SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 341

2006(3) Supreme 623
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad—Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors.—Respondents
I.A. Nos. 1486-87 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
With
I.A. No. 1492 in WP (C) No. 202/95, I.A. No. 1508 in WP (C) No. 202/95, WP (C) No. 95/2006, WP (C) No. 111/2006, I.A. No. 1497-1498 in WP (C) No. 202/95, I.A. No. 1509-1511 in WP (C) No. 202/95, I.A.No. 1514 in WP (C) No. 202/95, I.A. No. 1515 in WP (C) No. 202/95, I.A.No. 1523 in WP (C) No. 202/95, I.A.No. 1521 in WP (C) No.202/95, I.A. No. 1525 in WP (C) No. 202/95, I.A.No. 1531 in WP (C) No. 202/1995,
WP (C) No.155/2006.
Decided on 10-4-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Gopal Subramaniyam, A.S.G., Harish N. Salve, (A.C.) U.U. Lalit, (A.C.) (N.P.) Mukul Rohatagi, L. Nageswar Rao, Soli J. Sorabjee, Raju Ramchandran, Colin Gonsalaves, M.N. Krishnamani, Altaf Ahmad, Dushyant A. Dave, Dr. R.G. Padia, Sr. Advocates, Sidhartha Chowdhary, (A.C.), Dr. K.P. Kyalasanath, Mohd. Wasay Khan, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Venkat Subramaniam, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, P. Sriraghuram, Sridhar Potaraju, P.S. Narasimha, Rohit Rao N, Ananga Bhattacharyya, Anupam Lal Das, Vipin M. Benjamin, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, Ms. Indrani, Abhijit Sengupta, Rohit Das, Somiran Sharma, Rakesh K. Khanna, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Ms. Jahanvi, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan for M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co., P.K. Manohar, A.D.N. Rao, Gopal Singh, Ritu Raj Biswas, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Ms. Sameena Ahmed, M.P. Meharia, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Satish, Ajay Siwach, Sandeep Sharma, T.V. George, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, B.N. Jha, J.K. Bhatia, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
1. Development needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs is called ‘sustainable development’, a concept based on the principle of inter-generational equity.
2. Order for demolition of all fish tanks constructed inside the Kolleru Wild Life Sanctuary in a time bound manner held justified.

Headnote:Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 26A—Notification issued by State Government declaring 308 sq. kms out of 901 sq. kms of Kolleru lake as wild life sanctuary—Central Empowered Committee issued recommendations for demolition of all fish tanks constructed inside the Kolleru Wild Life Sanctuary in time bound manner and prohibiting use or transportation of inputs for pisciculture in said sanctuary—Writ challenging the recommendations—Notification sought to preserve the lake both for benefit of migratory birds and to avoid floods—Contention that demolition of bunds could take place only after acquisition of private lands by Government—Right of local fishermen to do fishing by traditional method was not taken away—Notification sought to regulate, in public interest and in interest of ecology, activities such as aquaculture, pisciculture etc. basically to preserve identity of the lake—Notification was a step in right direction and it was not open to Court to advice the Govt.—No reason to interfere.

       Held : From the above, it is clear that the right of the local fishermen to do fishing by traditional methods is not taken away, but aquaculture in the form of any tank is prohibited. Further, whenever pisciculture existed in private land, as on the date of the notification, fishing in traditional method is permitted without causing environmental hazard, till the government acquires such private lands under the said 1972 Act. The right to do traditional agriculture without using pesticides and chemicals is also permitted under the notification. Lastly the encroachment activities are directed to be stopped, forthwith. The final notification, therefore, seeks to regulate, in public interest and in the interest of ecology, activities, such as aquaculture, pisciculture, prawn culture and shrimp culture, basically to preserve the identity of the lake which otherwise is likely to become extinct within 12 years.(Para 13)

       In any event, the rights of those fishermen surviving on a traditional method of fishing have not been taken away, they have been duly protected. Only those who had illegally constructed bunds and who were using harmful manures have been prevented from doing so by reason of the said Notification. The State government has fulfilled its obligation by issuing such Notification. When the rights of the fishermen to do fishing by traditional methods have not been taken away, and when the material placed on record before us shows that there is obstruction to the free flow of water in the lake bed area due to raising of bunds whereby the retention capacity of the lake is diminished, the government is right in regulating the rights under the said Notification. If such encroachments are not removed immediately the right of the farmers in the upstream mandals to do cultivation would be in jeopardy, consequently, it is their right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution which is violated.(Para 14)

