This extract is taken from 

Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. Ministry of

Environment and Forests, 2016 SCC OnLine NGT 92
92. Once the nexus between the activity, particularly illegal activities, and the consequential
damage to the environment and ecology is established, the liability in terms of Section 15 and 17
of the NGT Act arises. There could be cases where it is not possible to determine such liability
with exactitude but that by itself would not be a ground for absolving the defaulting parties from
their liability. On reasonable basis, such defaulters could be called upon to pay the environmental
compensation. In the present case, the parties opted not to lead any evidence except the
documents and affidavit that they had filed in support of their respective cases. It is also evident
that over exploitation of the sources has been done by the private respondents and the noticees to
the extent that it is likely to cause environmental threats. Restoration thereof would be a long
drawn process and the private parties would be required to pay compensation even for restorative
purposes. At present, we are dealing with the damage caused on approximate basis for
continuous defaults and violation of the laws and specific terms and conditions of the EC and for
their operation without consent of the concerned authorities including the State Pollution Control
Boards. We have already held that the private respondents/noticees are involved in illegal and
unauthorised mining, which they have carried on without consent of the State Pollution Control
Boards and without grant of EC. They have carried on excessive unauthorised mining in a
manner that has caused substantial damage and degradation of environment, ecology and
biodiversity. Thus, a compensation of Rs. 50 Crores is to be paid by each of the private
respondents/notices who are carrying on the extraction of minor minerals and Rs. 2.5 Crores
respectively by each of the stone crushers/screening plants which had been running illegally, in
an unauthorised manner, without consent of the concerned Pollution Control Board.

This extract is taken from Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
2016 SCC OnLine NGT 92
The trend of bids has increased with the passage of time to the extent that in the current year
for six mining units the bid goes for Rs. 328.82 crores. The extent of unlawful gains earned by
these persons at the cost of degradation of environment is huge. To make quick money these
persons have resorted to illegal mining, mechanized mining, illegal transportation, over-loading
of trucks while causing serious damage to the river bed to the extent that it was genuinely
apprehended that river may change its course and at the cost of its flow they have caused serious
damage to the persons and property and the agricultural fields of the villagers particularly of
villages Nuniyari and Jodhebans. Despite directions of the Court both the State Governments
have failed to place on record any report which would define the damage caused due to the
wrongful acts by these persons with exactitude and the exact money that would be required for
restoration, restitution and revitalization of the environment, ecology and bio-diversity with
particular reference to river Yamuna. It can safely but with certainty be concluded that there is
large scale illegal mining, transportation and carrying on of screening/crusher plants by these
persons. They have caused serious damage and degradation of the environment which they must
make good of. However, with the help of documentary evidence and reports on record, the
Tribunal would have to apply some guesswork while resolving this issue. Application of a
limited guesswork is an accepted principle. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Sterlite
Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI), (2013) 4 SCC 575, had applied this principle
while imposing the compensation of Rs. 100 crores upon the industry which has been operating
without the consent of the Board for long. This principle was followed by the Tribunal in the
case Krishan Kant v. NGRBA, 2014 ALL (I) NGT REPORTER (3) (DELHI) 1 and S.P.
Muthuraman v. Union of India, 2015 ALL (I) NGT REPORTER (2) (DELHI) 170 wherein after
discussing the law in detail the Tribunal imposed a compensation of Rs. One crore and while
applying these very principles, particularly the Polluter Pays Principle as enunciated in Section
20 of the NGT Act, the Tribunal held as under:
“153. Wherever anyone violates the law and flouts the directions issued by the regulatory
authority and other concerned authorities, commences construction without even applying for
Environmental Clearance and completes the project or activity extensively, two fold
consequences would follow. First, that it would render itself liable for imposition of penalties
for contravention of the Act, Rules, Orders and directions in terms of Section 15 of the Act of
1986. The other, for issuance of directions in regard to the demolition or grant of consent
subject to such conditions as may be considered appropriate by the authorities or the
Tribunal. Tribunal exercising its appellate power and Original jurisdiction in terms of Section
14 and 16 of the Act of 2010, has the powers of merit and judicial review and is competent to
issue such directions as it may deem necessary in terms of the said provisions including
Section 18 of the NGT Act, 2010. The Court and Tribunals, particularly, in such cases of fait
accompli have adopted a more practical approach which would permit the remaining work of
the project to be completed while providing stringent safeguards in the interest of the
environment as well as issuing orders which would vest the Project Proponent with civil
consequences. In the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI), (2013) 4
SCC 575, Supreme Court held that the appellant company was liable to pay compensation of
Rs. 100 crores for polluting the environment and operating its industry without renewal of
consent by the Board. In this case, industry had obtained consent to operate from the Board
prior and subsequent to the period when it operated without consent of the Board. After
passing of the judgment of the Supreme Court in this very case, the Tribunal directed the
industry to take precautionary measures as well as directed the Pollution Control Board to
impose more stringent conditions while permitting the industry to operate (Sterlite Industries
(India) Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 2013 ALL (I) NGT REPORTER
(DELHI) 368).”
 2017 SCC OnLine NGT 1683
In the National Green Tribunal

(BEFORE U.D. SALVI, J.M. AND NAGIN NANDA, E.M.)

Kunal Shankar Mali … Applicant;

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents.

Original Application No. 08 of 2017

Decided on November 14, 2017

2. The Applicant submits that every quarrying activity requires Environment Clearance (EC)

and ‘Consent to Operate’ under the Water (Prevention and Control) of Pollution Act, 1974 and
the Air (Prevention and Control) of Pollution Act, 1981 granted by the lawful Authorities before
any activity of quarrying is undertaken.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra through

Environment Department, and other Authorities Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 admit this legal
proposition, and submit to the orders of this Bench.

4. In this backdrop, the Applicant submits that the Applicant can be disposed off with
appropriate directions binding the parties to discharge their obligations as per law.

5. The Application further reveals that lack of pollution control measures and violations of
law done by the quarrying operators, particularly, without consent to operate as well as Mining
Plan and quarrying being done in excess of the sanctioned limits prescribed under the Mining
Plan. We, therefore, pass the following directions:
i) Respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra through Environment Department, Respondent No.
3 the Principal Secretary, Revenue and the Forest Department of Govt. of Maharashtra
and Respondent No. 4 - the Chief Conservator of Forest, Thane shall not allow
any quarrying activity in the areas of aforesaid villages designated or identified as
‘Reserved Forest’, ‘Protected Forest’, ‘Private Forest’ and ‘Forest like Area’, Forest Land
and ‘Shrub Forest’ without any Forest Clearance as envisaged under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.

ii) Respondent No. 5-District Collector, Thane shall not allow any quarrying activity without
prior Mining Plan and EC required for such activity in the District, particularly, in the
said villages and shall keep vigil over the area and ensure that no
such illegal quarrying activity is carried out.

iii) Respondent No. 2 CIDCO shall not grant any lease falling within their area in the said
villages to any one desirous of carrying out quarrying activity without production of EC
required therefor.

iv) Respondent No. 7 MIDC is directed not to grant any permission/permit

any quarrying activity in the said village without EC being produced for such activity.

v) Respondent Nos. 8 the Regional Officer MPCB and Respondent No. 9 the Member
Secretary, MPCB are directed not to grant any ‘Consent to Operate’ to quarrying in the
said villages without their being any EC therefor.

vi) Respondent Nos. 8 the Regional Officer MPCB and Respondent No. 9 the Member
Secretary, MPCB are further directed to ensure strict compliance of all the terms and
conditions prescribed under ‘Consent to Operate’ granted to quarrying activity and Stone
Crushing in the said villages.

vii) Respondent No. 10 Deputy Director, Ecology and Mine, Govt. of Maharashtra is directed
to ensure that no mining is done exceeding/beyond the carrying capacity of the mining
are in question and/or without Mining Plan.

viii) We direct Respondent No. 5 the Collector, Thane Respondent Nos. 8 the Regional
Officer MPCB and Respondent No. 9 the Member Secretary, MPCB and Respondent No.
10-Deputy Director, Directorate of Geology & Mining or any one of them to place before
 us description and particulars of quarrying and stone crusher operators, operating in the
aforesaid area without EC and/or in violation of Law in any manner whatsoever for
imposition of Environmental Compensation and for such other further directions.

ix) Every case of transgression of these directions and/or non-compliance of such terms
and conditions stipulated for operating stone quarrying/crushing shall be brought to
the Notice of this Tribunal for the purposes of imposing
Environmental Compensation and such other further directions

This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC OnLine AP
791 : (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 399

This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC
OnLine AP 791: (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 396

20. In Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295 : AIR 1987 SC
1109, the Supreme Court expressing its deep concern over deteriorating ecological unbalance
leading to health hazards, observed:
“Today society's interaction with nature is so extensive that the environmental question has
assumed proportions affecting all humanity. Industrialisation, urbanisation, explosion of
population, over-exploitation of resources, depletion of traditional sources of energy and raw;
materials and the search for new sources of energy and raw materials, the disruption of
natural ecological balances, the destruction of a multitude of animal and plant species for
economic reasons and sometimes for no good reasons at all are factors which have
contributed to environmental deterioration.”
21. The Supreme Court proceeded further and observed:
“When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental
duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and
so it is a matter for the policy-making authority.»
 24. The more exhortive message is found in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2
SCC 205 : AIR 1981 SC 711.
“Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth.
These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every
generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural
resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of the Nation.”

This extract is taken from A. Citizen v. District Collector, R.R. Dist., 1997 SCC OnLine AP
791 : (1998) 4 ALD 389 : (1998) 1 An WR 478 at page 397
26. The entire medley of decisions of the Apex Court point out one direction i.e., erratic,
irrational and uncontrolled quarrying leading to environment deterioration is deplorable, nay
intolerable. No doubt industries are necessary-concomitant for economic growth of a country,
but at the same time safety cannot be overlooked. While balancing the competing interests due
regard must be had on the affects of unabated pollution on the community, economic interest of
the country and the employment potential of the workers at large. In such circumstances, Courts
should adopt a method which is more hannoneous in approach with little or less sufferance to
one or the other. Environment cannot be allowed to suffer and the stone crushing operations
cannot be allowed to cause dust pollution and create health hazards to the residents in the
locality. Crushing operations in the vicinity of the residential localities emit dust which causes
serious respiratory problem to the inhabitants. It is common knowledge that dust particles are
carried by air, travel land distance. However, as this Court has no expertise to find out to what
extent air pollution is caused and what remedial measures should be adopted in such
circumstances, an expert Committee was appointed which has already submitted its report.

The expert Committee consisting of members who have adequate knowledge on

environment pollution, discloses that there are in all 11 stone crushing units in the area at three
different locations. The stone crushers are engaged in crushing granite stone to sizes ranging
from 6 to 40 mm. useful for construction of buildings as well as road metal. All the units are
adopting the same technology, using jaw crushers and vibratory, rotary screens for purposes of
crushing, and they are causing dust emission due to crushing operations, as they have not taken
any pollution control measures recommended by the State Pollution Control Board. The fine dust
emitted is more hazardous as it contains approximately 85-90% silica, and high content of silica
and its fineness less than 10 ug, causes disease called silicosis. It is further seen that silicosis is a
pulmonary fibrosis caused by inhalation of dust containing free silica. It is more severe of all
pneumoconiosis.

32. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 4, who are Secretary Mines and Geology, Government of
Andhra Pradesh as well as Chairman, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad respectively
would examine the leases of respondents afresh before they are renewed, or continued and
ensure that no damage to habitation of human life, animals and plant life. Illegal quarrying by
Vaddera community which is within 1 kilometre from the above areas should be stopped
forthwith. The respondents while applying for fresh areas ensure and adopt dust suppression
methods to control dust emission as recommended by MOEF/APPCB by following the
guidelines as notified. The Gram Panchayat members will bring to the notice of the High Court
whenever there is infraction of these guidelines. In the result, Writ Petition No. 7326 of 1997 is
allowed and the quarry leases issued to respondents 7 to 23 in three villages viz., Kokapet,
Gowlidoddi and Nanakramguda shall stand set aside and the stone crushers established by them
shall be removed forth with. However, there cannot be any impediment for the respondents to
carry away cut granite stone or metal lying at the site, if the same is cut and stored as per the
terms of impugned leases. It is open to the workers working in those quarry leases and stone
crushers to claim such compensation from their employers in accordance with law till fresh
leases are obtained by them and on obtaining fresh leases, these workers shall be reemployed
again.

This extract is taken from Koppula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy v.

State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine AP 1422 : (2014) 4 ALD 33 :
(2014) 6 ALT 458 at page 50
 32. All the impugned orders are set at naught and it is declared that the State Government
lacks power to grant any extensions of quarry leases for the minor mineral sand even under the
current legal regime. The State Government shall forthwith stop all such lease holders from
quarrying sand any further. The State Government shall ensure that sand quarry operations
henceforth can be carried out strictly in accordance with the legal regime prevailing through the
notification contained in G.O. Ms. No. 186 Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department dated
17.12.2013. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed, but however without costs.

30. But, the note file did not even refer to them as former lessees or ex-lessees. The
responsibility and accountability hence has got to be fixed in this regard on all people who had
played the necessary role in taking die decision which resulted in the impugned order. A repeated
error committed by the State Government cannot be brushed aside lightly, as an honest error
particularly when it is resulting in a bountiful of benefits to the beneficiaries and cascading
consequences to the State's interests. Therefore, all the public servants who have not helped in
arriving at a correct decision must be rendered accountable for their lapse and failures in that
regard. The ultimate decision-making authority must be made accountable for the decision taken.
I, hope and trust, that the State Government will concentrate its energies in this direction.

2002 SCC OnLine Mad 494 : (2003) 1 LW 262 : 2003 Cri LJ (NOC 277) 88
J 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

26.7.2002

Contempt Application No. 56 2001 in W.P. No. 985 of 2000

K. SAMPATH, J.

M.K. Janardhanam S/o M.R. Krishnaswamy Naidu, Old No. 90, New No. 60, K.R. Koil Street, West
Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033 … Applicant

v.

1. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District at Tiruvallur.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri.

31. The enormity of the problem suffocates us. The apathetic and lukewarm approach of the
powers that be baffles and pains us. Gide Andre lamented ‘Everything has been said already but
nobody is listening. We must always begin again.’ Scores of Judges have said before. Their
directions have not been implemented. It is a sordid commentary on the state of affairs. Still I am
issuing directions to the Government in the fond hope that they will be implemented and
something good may come about. These are in addition to what has been directed to be done by
P. Shanmugham, J. in W.P. Nos. 10632/92 etc. batch already referred to.

1. The Government shall constitute a high level committee consisting of scientists, geologists
and environmentalists within one month from today. The said committee shall tour the State,
conduct a scientific survey with reference to sand quarrying in rivers and river beds and submit a
report with particular reference to the damage caused on account of indiscriminate
and illegal quarrying and spelt out suitable remedial steps to stamp out the malady, within six
months thereafter.

2. On receipt of the report from the committee, the Government shall act in conformity with the
guidelines and take all necessary further steps to arrest the exploitation and to protect and
improve the situation and restore status quo ante. The Government shall pass suitable regulatory
legislation in this regard. The action on the part of the Government after the receipt of the report
should not brook any delay. It should act fast.

In the meantime there should be a total ban on sand quarrying anywhere near motor or rail
bridges - the distance between the bridges and the quarrying area should be not less than 500
metres.

The distance between the riverbank and the mining area should be not less than 10 to 15 metres.
The depth of the sand pits should not exceed 1 to 1-1/2metres.

While granting licence the local public should be taken into confidence. They should be allowed
to air their views and raise their objections.

Wherever there has been violation of the terms of the grant, stringent action should be taken
against the erring parties. Prosecution under Section 379 of the Penal Code, 1860 for theft and
causing damage to public property should be launched. Severe penalties should be imposed.
They should also be made to pay heavy compensation.

34. I directed the petitioner to submit a statement of expenses. I find that a total sum of Rs.
22,258/- has been spent by him. I have the least hesitation in directing the Government to
reimburse the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 32,258/- which includes the sum of Rs. 10,000/- directed
to be paid to the Advocate Commissioner by this order. The Government shall pay Rs. 32,258/-
to the petitioner within four weeks from today towards the costs in the contempt petition. The
contempt petition is ordered accordingly.

34. I directed the petitioner to submit a statement of expenses. I find that a total sum of Rs.
22,258/- has been spent by him. I have the least hesitation in directing the Government to
reimburse the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 32,258/- which includes the sum of Rs. 10,000/- directed
to be paid to the Advocate Commissioner by this order. The Government shall pay Rs. 32,258/-
to the petitioner within four weeks from today towards the costs in the contempt petition. The
contempt petition is ordered accordingly.

12. We are informed that in Atharva Veda, a verse occurs, meaning as follows:

“Oh Mother Earth - On this multi-colour Indra Gupta Prithvi let me enjoy, never ending
happiness and gain ever lasting glory without fear of defeat.”

13. Our ancients worshipped the five elements of nature, viz. earth, air, water, fire and sky both
in reality and symbolically. Our scriptures are replete with information on the relationship
between man and nature and the former's eternal indebtedness to the latter. We are told that earth
is the paradise of man which has been blessed with nature's bounties. During ancient times there
was emphasis on the care for the natural resources.

14. All religions in our country have environmental overtones for the observance of an
ecological code of conduct and are united in their attitude towards nature. They enjoin us to
respect nature and its creations which is complementary to secularism.

15. The enjoyment of life and its attainment and its fulfillment guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gifts without which life cannot
be enjoyed and environmental degradation violates the fundamental right to life.
 16. Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment evidences this human
anxiety: —

“The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially
representative samples of natural ecosystem, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and
future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate…… Nature
conservation including wildlife must therefore receive importance in planning for economic
development.”

17. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone, (AIR 1981 SC 711) it has been

observed as follows:

“Rivers, forests, minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth. These
resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation
owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the
nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation.”

18. A decade ago there was a big Earth Summit in Rio de Jeneiro. A publication from UNESCO
offered the following vision of the future.

“Every generation should leave water, air and soil resources as pure and unpolluted as when
it came to earth. Each generation should leave undiminished all the species of minerals it
found existing on earth.

