1. Environmental vandalism through defacing rocks and unauthorized hoardings; State's failure to protect environment under public trust doctrine. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 2297
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal, CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
IA No. 670 in WP (C) 202 of 1995
Decided On : 23-09-2002
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Harish N Salve, SG (AC), Mr. U U Lalit, Adv. (AC), Mr. Siddharth Choudhary, Mr. P K Manohar, Advocates.
For the Ministry of Environment & Forests/UoI :Mr. A D N Rao, Mr. S Wasim A Qadri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. :Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shiva Subramanian, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Ms. Divya Nair, Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Advocates.
For the For Coca Cola :Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Sr. Adv., Ms. P.S. Shroff, Mr. Manu Nair, M/s S.A. Shroff & Co., Advocates.
For the Pepsi :Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Adv., Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Ms. Anubha Arora, Mr. Ankur Talwar, Advocates.
For the Nestle Ltd. :Mr. C S Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Advocate.
For the MBD Books :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal, Ms. Pragnya, Advocates.
For the Fena & SBI :Mr. Ramesh N Keshwani, Mr. Ram Lal Roy, Mr. G. Sivakumaran, Advocates.
For the State of Himachal Pradesh :Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the State of Himachal Pradesh in IA 801 and 802 :Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocate.
For the Rules :Mr. Bharat Sangal, Ms. Sangeeta Panicker, Mr. Rana Ranjeet Singh, Advocates.
For RR in IA 780 :Mr. S. ravindra Bhat, (MD, Sleepwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora, Advocates.
For the State of Karnataka : Mr. A.N. Jayaram, Adv. Genl.
Mr. Harish N Salve, SG (AC), Mr. U U Lalit, Adv. (AC), Mr. Siddharth Choudhary, Mr. P K Manohar, Advocates.
For the Ministry of Environment & Forests/UoI :Mr. A D N Rao, Mr. S Wasim A Qadri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. :Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shiva Subramanian, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Ms. Divya Nair, Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Advocates.
For the For Coca Cola :Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Sr. Adv., Ms. P.S. Shroff, Mr. Manu Nair, M/s S.A. Shroff & Co., Advocates.
For the Pepsi :Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Adv., Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Ms. Anubha Arora, Mr. Ankur Talwar, Advocates.
For the Nestle Ltd. :Mr. C S Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Advocate.
For the MBD Books :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal, Ms. Pragnya, Advocates.
For the Fena & SBI :Mr. Ramesh N Keshwani, Mr. Ram Lal Roy, Mr. G. Sivakumaran, Advocates.
For the State of Himachal Pradesh :Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the State of Himachal Pradesh in IA 801 and 802 :Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocate.
For the Rules :Mr. Bharat Sangal, Ms. Sangeeta Panicker, Mr. Rana Ranjeet Singh, Advocates.
For RR in IA 780 :Mr. S. ravindra Bhat, (MD, Sleepwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora, Advocates.
For the State of Karnataka : Mr. A.N. Jayaram, Adv. Genl.
Under the public trust doctrine, the state is obligated to protect the environment; failure to prevent the vandalism of natural resources constitutes a dereliction of duty, making the state financially liable for ecological restoration.
Headnote:(A) Public Trust Doctrine - State's duty to protect the environment - Large scale vandalism of rocks through unauthorized hoardings - Dereliction of duty by State Government to act as a trustee of natural resources - Liability of State Government to deposit funds for ecological restoration (Para 4)
(B) Environmental Vandalism - Liability of companies for unauthorized advertisements on natural rock formations - Necessity of identifying all entities responsible for defacing natural resources to recover restoration expenses and impose punitive damages (Paras 3 and 5)
Facts of the case:
It was reported that natural rock formations were defaced by unauthorized hoardings and advertisements. The state government failed to take necessary action to prevent such vandalism. Similar instances of rock defacement for advertisements were observed on a national highway, involving multiple commercial entities. The court sought to determine how restoration expenses and punitive damages should be recovered from those responsible.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the state government failed in its duty to protect the environment. In the realm of public trust, the state is obligated to protect natural resources. Due to this dereliction of duty, the state was ordered to deposit a specific sum in the registry for the restoration of ecology. Furthermore, the court initiated actions against commercial companies responsible for similar vandalism on a national highway.
Issues: Whether the state government can be held financially liable for ecological restoration when it fails to prevent the vandalism of natural rock formations under the public trust doctrine.
Ratio Decidendi: The State Government acts as a trustee of the environment under the public trust doctrine; failure to prevent large-scale vandalism of natural resources constitutes a dereliction of duty, justifying the imposition of financial liability on the state for ecological restoration.
Result: State ordered to deposit Rs. One Crore; notices issued to responsible companies and relevant state authorities; IAs 801 and 802 dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State's failure to check environmental vandalism amounts to dereliction of duty under public trust doctrine, warranting deposit for restoration. (Para 4 )
3. Under public trust doctrine, State has duty to protect environment; dereliction warrants deposit of funds for ecological restoration. (Para 4 )
4. Court ordered deposit for restoration, punitive damages assessment, notices to parties, and further reports. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
5. What is the State's duty under the public trust doctrine regarding environmental protection?
The State has a duty to protect the environment; failure to do so may result in an order to deposit funds for ecological restoration. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
IA 670
2. Response to the Report of the Committee be given within 10 days. In the meantime, Mr. Valmiki Thapar is requested to give a further report alongwith photographs in support of his note of dissent. In order to enable him to do so the Company will, initially, defray his expenses. Till further orders, mining may continue. To come up on 22nd October, 2002.
IA 780
3. Copy of the Report of the Central Empowered Committee is taken on record. Learned Amicus Curiae will inform the Court on the next date of hearing as to how the expenses which may come up to Rs. 5 Crores are to be met by deposits by different persons who were responsible for defacing the rocks and had put up unauthorised hoardings. In addition, the learned Amicus Curiae will indicate the quantum of punitive damages which have to be imposed.
4. It is unfortunate that such large scale vandalism has taken place with the State Government taking no action so as to check the same. In the realm of public trust it was the duty of the State Government to protect the environment and for the dereliction of its duty Rs. One Crore will be deposited by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the Registry which will go towards meeting the expenses necessary for restoration of ecology.
5. From the Report, it appears that on National Highway-IV outside Bangalore similar advertisements have been painted on the rocks. The Companies responsible in respect thereof are including others ACC, Coromandal King, Rasna, Fertilizer Chemicals-Travancore, Alpine, Indo-tex and Indo-chem. Notice to issue to these Companies as well as to the State of Karnataka. Notice is accepted by the learned Advocate General for the State of Karnataka who is present in Court, who may give his response for the State within three days. Copies of the Report be supplied to such other counsel who may desire to see the report and they may also give their responses within three days. Ministry of Environment & forests will also give a report to this Court on the next date of hearing based on information to be gathered from different States through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests or through any other authority as to whether such vandalism is prevalent in other states also and if so, to what extent.
6. List on 26th September, 2002 at 2.00 P.M.
IAs 801 and 802
Dismissed.
