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

1996 Supreme(All) 1192

A.B.SRIVASTAVA, R.S.DHAVAN
OM PRAKASH BHATT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sudhanshu Dhilya

RAVI S. DHAVAN, J.


( 1 ) THE Court is of the opinion that these proceedings must now draw to a close. The issue is not whether the petitions have to be allowed or dismissed as in matters of environment and ecology there is no such thing as winning or losing a case. This Court has repeated more than often and the Supreme Court has said so repeatedly that protecting the environment and ecology is a constitutional obligation and a fundamental duty of the citizen, the State not excluded.

( 2 ) THIS petition by Om Prakash Bhatt and others was basically brought to Court as the residents of the hills, particularly of Garhwal, and more particularly of the district of Chamoli, felt threatened by the invasion by State organisations and the erosion of the sanctity and the peace and tranquillity of the bugiyal. Bugiyal, in Garhwal, basically means meadows and pasture land which exists above a certain altitude in the mountains no different than the alpine meadows of Switzerland and Austria. Closer to home the meadows at Khilanmarg above Gulmarg in Kashmir are called "marg". The complaint to the Court was that these areas are pastura lands to the sheep and the shepherd. The submission was that th





















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top