was also alleged by the petitioner that the smoke along with dust emitted from the industries of Respondent 3 , Chimneys of an oil Mill and arefinery plant in that area along with discharged by the plants resulted to serious threat to environment.The discharge also cause epidemic diseases.
4. Further, it was also alleged by the petitioner that flora was also affected by these industries.
5. Petitioner demands that proper instructions to be followed by Respondent for minimising pollution.
6. For the counter statements Respondent No. 3 submitted that they followed the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
7. It was further stated by the respondent that the petitioner was an antisocial element and there was old enmity between them.
8. He further contends that the petitioner intention was of malice nature and his only aim was to blackmail people and extract money out of them. And he is habitual of such activities.
9. Court Dismissed the writ petition after considering all material facts.
Issues raised in the case:-
- Whether the respondent is liable for the creation of environmental pollution?
- Whether the intention of petitioner is of malice nature?
Letter was written by a social organisation named Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti. Sarnath which is treated as writ petition .It was alleged in that letter that processes carried down by respondent industry led to environmental pollution in that area. Petitioner also alleged that Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and a refinery plant are located in the green belt area which is touching adjoining three villages and Sarnath Temple. In this type of thickly populated area the smoke and the dust from the respondent industries chimneys are being produced which caused environmental pollution. It was also contended by the petitioner that it is very difficult to sleep and eat due to foul smell. It was also contended by the petitioner that drinking water is also get polluted by the effluents produced by the respondents industry. It was also alleged that the land area had become waste, affecting crops and damaged the orchards. Along with this , it was also alleged that industries caused epidermal diseases like TB, jaundice etc. It was further alleged by the petitioner that the schools, nursing homes, leprosy homes and hospitals situated near to green belt were very badly affected. It was also submitted by the petitioner that licence which was granted to one richman Dina Nath allowing him to set up 20 industrial units by risking the lives of million of people without enforcing any safeguarding instructions or directions to be followed is very partial treatmemt by the Governmemt officials .
The respondents in the counter statements alleged that the petitioner is an anti-social element and his only aim was to extract money from the people like respondent 3 as in the present case. It has further been stated by the respondent that from last so many years in a habit of blackmailing people extracting money out of them. He was also a guilty under Section 500 of in Case No. 121/88 . It was further submitted that had complied with all the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and no complaint was ever made by any person or authority regarding this.
As evidence, same petitioner had made various complaints to the A.D.M. (Supply), Distt. Varanasi, alleging that respondent 3 was accused of smuggling of coal and diesel blackmailing but that petition was also get dismissed.
After considering the facts, the circumstance and the nature of the allegations being made in the case and the long history of enmity between petitioner and respondent and ugly rivalry between them , honourable judges of this case held that no fundamental right is violated by respondent. According to the honourable judges there was no conduct which is attributable to respondent 3 herein leading to pollution of air or ecological imbalances cold for the intervention by the Court.
Significance and critical analysis of judgement:-
According to my view, Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens but it is as great when everyone respect the provisions by not misusing them. The laws are made for protecting the people which are genuinely being affected by the acts done by the other parties. Considering these provisions as a weapon to accomplish ugly rivalries and enmities is very bad. Court is obliged to perform the duty to in enforce fundamental rights along with this there is a duty of the court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the court.
Edited by Shuvneek Hayer
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje