2004 Supreme(Raj) 1038
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble ANIL DEV SINGH CJ. & HARBANS LAL, J.
Ashwani Chobisa - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7544 of 2003
Decided On : October 20, 2004
Shobha (Ms.), Ashwani Chobisa, Ashok Sharma, P.S. Asopa, Sr. Advocate with Amit Kumar, R.S. Chauhan, Manish Bhandari, P.K. Sharma, S.L. Sharma, M.S. Kachhawa, Alok Sharma, D.D. Khandelwal, Praveen Jain, for Petitioners B.C. Chirania with Ravi Chirania, fo
Headnote:Constitution of India, Articles 21, 48-A, 51-A(g); Environment Protection Act, 1986; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Environmental and ecological degradation – Illegal, unauthorised and unscientific mining activities – Hazard to human existence – Held – Right to life under Art.21 includes protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution air, water and sanitation – It amounts to violation of Articles 21 and 51-A(g) – Govt. is duty bound to ensure eco friendly mining operation – Issued certain directions to protect and preserve environment.
(1) The State and its statutory authorities/functionaries shall ensure actual implementation of the eco-friendly mining plan, in its true letter and spirit and shall not treat it as a merely paper formality;
(2) The State and its functionaries shall ensure that the mining activities in the State of Rajasthan are carried on after obtaining proper consent/clearance from the concerned authorities and in accordance with the provisions of the law and the rules and also the orders of the Supreme Court and this court issued from time to time;
(3) The State shall ensure that illegal un-scientific and un-systematic mining operations shall not be permitted to be carried on unless mining lease holders adopt and adhere to the norms prescribed under the law and the rules;
(4) The State shall take immediate steps to ensure compliance of the recommendations made in the report of the Central Mine Planning, Design Institute Ltd., Gondwana, Place Kantac Road, Ranchi;
(5) The State shall ensure that the stone crushers comply with the norms laid down under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and MMDR Act.
(6) The State shall take effective steps for reclamation of abandoned mines by having them filled up by over burden, waste and fly ash from the thermal power plants.
(7) Mines from which water is being discharged should be closed to prevent wastage of water and depleting of ground water;
(8) The State shall designate and earmark sites for dumping the over-burden;
(9) All out efforts should be made for plantation of trees in the mining areas as well as along the National High Way No. 79, where trees have been cut in large number for widening of the road. The number and variety of trees, vegetation and shrubs to be planted in the mining areas shall be as per the advice of the Forest Department. No mining activity shall take place before planting of trees, shrubs and vegetation in accordance with the advice of the Forest Department and acing thereupon. That apart the mine owners shall secure a certificate from the Forest Department certifying the extent and nature of the plantation which is required to be undertaken;
(10) The mine owners shall not be allowed to increase their production without receiving the permission from the Ministry of Environment and consent from the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board. (Para 39)
(2). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7544/03 has been filed by one Ashwani Chobisa, who is a practicing lawyer, in the Rajasthan High Court and claims himself to be a public spirited and keenly interested person in protecting the environment and water resources. He has focused on the aspects of large scale illegal un-systematic, haphazard and un-scientific mining taking place in the entire State of Rajasthan and operation of stone crushers at various places in the State and their benefit repercussions on the ecology. While Chobisas writ petition deals with the problem of environmental degradation through-out the State of Rajasthan, all other writ petitions have focused on the aforesaid problem in respect of particular areas only. Therefore, Chobisas writ petition is treated as the lead case.
PETITIONERS CASE:
(3). According to the petitioner (Ashwini Chobisa), the State and its functionaries have been complacent in not strictly enforcing environmental laws and notifications. He has referred to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to an individual. Article 48-A enjoins the State to make every endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wild life of the country. Article 51-A(g) provides that it shall be the duty of the every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. Articles 48A and 51A have been inserted in the Constitution through constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. Prior to insertion of these provisions in the Constitution, there have been several legislations on the subject including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, The Air (Protection and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The constitutional and statutory provisions, inter alia are aimed at protecting the individuals rights to fresh air, clean water and pollution free environment.
In A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Professor M.V. Nayadu and Others (1), while dealing with the principle of inter generational equity, which is of recent origin, has highlighted the Stockhom Declaration, 192 which declares that environment is a resource for survival of present and future generations.
Even the Supreme Court has accepted ``Precautionary Principle and ``Polluter Pays Principle in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (2). It has been laid down that:
a) the environmental measures by the State Government and statutory authorities should anticipate, prevent and check the cause of environmental degradation,
b) where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty, the reasons used for postponing the measure to prevent environmental degradation and
c) the onus to prove is on the actor or on the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. For protection of environment the notifications dated 27.1.1994 and .5.1992 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Rules framed thereunder are being violated by the persons o