       In our view, therefore, the Notification regulates acquaculture, pisciculture, prawn culture, shrimp culture etc. Thirdly, the argument advanced on behalf of the objectors that mud bunds formation is compatible with traditional fishing practice and, therefore, should be allowed to continue to exist, has no merit. When a bund is formed in a sanctuary or a lake it seeks to encapsulate an area which in turn obstructs free flow of water in the lake bed area. As stated above, formation of bund reduces the retention capacity of the lake. These formations, if allowed, would destroy the lake. In view of the provisions of section 26A read with section 29 all commercial activities which seek to destroy the ecology, stands prohibited. Compatibility of mud bunds with the traditional fishing practice in a lake is a concept different from formation of mud bunds inside the Sanctuary. Notification dated 4.10.1999 does not cover the entire area of the lake. Out of 901 sq.kms. of Kolleru lake, an area of 308 sq. kms. alone is notified as Sanctuary. This indicates that the government has balanced the needs of sustainable development with the livelihood of persons surviving on the resources of this lake.(Para 16)

       By issuance of the Notification the government has taken a step in the right direction and it is not open to this Court to tell the government as to which of the three effluents in terms of their discharge should be regulated first in point of time. In the present case, as stated above, the blockage is due to discharge of effluents from three sources, namely, fish tanks in and around the lake containing high concentration of nutrients, effluents from municipal drainage and effluents emerging from the industries located in an around the above two districts. Destruction of the fish tanks is one of the steps taken by issuance of the Notification. That has to be done at the earliest point of time, particularly, before the onset of the monsoon. For the above reasons, we direct the State government and its officers to implement the directions of CEC vide para 54 of its report dated 20th March, 2006. We make it clear that the use or transportation of inputs for pisciculture shall be stopped immediately. We, further, clarify that the demolition of all fish tanks in a time-bound manner shall commence with effect from April 20, 2006, as indicated vide para 54(ii). Accordingly, the interim order granted by this Court in I.A. Nos. 1486-1487 in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995, shall stand vacated.(Paras 16 & 17)

JUDGMENT

Kapadia, J.—Development needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs is called ‘sustainable development’, a concept based on the principle of inter-generational equity.

2. In this batch of cases the common issue that arises for consideration is the validity of the recommendations made by Central Empowered Committee (for short, ‘CEC’) in its Report dated 20th March 2006 which concerns implementation of the notification issued by State of Andhra Pradesh dated 04.10.1999 under section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 whose validity has been upheld by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 30th July, 2001 in the case of Dr. T. Patanjali Sastry, President, Environment Centre vs. Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Ors. reported in 2001 (5) ALT 315. By the impugned recommendations CEC has issued directions for demolition of all fish tanks constructed inside the Kolleru Wild Life Sanctuary in a time bound manner, as indicated therein. CEC has also issued directions prohibiting use or transportation of inputs for pisciculture in the said sanctuary. The details of the inputs are given in the report.

NATURE OF KOLLERU LAKE

3. Kolleru Lake is one of the largest shallow fresh water lake in Asia located between the delta of Krishna and Godavari rivers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It serves as a natural flood balancing reservoir for the two rivers. It receives water from 67 inflowing drains and channels. It sustains flora and fauna and people living around it. The area of the lake at various contour levels is as under:

Contour level atArea Mean Sea Level (MSL)

At + 10 MSL901 sq.km. (2.25 lakh acres)

At + 7 feet MSL675 sq.km. (1.69 lakh acres)

At + 5 feet MSL308 sq.km. (0.77 lakh acres)

4. It is found between the alluvial planes of river Godavari and river Krishna due to natural geological formation covering 2 mandals in West Godavari district and 7 mandals in Krishna district. Ecologically it is a wet land ecosystem. In its mean season, the lake has mean water level of 3 feet above the mean sea level, popularly known as plus 3 contour. The water surface area in the contours of the lake vary, depending upon the seasonal flow of water into the lake. In the normal monsoon, the lake extends from plus 7 contour to plus 10 contour. At plus 3 contour level the lake spreads over 70 sq. miles. At plus 7 contour the capacity of the lake is 30 tmc. At plus 10 contour the capacity of the lake is 54 tmc, covering an area of 348 sq. miles. The peak level inflow into the lake is of the order of 1,10,000 cusecs. 4 rivers, 18 drains and 22 irrigation channels empty out into the lake and the drain Uppteru is the only outlet to the sea. There are 122 villages in the lake area out of which 46 are bed villages and 76 are belt villages. In the belt villages, above plus 5 contour, cultivation is being done both in the patta lands as well as in the government lands on payment of cist. The lake supports bio-diversity and high biomass of fish plankton which constitute the source of food for birds.

5. Kolleru Lake extends over 901 sq. kms. at plus 10 contour. However, only 308 sq. kms. out of 901 sq. kms. have been declared as wild life sanctuary. This has been done in order to strike a balance between the rights of the people living in and around the lake on one hand and to protect the ecosystem on the other hand.

6. Government of India is the signatory to 1971 Convention of Ramsar (Iran) where it is declared that Kolleru is a wet land ecosystem of international importance. In the said convention it is decided that encroachments in the lake would not be tolerated. The said convention is also known as Wet Land Convention.

REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 4.10.1999

7. The above notification came to be issued under following circumstances. Submersion of delta facility in the upstream area on account of blockage of free flow of water into the lake caused by e

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top