1. Environmental violation — Advertisements painted on rocks — Court orders inspection and supervised removal. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 2436
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
I.A. No. 780 in W.P. (C) 202 of 1995
Decided On : 02-09-2002
When removing illegal advertisements from ecologically sensitive natural structures, the method of removal must be approved by appropriate authorities to ensure no further ecological damage occurs, preventing the wrongdoer from unilaterally determining the process.
Headnote:(A) Environment Protection Act - Section 5 - Removal of advertisements on rocks - Ecological impact - While removal of illegal advertisements is necessary, the method of removal cannot be left to the sole discretion of the party responsible for the violation - It must be ensured that the removal process does not cause further violation or adversely affect the ecology of the area - Entities must first inform the state government and the court regarding the proposed mode and manner of removal, and action may only be undertaken after approval by an appropriate authority. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Advertisements were painted on rocks in an ecologically sensitive area. The state government directed the concerned companies to remove these advertisements under the relevant environmental protection laws. The court intervened to ensure that the process of removing these advertisements did not cause further ecological degradation.
Findings of Court:
The court found it Necessary to appoint a committee to report on the extent of advertisements on rocks and held that the method of removal should not be left to the "sweet will" of the wrongdoer to avoid adverse effects on the ecology.
Issues: Whether the party responsible for the illegal advertisements can unilaterally decide the method of removal and how to ensure that such removal does not further damage the environment.
Ratio Decidendi: To prevent further environmental damage, the mode and manner of removing illegal advertisements from natural rock formations must be approved by an appropriate authority rather than being left to the discretion of the violating entity.
Result: Directions issued for a report on the advertisements, notices issued to the entities involved, and a mandate that the method of removal be approved by the authorities.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Removal of advertisements must be supervised to prevent further ecological damage — Method requires prior approval. (Para 4 )
3. When remedying environmental violations, the method must not cause further harm and must be approved by competent authority. (Para 4 )
4. Order for inspection, notice to violators, and supervised removal of rock advertisements with approved method. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
5. What precautions must be taken when removing advertisements that violate environmental laws?
Removal must not cause further ecological harm; the mode and method must be approved by a competent authority before execution. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Kirpal, CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
NEERI has not given a report, and on the contrary, they want some documents to be supplied to them and Rs. 2,50,000/- deposited. The earlier order requiring NEERI to give a report is recalled.
2. We direct the Secretary, Empowerment Committee - Mr. Jivrajika and Mr. Mahendra Vyas to go to various locations in Himachal Pradesh and give a report with regard to advertisements which are painted on the rocks in and around the area. The Report be given within ten days, To come up on 16th September, 2002.
3. Learned Amicus Curiae draws our attention to a list submitted in Court by Mr. Arun Jaitley which indicates other entities other than Coca-Cola and Pepsi who have also painted their advertisements on the rocks. The list of ten such entities is taken on record and notice is issued to them also returnable on 16th September, 2002. Notice be issued by the Registry without payment of process fee.
4. Mr. Ashok Desai has drawn our attention to an order passed by the State of Himachal Pradesh dated 14th and 21st August, 2002 under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act whereby the Coca-Cola and Pepsi Companies have been directed to remove the advertisements within 15 days. While the advertisements have to be removed the mode or method of removal cannot be left to the sweet will of the wrong doer. It will have to be ensured that the removal of the advertisements does not cause violation or adversely affect the ecology of the area. For this purpose, it is better that the entities to whom such notices have been issued first inform the State Governments and this Court as to the mode and manner in which it proposes to remove the advertisements and it is only after the same is approved by an appropriate authority that the action of removal would be permitted to be undertaken.
5. The Committee of Mr. Jivrajika & Mr. Mahendra Vyas will be at liberty to take any expert in the first instance to assist them. To meet expenses of the Committee, the Coca-Cola and Pepsi will deposit initially Rs. 50,000/- each in this Court within three days from today. The money when deposited will go to meet the expenses of the Committee. The representatives of Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola will be at liberty to accompany the Committee.
6. To come up on 16th September, 2002.
