Chhetriya
Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti Vs. State of U.P & Ors [1990] INSC 231 (13 August 1990)
Mukharji,
Sabyasachi (Cj) Mukharji, Sabyasachi (Cj) Saikia, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 2060 1990 SCR (3) 739 1990 SCC (4) 449 JT 1990 (3) 685 1990 SCALE (2)332
CITATOR
INFO : RF 1991 SC 983 (2)
ACT:
Constitution
of India, 1950: Article 21--Environmental
pollution-Allegations-Scrutiny of--Found to be frivolous--No complaint from any
other person or authority--Held pollution laws not violated.
Article
32--Epistolary jurisdiction--Protection of Fundamental Rights--Public interest
and public protection--Genuine interest-Misuse of--Not to be permitted--Court
to act with great deal of circumspection and caution.
HEAD NOTE:
The
Petitioner, representing a Social Organisation, has written a letter alleging
environment pollution in some villages and the adjoining Sarnath Temple. The letter was treated as Writ Petition under Article 32
of the Constitu- tion of India. It was alleged that the smoke and
dust emit- ted from the Chimneys of Respondent No. 3, viz., an oil Mill and a
refinery plant in the area, and the effluents dis- charged by the plants has
been causing serious environmental pollution in the thickly populated area,
leading to epidemic diseases. It was further alleged that even the flora was
badly affected by pollution. Petitioner prayed for direc- tions to check the
pollution.
On
behalf of Respondent No. 3, it was contended that it had complied with the
provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and there was no com- plaint
whatsoever. It was further stated that the petitioner was an anti-social
element and his only aim was to blackmail and extract money from people like
Respondent No. 3, and that a criminal case has already been filed against him,
for such activities.
Dismissing
the writ petition,
HELD:
1. Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental
rights of the citizens.
Every
citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and
living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Anything
which 740 endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in viola- tion or
in derogation of laws, that quality of life and living by the people is
entitled to be taken recourse of Article 32 of the Constitution. But this can
only be done by any person interested genuinely in the protection of the
society on behalf of the society or community. This weapon as a safeguard must
be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of circumspection and
caution. Where it appears that this is only a cloak to "feed fat ancient
grudge" and enemity, this should not only be refused but strongly
discouraged. While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights,
it is also the duty of this 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. That would be an act or a conduct which will defeat
the very purpose of preservation of fundamental rights. [743B-E] Bandhu Mukti Morchay.
Union of lndia & Ors., [1984] 2 SCR
67, referred to.
2.1.
This petition is legally devoid of any merit or principles of public interest
and public protection. There was no fundamental right violation or could be violative
if the allegations of the so-called champions on behalf of the society are scrutinised.
[743G]
2.2.
Prima facie the provisions of the relevant Act, namely, the Air Pollution
Control Act have been complied with and there is no conduct which is
attributable to re- spondent No. 3 herein leading to pollution of air or ecolog-
ical imbalances calling for interference by this Court. The orders passed by
the Pollution Control Board also indicate that there were no instances of any
violation. There was no complaint from anybody apart from the petitioner, or
any authority as to the non-compliance of any statute by Re- spondent No. 3.
[743A-B; 742G]
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 577 of 1988.
(Under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
S.R. Bhat
and R. Venkataramani for the Petitioner Dr. B.S. Chauhan for the Respondents
and Shobha Dikshit for he State of U.P.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by 741 SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. A letter
written to this Court was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. The letter written by Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh
Samiti. Sarnath, alleged environ- mental pollution in the area. It was also
alleged therein that the Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and a refinery plant are
located in the green belt area, touching three villages and the Sarnath temple
of international fame. The smoke and dust emitted from the chimneys of the
Mills and the effluents discharged from these plants were alleged to be causing
environmental pollution in the thickly populated area and were proving a great
health hazard. It was further stated that the people were finding it difficult
to eat and sleep due to smoke and foul smell and the highly polluted water.
It was
further alleged that the lands in the area had become waste, affecting crops
and the orchards damages. Diseases like TB, jaundice and other ailments were
stated to be spreading in an epidemic form. The growth of children was
affected. It was further alleged that the schools, nursing homes, leprosy homes
and hospitals situated on the one kilometer long belt touching the oil Mills
and the plant were adversely affected. It was stated that licences had been
issued to one richman Dina Nath for these industrial units thereby risking the
lives of thousands of people without enforcing any safety measure either to
cure the effluents discharged from the plants or to check the smoke and the
foul smell emitted from the chimneys. The whole area was expected to be ruined
due to any explosion or gas leak- age.