2019 SCC OnLine Mad 19400: (2019) 1 CWC 852

In the High Court of Madras

(BEFORE M. VENUGOPAL AND S. VAIDYANATHAN, JJ.)

A. Soundararajan … Petitioner;

Versus

Secretary to the Government and Others … Respondents.

22. It is needless to point out that if any negligence/laissez-faire attitude/inaction is shown by the
Officers, who are specially deputed for this task, the Government is entitled to take suitable
disciplinary action against them for dereliction of duties and those Officials may be placed under
suspension and necessary punishments may be imposed for their
misdemeanor/deviant/misconduct, dereliction of duty, lack of devotion to work, lack of integrity
so as to deprive their entire terminal benefits, which will be an eye opener for others. Similar is
the case with I.A.S. and I.P.S. Officers, who may be stripped off from these posts and they be
posted in in-sensitive posts.

Facts in brief:

i) The Petitioner, who is a retired Additional Superintendent of Police, espousing the

cause of Villagers, has submitted that in order to protect natural resources like rivers,
ground water and agriculture in general, the excavation of sand in Cheyyar River at
Vinnamangalam, Mottur, Randam and Gangapuram Villages, Arni and Chetpet Taluks,
Thiruvannamalai District should be banned and action should be initiated against
the illegal miners;

ii) It was further submitted that the Cheyyar River, which is a tributary of Palar River, is a
seasonal river running through the Thiruvannamalai District before emptying into the
Bay of Bengal and the river that is the major source of irrigation for several villages,
including the towns of Cheyyar and Vandavasi along its Bank, receives most of its water
from the Northeast and Southwest monsoons;

iii) The Petitioner has stated that the ancient name of Cheyyaru River is Sei Aaru (Child
River) meaning that the river is created for a child to play and the said River is believed
to be a Holy River in Cheyyar and its surrounding villages. The Villagers, including the
Petitioner have been eking out their livelihood out of agriculture for several years and the
petitioner's family has donated three acres of land and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the
purpose of starting a High School in the Village;

iv) The Petitioner has also stated that Cheyyar River quenches thirst of villagers of that area
by providing drinking water to the integrated Drinking Water Project supplemented by
 the bore well in the Cheyyar River. That being the state, unrestrained illicit sand mining
and indiscriminate sand quarrying in Cheyyar River caused irreparable loss and damage
to the natural resources, as a result of which, the bore well became dry and saline;

v) The Petitioner submitted that though he had sent a representation dated 12.03.2015,
followed by repeated reminders dated 03.03.2016 and 13.11.2016 to the Respondents 7, 9
and 12 in addition to sending an email to the 7th respondent on 07.07.2016 to take action
for stopping illegal sand mining, his representation did not evoke any response. At last,
the 7th Responent responded to one of his representation, by directing the 12th Respondent
to constitute a Task Force to curb the illicity quarrying

017 SCC OnLine Bom 234 : (2017) 2 Bom CR 734 : (2017) 2 AIR Bom R 759
J 2
In the High Court of Bombay

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

(BEFORE MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S. SONAK, J.)

Writ Petition No. 6620 of 2012

Genba Laxman Pawagi .…. Petitioner

v.
State of Maharashtra & ors. .…. Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 6621 of 2012

52. In Bhusawal Municipal Council (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the

context of court, acquisition of lands by the State and the consequent delay in
payment of compensation has held that the judicial process of the court cannot subvert justice for
the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction only in furtherance of the justice. The
State/authority often drags “poor uprooted claimants” even for payment of a paltry amount up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wasting the public money in such luxury litigation without realising
that the poor people cannot afford the exorbitant costs of litigation and, unfortunately, no
superior officer of the State is accountable for such unreasonable conduct. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, at paragraphs 17 to 21 has observed thus:

“10. … A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are

highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the
enforcement  of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and
guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens

the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India In this case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with a situation of drought which has affected almost
1/3rd population of the country. In a detailed judgment, considering various legislations and
constitutional provisions the Supreme Court after quoting Lokmanya Tilak “the problem is
not lack  of resources or capability, but the lack of  will”, has ruled that it is the duty of  the
State to create circumstances so as to enable drought affected persons to live a
life  of dignity as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution  of India. The Supreme
Court has decried the attitude  of the State Authorities in even acknowledging the
existence of the problem. The Supreme Court has observed that sometimes, the
cause  of the problem is bureaucratic inactivity and apathy; sometimes executive excesses
that cause the problem and sometimes the problem is caused by the ostrich-like
 reaction of the executive. In such a situation, it is the duty of the court to intervene, even
though, such intervention are often pejoratively and unfortunately described as judicial
activism.

58. Taking into consideration the established violation by the State

Authorities of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution, not to mention the gross dereliction on the part of the State Authorities in
complying with their statutory and constitutional obligations to the petitioners, we
are of the opinion that this is a fit case to award to the petitioners compensation. The
basic facts in the present case, are really not in dispute. Some minor and inconsequential
disputes attempted to be created by the State Authorities quite belatedly (i.e. after this court
vide order dated 8 December 2015 directed payment of compensation and such direction was
not stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 12 February 2016) cannot deflect
the jurisdiction of this court to award compensation to the petitioners as a public law remedy,
now that the infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners is established. There is
really no merit in the contention of the State Authorities that the unreasonable delay in
providing water supply and irrigation facility to the lands allotted to the petitioners after they
were ousted from the affected zone on account of submergence of their lands and houses,
was for any genuine causes, beyond the control or contemplation of the State Authorities.

68. In this case, even if we were to proceed on the basis that the State Authorities discharge
sovereign functions when it comes to construction of dams and irrigation projects, we must note
that the facts and circumstances as emerge from the record clearly establish that there
is dereliction of duty on the part of the State Authorities not merely in the matter of compliance
with the provisions of the statute, but also, in the matter of compliance with constitutional
obligations. The material on record, clearly establishes that the State Authorities, on
account of apathy, lethargy and insensitivity have violated the petitioners' fundamental right
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the situation of this nature, therefore,
there is no question of upholding the State's plea of “sovereign immunity” based mainly upon the
decision in Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain (supra).

69. In Nilabati Behera alieas Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa38 the Supreme Court has

distinguished its decision in Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain (supra) upholding the State's
plea of sovereign immunity for tortious acts of its servants is confined to the sphere of liability in
tort, which is distinct from the State's liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which
the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no application. In the constitutional scheme, sovereign
immunity is no defence to the constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 which enables
the award of compensation for contravention of fundamental rights.

70. In State  of  A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered in great details the legal validity of the defence of sovereign immunity where the
State is alleged to have infringed fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution
and concluded in no uncertain terms that such a defence based upon sovereign immunity is
wholly inapplicable. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such a defence, based upon
the old English Maxim that the King can do no wrong has undergone a change in England itself
with the enactment of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. Even the Crown in England therefore,
does not enjoy absolute immunity and may be held vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of its
officers and servants. The maxim that King can do no wrong or that the Crown is not answerable
in tort has no place in Indian jurisprudence where the power vests, not in the Crown, but in the
people who elect their representatives to run the Government, which has to act in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution and would be answerable to the people for any violation
thereof. The right to life is one of the basic human right. It is guaranteed to every person by
Article 21 of the Constitution and not even the State has the authority to violate that right. The
fundamental rights, which also includes basic human rights continue to be available even to a
prisoner and those rights cannot be defeated by the pleadings the old and archiac
defence of immunity in respect of sovereign acts which has been rejected several times by this
Court. Finally, by reference to its decision in Common Cause, A Registered
Society v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667, in which the entire history in relation to the
doctrine of sovereign immunity was considered beginning from the time of East India Company
and up to the stage of the enactment of Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that “In this process of judicial advancement, Kasturi Lal's case has paled into
insignificance and is no longer of any binding value”.

71. In N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.41, in the context of the doctrine of sovereign

immunity, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no civilized system can permit an executive
to play with the people of its country and claim that it is entitled to act in any manner as it is
sovereign. The concept of public interest has changed with the structural change in the society
No legal or political system today can place the State above the law as it is unjust and unfair for a
citizen to be deprived of its property illegally by negligent acts of the officers of the State
without any remedy. From sincerity, efficiency and dignity of State as a juristic person,
propounded in the 19th Century as a sound sociological basis for State immunity, the circle has
gone round and the emphasis now is more on liberty, equality and the rule of law. The modern
social thinking of progressive society and the judicial approach is to do away with the archiac
State protection and place the State or the Government on par with any other juristic legal entity.
The movement now is from “State irresponsibility to state responsibility”

72. As noted earlier, this is not a fit case to relegate the petitioners to the ordinary
remedy of instituting suits against the State Authorities now that the infringement of their
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is established. It is even otherwise
well settled that a constitutional court is vested with the jurisdiction to award compensation,
particularly where such award is consequential upon the deprivation of fundamental right of the
petitioners. In Rudul Sah (supra), the petitioner upon establishing that his detention had violated
his fundamental rights applied to the Hon'ble Supreme Court for compensation in the petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 10
and 12 observed thus:

“10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective answer to it save the stale and
sterile objection that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages from the
State Government. Happily, the State's counsel has not raised that objection. The petitioner
could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was
factually controversial, in the sense that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim.
But we have no doubt that if the petitioner files a suit to recover damages for
his  illegal detention, a decree for damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is
not possible to predicate, in the absence  of  evidence, the precise amount which would be
decreed in his favour. 

