(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environment Protection - Polluter Pays Principle - Precautionary Principle - Sustainable Development - Industrial effluent discharge - Unauthorized encroachment in ecologically sensitive zone - Petitioner claimed user rights over land declared as protected under forestry legislation - Court held that after notification declaring land as protected area, user rights must be formally recognized and permitted - Activities causing irreparable damage to biodiversity and fragile ecology mandate adherence to restorative and remedial measures - Burden of proof lies on developer to show activities are environmentally benign - Concept of sustainable development does not permit economic gain at the cost of irreversibly degrading natural resources. (Paras 130, 137, 143, 144, 183)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Abuse of process - Petitioner filed successive petitions seeking interim protection to continue polluting activities while failing to substantiate legal rights - Courts cannot permit continuation of environmental violation under guise of pending litigation or interim orders seeking to preserve status quo where the underlying act is unauthorized and illegal. (Paras 131, 161, 190)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner industry had been discharging industrial effluent into inter-tidal zones and areas subsequently notified as a protected marine sanctuary since prior to 1982. Following notification of the area as a protected wildlife/marine sanctuary, the petitioner continued to discharge waste, claiming pre-existing rights. The authorities rejected these claims as encroachment. The industry maintained it had consent from environmental boards to discharge effluent, which the court found did not authorize discharging into prohibited protected zones. Pending this litigation, the industry attempted to implement a modern closed-pipeline disposal system.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had encroached upon government land and continued illegal discharge despite formal notification of the protected area. The court rejected the argument that the industry had rights to continue polluting; instead, it applied the 'Polluter Pays' and 'Precautionary' principles, noting that the economic benefits of the industry do not justify environmental destruction. The court determined that the industry is absolutely liable for remediation and compensation.

Issues: Whether the petitioner has a vested legal right to continue discharging industrial effluent into a protected marine sanctuary based on prior use; and whether the petitioner is liable to pay for environmental damage caused by such activities under the Polluter Pays principle.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving environmental degradation, the right to a clean environment outweighs potential economic benefits. Any activity causing environmental harm, especially in ecologically sensitive zones, constitutes a tort against the community. Liability includes not only compensation for victims but also the full cost of restoring the ecosystem, and this liability continues until the damage is reversed, regardless of any interim judicial orders allowing operations to continue.

Result: Petitions dismissed; petitioner held liable for environmental damages under Polluter Pays principle; direction issued to regulatory bodies to assess and recover restoration costs.