In
that background, the petitioner prayed for necessary directions to check the
pollution, and also enclosed a printed leaflet alleging real-practices and
corruption on the part of the proprietor of these industrial units apart from
polluting the atmosphere.
As
mentioned hereinbefore, the complaint was made by the said Samiti stated to be
a social organisation about envi- ronmental pollution and ecological imbalance
being caused by the two plants and thereby exposing the population to health
hazards and life risk which was, therefore, considered to be a matter of great
public importance. It is necessary to recognise the danger in order to strike a
balance between the quality of life to be preserved and the economic devel- opment
to be encouraged. Dealing with this aspect in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
& Ors., [1988] 1 SCR 279, it has been stated that whenever applications for
licences to establish new industries are made in future, such applica- tions
should be refused unless adequate provision has been made for the treatment of
trade effluents flowing out of the factories. So, this letter was treated as a
writ petition and notice was issued, 742 counter affidavits was filed on behalf
of respondent No. 3 being the proprietor of Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills. Reference
was made to the decision of this Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India & Ors., [1984] 2 SCR 67 wherein this Court underlined the importance
of satisfactory verifi- cation of allegations. The Court was asked to be ever vigi-
lant against abuse of its process and there was need for appropriate
verification. There is a statute for controlling pollution. It is wellsettled
that if there is a statute prescribing a judicial procedure governing a
particular case, the court must follow such procedure. It is not open to the
court to by pass the statute and evolve a different procedure at variance with
it. It is further asserted on behalf of the respondents that between the
petitioner Sita Ram Pandey and respondent No. 3, there was a long rivalry.
According
to respondent No. 3, the petitioner is an anti- social-element and his only aim
was to extract money from the people like respondent No. 3 as in the present
case.
It has
further been stated that there has been criminal proceeding against the
petitioner and several items have been marked in the affidavit in opposition.
The particulars make out a rather disgraceful state of affairs. It has been
alleged that Mr. Sita Ram Pandey for the last so many years was blackmailing
the people, and a case u/s 500 of the I.P.C being Case No. 121/88 was filed. It
has been further averred that respondent No. 3 has complied with the provisions
of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and of the water
(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and there is no complaint of
any kind from any person, body or authority. The correspondence, in this
connection, has been set out.
It
further appears that as early as 1980, the petitioner had made various
complaints to the A.D.M. (Supply), Distt. Varanasi, alleging that respondent
No. 3 was accused of smuggling of coal and diesel blackmailing. It was dismissed.
It
further appears that there was no complaint from anybody apart from the present
petitioner by any authority as to the non-compliance of any statute by
respondent No. 3. The orders passed by the Pollution Control Board which had
been annexed, also indicate that there are no instance of viola- tion of the
said Acts.
Time
was sought on behalf of respondents for filing a rejoinder which,
unfortunately, has not been filed, and no satisfactory explanation has been
given therefore. Certain letters alleged to have been written on behalf of the peti-
tioners were sought to be placed before us in the Court today.
743
Having considered the facts, circumstances, nature of the allegations and the
long history of enemit and animosi- ty, we are of the opinion that prima facie
the provisions of the relevant Act, namely, the Air Pollution Control Act have
been complied with and there is no conduct which is at- tributable to
respondent No. 3 herein leading to pollution of air or ecological imbalances
calling for interference by this Court.
Article
32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preser- vation of fundamental rights
of the citizens. Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of
quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Consti- tution
of India. Anything which endangers or
impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws,
that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to be taken recourse
of Article 32 of the Constitu- tion. But this can only be done by any person
interested genuinely in the protection of the society on behalf of the society
or community. This weapon as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the
Court with great deal of circum- spection and caution. Where it appears that
this is only a cloak to "feed fact ancient grudge" and enemity, this
should not only be refused but strongly discouraged. While it is the duty of
this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this 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. That would be an
act or a conduct which will defeat the very purpose of preservation of
fundamental rights.
Having
regard to the ugly rivalry here, we have no doubt that between the contestants,
the Court was misled and we must, therefore, proceed with caution. There was no
funda- mental right violation or could be violative if the allega- tions of the
so-called champions on behalf of the society are scrutinised. We must protect
the society from the so- called 'protectors'. This application is legally
devoid of any merit or principles of public interest and public pro- tection.
This application certainly creates bottlenecks in courts, which is an abuse of
process of this Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in dismissing this
application with the observations made herein.
G.N.
Petition dis- missed.
Back