In these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in

favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty
 which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 which guarantees the right
to life and liberty will be denuded of  its significant content if the power of this Court were
limited to passing orders  of release from illegal detention. 

One  of  the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due
compliance with the mandate  of  Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the
payment of monetary compensation. 

Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights

cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to
compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of  instrumentalities which act in the
name of  public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a
shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too
well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that,
respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State
must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse
against those officers.

….. ….12. This order will not preclude the petitioner from bringing a suit to recover
appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials. The order or compensation
passed by us is, as we said above, in the nature of a palliative. We cannot leave the
petitioner penniless until the end  of  his suit, the many appeals and the execution
proceedings. A full-dressed debate on the nice points of fact and law which takes place
leisurely in compensation suits will have to await the filing of such a suit by the poor Rudul
Sah. The Leviathan will have liberty to raise those points in that suit. Until then, we hope,
there will be no more Rudul Sahs in Bihar or elsewhere.”

2020 SCC OnLine NGT 734

In the National Green Tribunal

(BEFORE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER)

R. Govindarasu … Applicant(s);
 Versus

Mani Omega Granites Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Chairman, No. 2,/140 A, Mankuttaikadu, Morur
Post, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. (Amended as per order of the Tribunal Dated
05.10.2017 made in M.A. No. 166 of 2017) and Others … Respondent(s).

Original Application No. 97 of 2017(SZ)

Decided on February 19, 2020

The grievance in this application is regarding the illegal operation of quarry by the first

respondent. It is alleged in the application that the first respondent is conducting a quarry since
2013. The total extent of the quarry is 1.83 hectares. Mining lease was obtained for a period of
20 years from 25.05.2011 to 24.05.2031 in Survey No. 60.2 for an extent of 30 cents, Survey No.
59.8B for an extent of 39 cents and for Survey No. 61.3A for an extent of 17 cents vide G.O.
3(D) No. 25 Industries (MMB-1) Department, dated 23.02.2011. He has not obtained
Environmental Clearance (EC) for the said quarry as required under EIA Notification 2006 as it
has been classified as B2 category requiring Environmental Clearance (EC) prior to
commencement of the quarrying activity. He has also not prepared any Environment
Management Plan. Large scale pollution is being caused on account of the operation of the unit.
People are finding it very difficult to live in that area. Though, several complaints have been
made to several departments, no action has been taken. So, the applicant filed the present
application seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) An order of permanent injunction restraining the 1 st Respondent from carrying on

the illegal quarrying  activity at Survey Numbers 59.8, 59.8.B 60.2, 61.3A, 61.3 B
Anathapuram village, Villupuram District.

(b)  Compensation  of Rs. 12 Lakhs together with punitive damages to be fixed by this Hon'ble
Tribunal together with interest @12% p.a to the Applicant provisionally estimated for
the injury suffered by Applicant's family

(c) Compensation for loss of revenue suffered by the Applicant due to

the illegal quarrying  of granite from the Applicant's family land
 (d) An order directing the 1st Respondent to take the necessary measures for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the Applicant's lands.”

 Since, the first respondent has already obtained Environmental Clearance and necessary consent
to operate, there is no legal impediment for the first respondent to proceed with
the quarrying operations in accordance with law. However, they are bound to comply with the
conditions mentioned in the Environmental Clearance and consent and keep the pollution norms
intact and conduct the quarry without causing any pollution and environmental hazards to others.
Though there was a claim for damages made by the applicant on account of the operation of the
quarry, stating environmental damage has been caused to his property and claimed Rs. 12 lakhs
as compensation, there was no material available before this Tribunal to assess
the compensation.

11. So, under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the application as

follows:

(1) The first respondent is at liberty to start quarry operation if he has complied with
necessary conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board and the Environmental
Clearance in carrying out the quarry operations in this property.

(2) The first respondent is bound to comply with the conditions imposed in the
Environmental Clearance and consent to operate and also take all necessary steps to
suppress the possible pollution that is likely to be caused on account of the operation of
the quarry by taking all necessary precautions and also providing pollution control
mechanism while operating the quarry.

(3) The Pollution Control Board is directed to make periodical inspection of the unit while in
operation and take necessary action against the first respondent if there is any violation
found in accordance with law.

(4) Since there is no material available for assessing compensation, we are declining the
relief of compensation to the applicant as he was not present to prosecute the matter
as well.
This extract is taken from Bheemagiri Bhaskar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, 2001
SCC OnLine AP 417 : AIR 2001 AP 492 : (2001) 5 ALD 277 : (2002) 1 ALT 159 at page 498
29. Article 48-A of the Constitution of India reads thus:
48A: Protection and Improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life:
The State shall endeavour to protect and Improve the environment and to safeguard the forests
and wild life of the country.
In T. Damodhar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, AIR 1987 Andh Pra. 171,
relying on ‘Rascoc Pound’ and Stockholm Declaration as well as Article 48-A of the
Constitution, Justice P.A. Choudary, held:
From the above it is clear that protection of the environment is not only the duty of the
citizen but it is also the obligation of the State and all other State organs including the Courts. In
that extent, environmental law has succeeded in unshackling man's right to life and personal
liberty from the clutches of common law theory of individual ownership. Examining the matter
from the above Constitutional point of view, it would be reasonable to hold that the enjoyment of
life and its attainment and fulfilment guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution embraces the
protection and preservation of natures gift without which life cannot be enjoyed. There can be no
reason why practice of violent extinguishments of life alone should be regarded as violative of
Art. 21 of the Constitution. The slow poisoning by the polluted atmosphere caused by
environmental pollution and spoliation should also be regarded as amounting violation of Art. 21
of the Constitution.

This extract is taken from Bheemagiri Bhaskar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, 2001
SCC OnLine AP 417: AIR 2001 AP 492: (2001) 5 ALD 277 : (2002) 1 ALT 159 at page 498
30. In a case of this nature, precautionary principle should be applied. The principle of
precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to
choose the least environmental harmful activity. Environmental protection not only aim
protecting health, property and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own
sake. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by suspicion of Concrete danger but also
by (Justified) concern or risk potential. The Precautionary principle was recommended by ENEP
Governing Council. The “Precautionary Principles” in the context of the municipal law means,
(i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and Statutory authorities - must
anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation.
(iii) “Onus of proof” is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is
environmentally benign.

This extract is taken from Bheemagiri Bhaskar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, 2001
SCC OnLine AP 417: AIR 2001 AP 492: (2001) 5 ALD 277: (2002) 1 ALT 159 at page 499
31. The Precautionary Principle has been accepted as part of the Law of the land.
(See Jagannath v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 811). Though the above Precautionary Principles
have been stated in the context of municipal law, in our opinion, the same can be made
applicable where an environmental aspect concerns ‘life’. In India where the majority of the
people in villages depend on agriculture, depletion of ground water table will have an adverse
effect on their living conditions and their very existence will be in jeopardy. If the indiscriminate
quarrying and lifting of sand from the river beds, streams particularly in villages is allowed to
continue, the fertile lands will become sterile for scarcity of water and thereby the very survival
of persons depending entirely on cultivation will be at stake and their right to live guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will thus be infringed.

This extract is taken from Summary of Cases (Extracts from Judgment) — (1992) 2 LW,
(1992) 2 LW (SN) 5
MADRAS HIGH COURT
24th February, 1992
Crl. M.P. No. 15045 of 1989
ARUNACHALAM, J.
[ This case is fully reported in 1992-2-LW. (Crl.) 241 May Issue] Y.
Krishnappa Petitioner
versus
State by S.I. of Police, Kilamangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri
Held further :
It was not necessary on the facts of the case to take action for contempt of court.
The Court has a bounden duty to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. The Court can
also grant compensation to repair any damage done to the rights of the citizen by the State
instrumen talities. Either of these grounds cannot alter the compensation issue. Reinstatement or
payment of backwages concern a different sphere. It cannot compensate the agony and anguish
experienced by the petitioner, who had knocked at the doors of this Court, on three occasions,
complaining about the abject inaction of the investigating agency.
Para 18-C

AIR 1983 S.C. 1086 — Relied on.

If the tap at the door of this Court, by the petitioner and the inaction of the investigating
agency in spite of orders of this court were to be held in a balance, the needle tilts in favour of
the petitioner who had suffered physical and mental agony for over six years, and not having
been able to obtain relief in spite of two orders of this Court. The State is bound to compensate
the petitioner. It cannot evade its responsibility, on the ground that the acts done by the officials
were individual wrongs or misdeeds. One cannot overlook that the concerned police officials had
acted only under the powers vested in them by the State. The powers vested in the police
officials cannot shield them, when the exercise of powers is wrongful or in total oblivion of the
rights and liberties of citizens. The State cannot have a protective umbrella to disengage itself
from its liability to pay compensation, on the ground that wrongs committed by the officials
should make them alone liable. The State is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the
petitioner within six weeks from today.
Merely because the petitioner is an accused in this crime, he cannot be denied an award of
compensation, if we take note of all the efforts, he had taken by approaching this Court several
times, including draining of his limited finances, to speedily vindicate his innocence, which
process had been thwarted by the total negligence of the investigating agency.
 Para 18-C
The State, if it deems fit, may have recourse against erring officers, and collect the
compensation ordered to the petitioner in its entirety, from them in manner it chooses, after
fixing the liability on those erring officials, not necessarily restricted to the officials, referred to
in this order.

This extract is taken from Summary of Cases (Extracts from Judgment) — (1992) 2 LW,
(1992) 2 LW (SN) 5
3rd February, 1992
A.P. Nos. 14930, 14931 of 1989, 12919, 14408 & 14409 of 1991
MISHRA, J.

[ This case is reported in full in 1992 Writ L.R. Parts 11 & 12]
Krishna Nagar Welfare Association by its Secretary, JAnsolmus,
Zamin Pallavaram, Madras-91 Kennedy Valley Welfare
Association, represented by its Secretary, Mammen Varghese.
versus
Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Environment. New Delhi 2. State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest
Department, Madras 9. 3. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
Board, represented by Chairman, No. 32, Santhome High Road,
Madras. 4. Chitlapakkam Panchayat, represented by its Executive
Officer, Chitlapakkam, Madras 64. 5. The Collector of
Chengalpattu District at Kancheepuram. 6. The Revenue
Divisional Officers, Saidapet Taluk, Madras-15. 7. The Member-
Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Madras-
8. 8. VArumugham, 9. T. Mathi 10. Ceylon Repartriates
Labourers Welfare and Service Society, represented by its
President, (Substituted as per order of Court dated 3.2.92 in
W.M.P. Nos. 22584 and 22585 of 1991) and 218/2018 others.
 Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances
stated therein and in the respective affidavits filed therewith the High Court will be pleased
to directing the Respondents 1 to 7 to stop the illegal quarrying and crushing of stones
being carried on by the Respondents 8 to 14 at Thirusoolam Hills and prevent the pollution
of the petitioner locality around Thirusoolam area caused by such quarrying and crushing
of stones.
(i) directing the Respondents to bring the quarry in Survey No. 25/2. B in Thirusoolam
Village for auction in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules,
1959, and grant preferential right to thepetitioner in the matter of quarrying blue metal in
the above said quarry as per amended Rule 10 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1959.
(W.P. No. 12912 of 1991):- and in forbearing the Respondents herein and their men,
agents and subordinates from in any manner preventing the petitioner from quarrying the
stone crushing unit and transporting the crushed blue metal at its factory at Survey No.
25/2L. The Thirusoolam, Villages, Madras-100.
Constitution of India, Art. 21, Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (14 of 1981 as amended by Act 47 of 1987), and
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (6 of 1914), as amended by Amendment
Act 44 of 1978) — Complaint from residents of a locality about pollution due to operations
of quarrying stones from an adjoining quarry, seeking directions of Court to stop the
quarrying and crushing of stones, etc. and to prevent pollution by such quarrying —
Interim Orders passed recommending the appointment of an Experts Committee —
Report of Committee considered and directions given — Duty of State Government to
safeguard interests of residents guaranteed under Art. 21 pointed out — Scope.
Pollution Control — See Constitution of India, Art. 21, etc.
Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (6 of 1974 as amended by Act 44 of
1978
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (14 of 1981 as amended by Act 47 of
1987.
 The two main petitions in this batch of W.P.S were filed by Associations comprising of
residents of the area seeking directions from the Court to stop illegal quarrying and crushing of
stones by the Respondents referred to, and to prevent the pollution of the locality by such
quarrying and crushing of stones. The petitioners alleged that they made several representations
to the Governor, Chief Minister and other authorities concerned including Pollution Control
Board stating that the collector had issued orders prohibiting Thirusoolam Anna Harijan Blue
Metal Workers Industrial Co-operative Society from blasting stones at Plot Nos. 43 and 74 as a
distance of 300 meters should be set apart as a danger zone from blasting point to ensure safety
to the residents, that the quarrying operations in all the stone quarries in Saidapet Taluk within
300 meters from the residential area have been prohibited and that the prohibition however never
became effective. According to the petitioners nothing has been done to prevent the quarrying
and crushing operations which endanger the human life.
Paras 1, 2
Held :
It is a fit case in which a direction must issue to the respondent State of Tamil Nadu, to
implement the recommendations of the Expert Committee dated 3.7.1991 on stone quarrying and
crushing operations at Kennedy Valley and Krishna Nagar in Thirusoolam area, submitted before
this Court pursuant to the order of this court dated 31.10.1991 and not to allow any quarrying or
crushing operation close to the residential area and within 500 metres of the residential area.
Accordingly, all the existing crushers must be stopped from operating within 500 metres of the
periphery of he Kennedy Valley and Krishna Nagar residential quarters. They, however, may be
considered for such licence/permission only if they operate within the safe zone and thus not
within 500 metres of any residential area and adopt pollution control measures recommended by
the National Productivity Council, New Delhi, that is to say, enclosing the jaw crusher and the
screens so as to contain dust and noise and making arrangements for spraying of water on the
conveyor belts to suppress dust as well as air pollution control measures to the satisfaction of the
Pollution Control Board.
Para 27
Unless they come, however, with a proper application and all necessary measures to
safeguard the interests of the residents of the area as, well as the need of the environment and
their personal interest, since what is claimed is a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, it is obvious that they cannot get the right to operate and establish crushers
at such a place from where they would emit dust and cause pollution.
Para 26
The respondent State Government should have promptly stopped all illegal quarrying and
allowed quarrying operations only in safe areas and when all mining safeguards were applied and
adhered to by the quarry owners. Crushing operations Which cause serious dust pollution and
health hazard as noticed by the Expert Committee, have to be regulated as suggested by the
Committee. Otherwise, environment will suffer and needed balance will thus not be achieved.
It is a fit case, in which the respondent State Government and the Pollution Control Board are
duty bound to implement the recommendations of the Expert Committee and act strictly in
accordance with the said recommendations.

The foundation or the basis on which the court has to proceed in this case is thus whether with
respect to the complaints of the residents of the area, a conscious decision was ever taken by the
competent authorities in the State Government and whether in granting permission or licence to
any mining operation in the hills or to operate crushers all the relevant laws and considerations
were taken into account by the authorities concerned. If they have done so, and there is a little
infraction of the rights that the petitioners have claimed, the Court may hesitate. But, if there is
no such conscious decision taken and the violations are pronounced and evident, then it will only
be going against the law of the land, if the Court says ‘no’ to the petitioners.

The laws that have been framed to protect environment and prevent pollution are The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Act No. 6 of 1974). The Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1978 (Act No. 44 of 1978), The Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Act No. 14 of 1981), The Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987 (Act No. 47 of 1987) and the Environment (Protection) Act
1986 (Act No. 29 of 1986).
The relevant laws have been noticed. The Expert Committee Report is on the record. The
relevant portions of the Report are extracted. It will not be possible to avoid any environment
degradation, hazards and health effects on the residents and the large number of labourers who
are solely dependent for their survival on this industry and who are made to live at the site,
unless same attempt is made to relocate the quarriers and crushers.
The court has to strike a balance between the competing needs of preservation of ecology and
environment and protection to the citizens from any sort of pollution of water, air, etc., on the
one hand and the interest of exploitation of minerals for the benefit of the society at large and
that of the workmen and industries which participate in the development of the welfare of the
country and provide employment to a good number of persons, who otherwise may be rendered
unemployed.

This extract is taken from Koppula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy v.

State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 SCC OnLine AP 1422: (2014) 4 ALD 33: (2014)
6 ALT 458 at page 50

32. All the impugned orders are set at naught and it is declared that the State Government
lacks power to grant any extensions of quarry leases for the minor mineral sand even under the
current legal regime. The State Government shall forthwith stop all such lease holders from
quarrying sand any further. The State Government shall ensure that sand quarry operations
henceforth can be carried out strictly in accordance with the legal regime prevailing through the
notification contained in G.O. Ms. No. 186 Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department dated
17.12.2013. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed, but however without costs.

30. But, the note file did not even refer to them as former lessees or ex-lessees. The
responsibility and accountability hence has got to be fixed in this regard on all people who had
played the necessary role in taking die decision which resulted in the impugned order. A repeated
error committed by the State Government cannot be brushed aside lightly, as an honest error
particularly when it is resulting in a bountiful of benefits to the beneficiaries and cascading
consequences to the State's interests. Therefore, all the public servants who have not helped in
arriving at a correct decision must be rendered accountable for their lapse and failures in that
regard. The ultimate decision making authority must be made accountable for the decision taken.
I, hope and trust, that the State Government will concentrate its energies in this direction.

This extract is taken from Direction of Environmental Justice in India: Critical Appraisal of

1987 Case Law, 35 JILI (1993) 92 at page 96

Some of the “stringent conditions” which the court imposed so as, “to almost reduce to nil”
the hazard or risk, included:
First, the installation of effluent treatment plants. There was a surprising development in
fulfilling this condition. The affidavit filed by the environmental engineer of Sriram showed
that the treatment technology used by it, on the recommendation of the Central Pollution
Board, did not give the desired results and Sriram had to go for another treatment plant as
directed by the Board. And this was installed by the treatment plant company after a delay of
one year. This failure of treatment technology and also the delay in installation raises the
question as to who is responsible for the pollution during this period. The environmental law
saves Sriram from any penal action because of the defence it may take that the offence was
committed without its knowledge or that it exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence. [ See, s. 16, Environment (Protection) Act 1986; s. 40, the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981; s. 47, the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act 1974.] Can the responsibility be not imposed on Dorr Oliver who as the
manufacturer of the treatment plant did not give a satisfactory result or the Central Board
itself on whose order Sriram installed the ineffective treatment plant?
Unfortunately the existing environmental law does not take cognisance of this act. It may
be further pointed out that patronage of a treatment plant company by the Board or the
government may find entry of undeserved plant through corruption pressure. And such plants
would, on paper only, contribute to the prevention and control of pollution throughout the
country.
 Second, operator of the safety device and head of the chlorine plant would be held
personally responsible if the expert committee or factory inspector found that the safety
measures were not properly functioning.
Third, chief inspector of the factory or any senior inspector nominated by him or deputed
by the Central Board would inspect the caustic chlorine plant at least once a week by paying
a surprise visit. In case of any lapse on the part of the company, the inspector would report to
the court and the concerned officer or the Central Board as the case may be, would take such
action as he or it thinks fit.
Fourth, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., which was
the owner of various units of Sriram, would give an undertaking that they would be held
personally responsible for payment of compensation for any death or injury. It may be
mentioned that section 16(1) and (2) of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 specifically
imposes personal responsibility on the above officers of the company. In view of the
statutory strict liability the undertaking had no meaning.
Fifth, the condition provided that there would be a Committee of Workmen's Union to
look after the safety arrangements in the caustic chlorine plant. It could visit the plant during
any shift and report any lapse to the management and if the latter did not pay heed to the
same, it could draw the attention of the labour commissioner for necessary action.
Sixth, there were also conditions for protection of the workmen including training of
workers in regard to functioning of the plant, warning and safety devices. So far as the
education part is concerned there is not much environmental consciousness in India amongst
industrial workers and people living in the vicinity of industries. The introduction of
environmental education is one of the basic needs for protection and improvement of the
environment. It is time that such education must find a place not only in the syllabus of the
educational institution but also reach at least to the places which are or may be prone to
environmental pollution. The governmental agencies involved in the protection of
environment, industrialists, district and municipal committees and environmental social
organisations must not shirk this social obligation.
Finally, Sriram was required to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs and bank guarantee for Rs.
15 lakhs had to be furnished within two weeks from the date of the present judgment for
payment of compensation claims of the victims of oleum gas. It may be pointed out that the
 various units of Sriram Industries were situated in a thickly populated area having a
population of “approximately 2,00,000.” It was alleged that there were “4000 workmen”
employed, out of which the caustic chlorine plant had a strength of “263 employees including
executives, supervisors, staff and workers.”
One segment of the population exposed to the present hazard was missing in the
calculation and that was those who visited the affected area. Their number could not be
ignored in view of the thickly populated colonies of Delhi. Further, the court was convinced
that “chlorine gas was dangerous” in view of the experience of accidents occurring in
different parts of the world resulting in the “death of quite a few persons.” Thus it is clear
that the leakage was a hazard to life and health of the residents, workers and those who
visited that area at the time of the oleum gas leakage. In view of the above facts the question
remains: will the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs be enough for compensating such a large section of the
population. It is unfortunate that the present writ petition totally ignored the animals and
plants in the present environmental crisis who were also present at the site.

2017 SCC OnLine Ker 3277

In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

This court is of the opinion that the time has probably come for the State Government to
reconsider its policy with regard to grant of mining/quarrying leases and permits. The State
Government has to remind itself of its role as a guardian of the natural resources within the State
and introduce measures to check the indiscriminate grant of mining/quarrying leases and permits.
While the present system of grant of mining/quarrying leases relies, to a large extent, on the
mining plan and other documents submitted by the project proponent, with the State
Government's role being limited to approving the said plan and granting mining leases/permits,
the increasing instances of environmental degradation, and pollution related issues, that are
voiced by the citizens of the State ought, in my opinion, to spur the State Government into
adopting a pro-active role while granting mining leases and permits. It must keep in mind the
doctrine of Public Trust, which was developed as a legal theory by the ancient Roman Empire,
and was founded on the idea that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and
the air were held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general
public. These resources were deemed to be of such great importance to the people as a whole that
it was seen as wholly unjustified to make them the subject of private ownership. The said
resources being a gift of nature, it was felt that they should be made freely available to everyone
irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine therefore enjoins upon the Government to protect
the resources for enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private
ownership or commercial purposes.

In Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois - 146 US 387: 36 L.Ed 1018
(1892) the US Supreme Court articulated the principle that, when a State holds a resource which
is available for the free use of the general public, a court will look with considerable skepticism
upon any governmental conduct that is calculated either to relocate that resource to more
restricted uses or subject public uses to the self-interest of private parties.

Taking cue from the said decision, the doctrine of public trust was declared, by our Supreme
Court, to be part of the law of the land, in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath - [(1997) 1 SCC 388]. It
was held that- “The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for
public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs,
forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the
natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private
ownership.”

35. The public trust doctrine has been used, over the years, to forge a number of allied
principles through which courts have, to a significant extent, checked environmental degradation,
as also large-scale depletion of precious natural resources, while at the same time ensuring that
developmental activities are not completely curtailed or prohibited. Some of these principles are;

(i) The principle of sustainable development, which advocates the striking of a balance
between the need for protection of environment and the competing need to engage in
developmental activities;

(ii) The precautionary principle, that requires the State to take environmental measures to
anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment degradation, and further clarifies
that lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to
 prevent environmental degradation. The principle also lays the onus of proof on the actor
to establish that its actions are environmentally benign;

(iii) The polluter pays principle, that penalizes a person who has caused pollution and;

(iv) The principle of inter-generational equity, that holds that the present generation has no
right to deplete all the existing resources and leave nothing to the next and future
generations.

36. The aforesaid principles are not, in my opinion, to be treated as entries in a one-time

checklist maintained by the State Government, prior to the grant of permission to exploit mineral
resources, or undertake any activity that has serious environmental implications, but are to be
applied periodically, during the implementation stages of the permitted activity as well, so that
any act, that has the potential to cause damage to the environment or destruction/depletion of the
natural resource, is arrested at the earliest stage after its detection.

Only through such constant supervision, of permitted activities in relation to natural

resources, will the State be able to discharge its duty as a trustee of the natural resources for the
benefit its people. Ideally, therefore, the State Government should examine, on a case-to-case
basis, whether there is a need to grant a quarrying lease/permit in the area or to renew such
leases/permits, taking into account the availability of natural resources, the report of the Bio-
Diversity Boards, the impact that such activity would have on the ecological balance of the
region and other environmental factors. The data required for such a scrutiny should also be
collected and analysed by the Government itself, rather than depending on a report submitted by
the project proponent, which could well be a self serving one.

37. I conclude by observing that, while this court is aware of its constitutional limitations and
does not propose to advise the State Government on policy issues, it does hope that the State
Government will take serious note of the dangers that can result from an indiscriminate grant of
mining leases and permits, and adopt pro-active measures to avoid such eventualities in future.

This extract is taken from Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. Ministry of Environment

and Forests, 2016 SCC OnLine NGT 92
 3. The Applicant filed a Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (C) No. 7672 (M/B) of 2012
titled Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. through the Secy. Geology & Mining before the
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in relation to illegal sand mining in district Saharanpur at that
time. The High Court passed certain directions for stopping such illegal activities.
The Writ Petition is still stated to be pending before the High Court. It is stated by the applicant
that the illegal mining activities have been going on for a considerable period of time but it
increased manifold in the last 15 years because of large scale construction activities being carried
on in the adjoining areas, particularly, the NCR. There is huge demand of sand and other minor
minerals which the people are extracting both legally and illegally to earn profits at the cost of
disturbing the river banks, weakening the river bed and disturbing the ecology. Mechanical
mining in the river bed is not permissible but people have been carrying on illegal mechanical
mining. Besides that, in certain areas stone crushers have been set up to crush such illegally
mined boulders which have created havoc in terms of causing air pollution and reducing the
agricultural land in villages and raising serious threat to life and health of the villagers. Even the
stone crushers are being operated without consent of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board
(for short, “UPPCB”).

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 25th November, 2011, in relation
to rampant illegal mining in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan without any environmental
safeguards, had directed the Central Empowered Committee (for short, “CEC”) to carry out site
inspection with intimation to the MoEF&CC and the concerned State Governments and to
submit its report. This order was passed in SLP (Civil) No. 19628-19629/2009 titled Deepak
Kumar v. State of Haryana on 4th January, 2012. The CEC submitted a report informing that
illegal mining of minor minerals is being carried out without any EC and with active connivance
of State authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after going through the CEC report
dated 4th January, 2012 further passed an order dated 16th January, 2012 with certain directions,
requiring the District Collector, District Superintendent of Police and the Additional Director
(Mining Division) of Saharanpur to specifically ensure that no mining work is carried on any
longer. They were expected to take immediate steps to close down all illegally operating
screening plants/crushers, etc. on both sides of river Yamuna. These authorities were also
required to assess the quantity of illegal mining done in Saharanpur. Despite these directions, the
illegal mining continued. There was close and clear nexus of State authorities with mining
mafias. Other Writ Petitions were also filed being WP No. 9416 (MB) of 2010 and WP No.
10025 (MB) of 2010 where the Allahabad High Court had issued certain directions to the effect
that no person anywhere in the State will carry out mining activity of minor minerals including
sand/silica based on the mining lease, which do not have the EC in terms of Notification of 2006.
The judgment of the High Court dated 29th April, 2011 passed in the case of Mohd. Kausar
Jah v. Union of India was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India which was dismissed vide order dated 18 th January, 2013 observing that there was
no merit in the case. Vide order dated 27th February, 2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
SLP No. 19628-19629 of 2009 Deepak Kumar (supra) had directed that the mining lease for
minor minerals including sand, gravel, clay, marble and other minerals even in an area having
less than five hectares would be granted only after EC is obtained by the Applicant. Even the
Tribunal vide its order dated 5th February, 2013 in O.A. No. 171 of 2013, National Green
Tribunal Bar Association v. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, had directed
that the mining particularly in the river bed, should not be permitted without EC.

This extract is taken from Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
2016 SCC OnLine NGT 92
6. Even the CEC in its report dated 4th January, 2012 had noticed that large scale illegal
mining was found to be taking place adjoining the Hathnikund Barrage whereas mining is
specifically prohibited within a distance of 2.1 km from the Hathnikund Barrage. The Applicant
also refers to the large scale of illegal sand mining and its adverse impacts thereof. It is even
averred that this has a serious toll on the stability of the dams on river Yamuna. In the area of
Chhajja Aht, there are two dams, namely, the Tajewala Dam and the Hathnikund barrage. River
Yamuna has immense importance in terms of bio-diversity and the study conducted by the World
Wide Fund for Nature in collaboration with the Thames River Trust, UK has documented the
faunal diversity on a 194 km river stretch from Bateshwar Ghat in Agra to Dibholi Ghat in
Etawah. They found the gharials nesting near the confluence of Yamuna and Chambal apart from
other threatened species like the Gangetic dolphin and black-necked stork. The applicant submits
that illegal mining activity has serious impact on ecology and bio-diversity as well as it causes
destruction of flora and fauna including aquatic life, thus causing ecological imbalance and
environmental degradation.
36. From the pleadings, documents, affidavits and the submissions made by the respective
parties in the present case the following points fall for consideration before the Tribunal.
1. Whether the application as framed, is not maintainable as contended by the private
respondents?
2. Whether illegal mining of minor minerals, such as sand and boulder etc. and transportation
thereof is being carried on in both the States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh?
3. Whether the States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh were and are responsible and duty
bound to prevent such illegal mining under the laws in force, particularly, the
environmental laws?
4. Whether the lease holders and noticees are liable to pay environmental compensation
for the damage or degradation resulting from such activities to the environment,
ecology and biodiversity of the river and for its restoration?
5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should issue interim
guidelines and directions. If so, to what effect?

ISSUE NO. 3: WHETHER THE STATES OF HARYANA AND UTTAR PRADESH

WERE AND ARE RESPONSIBLE AND DUTY BOUND TO PREVENT SUCH
ILLEGAL MINING UNDER THE LAWS IN FORCE, PARTICULARLY, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS?
56. It is undisputable that mining activity in relation to minor minerals or otherwise is a
regulated and restricted activity. It can only be permitted in accordance with restrictions imposed
under the laws in force. These restrictions may be in relation to mining and its various aspects
and/or more importantly in relation to environment and ecology. This Tribunal is not really
concerned with the grant of mining lease/transit permits for mining per se. It would primarily be
concerned with the environmental issues arising therefrom. The former would be a relevant
consideration for an appropriate adjudication of the latter.
The Act of 1957 is the central legislation that had been enacted to provide for development
and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. Section 5 to 13 of this Act
provides for different restrictions and regulations subject to which the mining lease/transit
permits can be granted by the Central Government. However, these provisions are not applicable
in terms of Section 14 of the Act of 1957 to the quarries/mining leases in respect of minor
minerals. Under Section 15 of the Act of 1957, the State Government is vested with powers to
make Rules in respect of minor minerals by issuing a Notification in the Official Gazette. These
Rules are for regulating the grant of quarry lease, mining lease or other issues pertaining to grant
of/renewal of mineral concession in respect of minor minerals and for the purposes connected
therewith or incidental thereto. Sub-section 1A of Section 15 of the Act of 1957, inter-
alia provides fees that would be payable, the matters which should be stated in the application
for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions and the fees to be paid therefor,
conditions subject to which the authority grants/renews quarry leases, mining leases or other
mineral concessions, the procedure for obtaining quarry leases etc and the manner in which
rights of 3rd parties may be protected if prejudicially affected by any prospecting/mining
operations, the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs
and the like may be destroyed by reason of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made,
construction, maintenance and use of roads, power transmission lines, etc. and the period within
which and the manner in which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order
passed by any authority under the Rules may be made. Once the Rules are framed and notified
by the State Government, the operation of quarry leases/mining leases or other mineral
concessions is to be regulated and controlled in compliance of such Rules. The Central
Government is also empowered to frame Rules in respect of minerals in terms of Section 13 of
the Act of 1957. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 13 of the Act of 1957, the
‘Mineral Concession Rules, 1960’ (for short ‘Rules of 1960’) were framed by the Central
Government. Under Chapter IV of the Rules of 1960, Rule 22, Sub-Rule 1 provides that an
application for grant of a mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vests in the
Government shall be made to the State Government in Form-I through such officer or authority
as the State Government may specify in this behalf. This application is to be processed and dealt
with for grant/renewal of the lease by the State Government. Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 22 mandates
that the State Government shall take a decision to grant precise area for mining lease and
communicate such decision to the applicant. The applicant is required to submit a mining plan,
on receipt of communication from State Government, within a period of six months or such other
period as may be allowed by the State Government to the Central Government for its approval.
Duly approved mining plan shall be submitted by the applicant to the State Government for grant
of mining lease over that area. As per Sub-Rule 4A of Rule 22 notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-rule 4, the State Government shall be competent to approve mining plan of open
cast mines (mines other than underground mines). Under entry no. XXV of Sub-Rule 4A of Rule
22 Sand (others) is shown as one of the non-metallic or industrial minerals covered by the said
Rules.
This extract is taken from Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
2016 SCC OnLine NGT 92
57. The State of Uttar Pradesh framed the Rules of 1963 and they were to all apply to the
minor minerals available in the State. The mining lease could be granted or renewed by the State
Government on an application being addressed thereto subject to the restrictions contemplated in
Rule-4. As per Rules 5 and 6, the application shall be filed along with fees and deposits as
payable. Rule 7 makes it obligatory on the part of the District Officers to conduct or cause to be
conducted an enquiry into all relevant matters in that regard and, within two months from the
date of receipt of the application, two copies of the application along with his report prepared is
to be forwarded to the State Government or the persons so authorised by the State Government to
deal with the application for its final disposal. The application shall be dealt with and disposed of
in accordance with Rule 8 by the State Government or the authority so authorised. The extent of
areas for which the mining lease could be granted is dealt with in Rule 10. As per Rule 10(1)
minimum area for grant of a mining lease for sand or morrum or bajri or boulder or any of these
in mixed state exclusively found in river bed shall ordinarily be five hectares and mineral found
in the form of rock and not displaced from the place of its origin and other minor minerals shall
be one hectare. Rule 10(1) also provides that in case of non-availability of such extent of area,
this sub-rule would not apply. Rule 10(2) states that no mining lease shall be granted in respect
of any area which is, neither compact nor contiguous, or is otherwise not suitable to scientific
development. Under Rule 10(3) no person shall acquire in respect of any minor mineral, except
sand or morrum or bajari or boulder or any of these in mixed state exclusively found in river bed
exceeding three mining leases, covering a total area of more than 25 hectares. It provides that
mining leases in respect of sand or morrum or bajari or boulder or any of these in mixed state
exclusively found in river bed in area exceeding 5 number or 400 hectares shall not be granted in
favour of any person in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Period of mining lease is provided by
Rule-12. Rule 12(1) provides that a mining lease in relation to such minerals found exclusively
in river bed shall not be granted for a period of less than three years and in respect of other minor
minerals for a period of not less than five years and not more than ten years. Under Rule 12(2)
the State Government could grant a mining lease if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of
mineral development, for any period exceeding 10 years but not exceeding 15 years, for reasons
to be recorded in writing.

This extract is taken from Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
2016 SCC OnLine NGT 92
58. Rules of 1963 were amended by the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) (Thirty-
Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2015. They came into force on 14th July, 2015. Both Rules 8 and 12
were amended. Rule 8 under the old as well as the new Rules dealt with disposal of application.
In terms of amended Rule 8(b), an application for renewal of a mining lease for whole or part of
the area for such period, not exceeding the period of the original lease, as it may consider proper
was to be made. It also contemplated that the State Government may permit second renewal only
for those areas where minor mineral is found in mixed state exclusively in the river bed but the
period of such renewal shall not exceed the period of the original lease. However, in case of
second renewal of mining lease, the lessee shall pay two times annual lease amount or dead rent.
Rule 12 dealing with period of mining lease was also amended and in terms of the amended Rule
12(1), a mining lease in respect of sand or morrum or bajari or boulder or any of these in mixed
state exclusively found in the riverbed shall be granted for a fixed period of five years and in
respect of other minor minerals for a period not less than five years and not more than ten years.
Rule 12(2) is an exception to Rule 12(1) as it states that if the State Government is of opinion
that in the interest of mineral development, it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing grant a mining lease for any period exceeding 10 years but not exceeding 15
years. It further provides that the State Government may allow to extend the period of existing
mining leases in respect of sand or morrum or bajari or boulder or any of these in mixed state
exclusively found in the riverbed from the current period of three years to five years.
In terms of Rule 70 dealing with restrictions on transport of the minerals, Form MM 11 is
issued in the name of the holder of a mining lease or permit or person authorised by him in this
behalf and may issue a pass in Form MM 11 to every person carrying a consignment of minor
mineral by a vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport. It further provides that the State
Government is to make arrangements for the supply of printed Form MM 11 books on payment
basis. In terms of Rule 70(2) transportation of minor minerals by any mode as afore stated except
railways is prohibited within the State without carrying a pass in Form MM-11. The State
Government under Rule 70(4) is expected to establish check posts for any area and give a public
notice thereof by publication in the Gazette and a person cannot be permitted to transport the
minerals without first presenting the minerals at the check posts for verification of the weight or
measurement of the minerals. The officer authorised by the State Government under Rule 66 is
to be shown the said pass thereby allowing him to verify the correctness of the particulars of the
pass with reference to the quantity of the minor minerals.
61. We may notice here that we have referred to the statutory provisions and the Rules of
Uttar Pradesh and Haryana only to the extent it was necessary for us and where such provisions
are likely to have a bearing on the matters in issue before us. As already noted, we are primarily
concerned with the issue of illegal mining and transportation of minor minerals particularly, from
the riverbed of River Yamuna, mainly from the standpoint of environment, ecology, bio-
diversity, damage and degradation thereof.

This extract is taken from Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
2016 SCC OnLine NGT 92
62. As is evident from the records before the Tribunal, the minor minerals are being extracted
by unscientific and mechanical processes and in huge quantities contrary to the terms and
conditions of the mining lease and the EC granted. This fact is also established in the report of
the CEC dated 4th January, 2012 where it was observed that 107 stone crushers were operating in
State of Haryana and that there were trucks and JCB machines being deployed to carry out
mining activity. The documents on record show that even carriage of the minerals so extracted is
being done in complete violation of the environmental laws and regulations and no precaution is
being taken to ensure that no air pollution is caused by continuation of such an activity. It is
undisputable that during these operations, there is bound to be air pollution. The air pollution
caused by dust and sand particles from the operation of screening plants or stone crushers, would
attract the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short, “Air
Act”). The consent from the State of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana respectively to run such plants,
thus, would be a pre-requisite of law. The provisions of the Air Act particularly Section 21,
imposes restrictions upon the use of certain industrial plants under Section 21(1). Grant of
consent is mandatory from the concerned State Board to establish or operate any industrial plant
in an air pollution control area. It thus places an obligation upon the persons operating such
plants on the one hand while on the other hand it mandates the State Board to ensure that no such
industrial plant is permitted to operate if that falls within the air pollution control area. Section
17 enumerates the functions of the State Boards. Under Section 17(1)(b) the State has to collect
and disseminate information relating to air pollution, and under Section 17(1)(e) to inspect, at all
reasonable times, any control equipment, industrial plant or manufacturing process and to pass
appropriate order giving directions to ensure that there is prevention, control or abatement of air
pollution. Section 18 vests with the Board the power of issuing appropriate directions in that
behalf. In the present case, the residents of Haryana and even other persons made various
complaints, from time to time, bringing to the notice of different authorities in the State the high
emissions and its injurious effect thereof upon the health, property and agricultural activity of the
complainants.
This extract is taken from Gurpreet Singh Bagga v. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
2016 SCC OnLine NGT 92
64. In addition to the above mentioned provisions, the Central and the State Governments
have been vested with wide powers under Section 3 and 5 of the Act of 1986 to take appropriate
measures and/or to issue appropriate directions to protect and improve the quality of the
environment and to ensure that there is no environmental degradation and to prevent, control and
abate environmental pollution resulting from carrying on of any activity. The authorities, in
exercise of their powers and in performance of their functions under the Act of 1986 may issue
certain directions and/or take certain measures not only to prevent and control pollution but even,
where necessary and expedient, to improve the quality of the environment, and all
persons/authorities would be bound by such directions. This is the ambit and scope of the
responsibility of the Board and the authorities to ensure that there is no environmental
degradation or damage resulting from any activity including the activity of mining. The activity
of illegal mining is stated to have been carried on in these States now for years. Such illegal,
unauthorised and unscientific mining is bound to have adverse impacts upon the environment,
ecology and biodiversity, particularly, of the river. It is even apprehended that because of such an
activity, the river may change its course. Keeping in view the seriousness of these environmental
impacts, there can be no doubt that there was specific obligation placed upon the State Board and
other concerned authorities to prevent such activity and to ensure that there was no degradation
of the environment in that area. We can usefully refer to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case
of “Manoj Misra v. Union of India”, 2015 ALL (I) NGT Reporter (1) (Delhi) 139 where a larger
bench of the Tribunal discussed in greater detail the duties and responsibilities in relation to
environment under the Constitution of India, under the NGT Act and under the Act of 1986 and
upon detailed discussion, the Tribunal held as under:
“67. The concern of the framers of the Constitution for environment is not only exhibited
by introduction of Article 48A by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, but also by Article
51A(g) of the Constitution, which places a fundamental duty upon the citizens to protect and
improve the natural environment, including forests, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion
for living creatures. Therefore, the law declared by the Supreme Court of India, mandate 64
of the Constitution and the statutory rights and obligations, are ad idem to the mandate that
there has to be protection and improvement of environment and all must contribute to
provide decent and clean environment. United Nations conference on Environment and
Development held at Rio-de-Janeiro in June, 1992, in which India participated had also
called upon the States to provide effective access to judicial administrative proceedings,
including redress and remedy and to develop national laws regarding liability and
compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. The States in
discharge of their above obligation have enacted the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010,
which provides for access to specialised environmental justice in the country. This Tribunal
has been established for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental
protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources, including enforcement of
any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damage to the
person and property and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The primary
object of establishing this Tribunal is to provide easy access and expeditious dispensation of
environmental justice. The legislature in its wisdom has vested wide jurisdiction in the
Tribunal to ensure that major spectrum of environmental jurisprudence are covered, so as to
render effective and concerned decisions in the field of environment.”
This extract is taken from K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 418 :
2013 SCC OnLine SC 520 at page 479
84. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118] ,
the Court considered several interlocutory applications filed in the matter by which this Court
had stopped mining operations near Badkal Lake and Surajkund. After considering various
reports submitted by the expert bodies, the Court observed: (SCC pp. 167-68, paras 47-48)
“47. The mining operation is hazardous in nature. It impairs ecology and people's right to
natural resources. The entire process of setting up and functioning of mining operation
requires utmost good faith and honesty on the part of the intending entrepreneur. For carrying
on any mining activity close to township which has tendency to degrade environment and is
likely to affect air, water and soil and impair the quality of life of inhabitants of the area,
there would be greater responsibility on the part of the entrepreneur. The fullest disclosures
including the potential for increased burdens on the environment consequent upon possible
increase in the quantum and degree of pollution, has to be made at the outset so that the
public and all those concerned including authorities may decide whether the permission can
at all be granted for carrying on mining activity.

The regulatory authorities have to act with utmost care in ensuring compliance with
safeguards, norms and standards to be observed by such entrepreneurs. When questioned,
the regulatory authorities have to show that the said authorities acted in the manner
enjoined upon them. Where the regulatory authorities, either connive or act negligently by
not taking prompt action to prevent, avoid or control the damage to environment, natural
resources and people's life, health and property, the principles of accountability for
restoration and compensation have to be applied.
48. Development and the protection of environment are not enemies. If without degrading
the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it
is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable
development, in that eventuality, development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of
the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects, etc. including
the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has
 to be struck. We may note that to stall fast the depletion of forest, a series of orders have
been passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman case [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. State
of Kerala, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 665] regulating the felling of trees in all the forests in the
country. Principle 15 of the Rio Conference of 1992 [Ed.: See also A.P. Pollution Control
Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718 at p. 733, para 33.] relating to the
applicability of precautionary principle, which stipulates that where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, is also required
to be kept in view. In such matters, many a times, the option to be adopted is not very easy or
in a straitjacket. If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreparable damage to the
environment and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest. In
case of doubt, however, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic
interest. Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The
harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there
should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.”

2020 SCC OnLine NGT 545

J 2

In the National Green Tribunal

(BEFORE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER)

Kavitha … Applicant(s);

Versus

District Collector, Kanchipuram District and Others … Respondent(s).

As per Order dated 17.12.2019, this Tribunal has constituted a joint committee
comprising of District Collector, Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Mining
and Geology Department and Naduvakarai Panchayat to inspect the area in question and
submit a factual and action taken report and if there is any violation found to take action
accordingly and also assess the environmental compensation, if any damage caused to
the environment on account of the illegal operation of the unit by the third respondent as
alleged by the applicant.
___________________________________________________________________