PETITIONER:
CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMITI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/08/1990
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ)
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 2060 1990 SCR (3) 739
1990 SCC (4) 449 JT 1990 (3) 685
1990 SCALE (2)332
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1991 SC 983 (2)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21--Environmental
pollution-Allegations-Scrutiny of--Found to be frivolous--No
complaint from any other person or authority--Held pollution
laws not violated.
Article 32--Epistolary jurisdiction--Protection of
Fundamental Rights--Public interest and public
protection--Genuine interest-Misuse of--Not to be
permitted--Court to act with great deal of circumspection
and caution.
HEADNOTE:
The Petitioner, representing a Social Organisation, has
written a letter alleging environment pollution in some
villages and the adjoining Sarnath Temple. The letter was
treated as Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion of India. It was alleged that the smoke and dust emit-
ted from the Chimneys of Respondent No. 3, viz., an oil Mill
and a refinery plant in the area, and the effluents dis-
charged by the plants has been causing serious environmental
pollution in the thickly populated area, leading to epidemic
diseases. It was further alleged that even the flora was
badly affected by pollution. Petitioner prayed for direc-
tions to check the pollution.
On behalf of Respondent No. 3, it was contended that it
had complied with the provisions of Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and there was no com-
plaint whatsoever. It was further stated that the petitioner
was an anti-social element and his only aim was to blackmail
and extract money from people like Respondent No. 3, and
that a criminal case has already been filed against him, for
such activities.
Dismissing the writ petition,
HELD: 1. Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard
for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens.
Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment
of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21
of the Constitution of India. Anything which
740
endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in viola-
tion or in derogation of laws, that quality of life and
living by the people is entitled to be taken recourse of
Article 32 of the Constitution. But this can only be done by
any person interested genuinely in the protection of the
society on behalf of the society or community. This weapon
as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the Court
with great deal of circumspection and caution. Where it
appears that this is only a cloak to "feed fat ancient
grudge" and enemity, this should not only be refused but
strongly discouraged. While it is the duty of this Court to
enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this
Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not
be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck
in the superior Court preventing other genuine violation of
fundamental rights being considered by the Court. That would
be an act or a conduct which will defeat the very purpose of
preservation of fundamental rights. [743B-E]
Bandhu Mukti Morchay. Union of lndia & Ors., [1984] 2
SCR 67, referred to.
2.1. This petition is legally devoid of any merit or
principles of public interest and public protection. There
was no fundamental right violation or could be violative if
the allegations of the so-called champions on behalf of the
society are scrutinised. [743G]
2.2. Prima facie the provisions of the relevant Act,
namely, the Air Pollution Control Act have been complied
with and there is no conduct which is attributable to re-
spondent No. 3 herein leading to pollution of air or ecolog-
ical imbalances calling for interference by this Court. The
orders passed by the Pollution Control Board also indicate
that there were no instances of any violation. There was no
complaint from anybody apart from the petitioner, or any
authority as to the non-compliance of any statute by Re-
spondent No. 3. [743A-B; 742G]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 577 of
1988.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
S.R. Bhat and R. Venkataramani for the Petitioner
Dr. B.S. Chauhan for the Respondents and Shobha Dikshit
for he State of U.P.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
741
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. A letter written to this Court
was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. The letter written by Chhetriya
Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti. Sarnath, alleged environ-
mental pollution in the area. It was also alleged therein
that the Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and a refinery plant are
located in the green belt area, touching three villages and
the Sarnath temple of international fame. The smoke and dust
emitted from the chimneys of the Mills and the effluents
discharged from these plants were alleged to be causing
environmental pollution in the thickly populated area and
were proving a great health hazard. It was further stated
that the people were finding it difficult to eat and sleep
due to smoke and foul smell and the highly polluted water.
It was further alleged that the lands in the area had become
waste, affecting crops and the orchards damages. Diseases
like TB, jaundice and other ailments were stated to be
spreading in an epidemic form. The growth of children was
affected. It was further alleged that the schools, nursing
homes, leprosy homes and hospitals situated on the one
kilometer long belt touching the oil Mills and the plant
were adversely affected. It was stated that licences had
been issued to one richman Dina Nath for these industrial
units thereby risking the lives of thousands of people
without enforcing any safety measure either to cure the
effluents discharged from the plants or to check the smoke
and the foul smell emitted from the chimneys. The whole area
was expected to be ruined due to any explosion or gas leak-
age.
In that background, the petitioner prayed for necessary
directions to check the pollution, and also enclosed a
printed leaflet alleging real-practices and corruption on
the part of the proprietor of these industrial units apart
from polluting the atmosphere.
As mentioned hereinbefore, the complaint was made by the
said Samiti stated to be a social organisation about envi-
ronmental pollution and ecological imbalance being caused by
the two plants and thereby exposing the population to health
hazards and life risk which was, therefore, considered to be
a matter of great public importance. It is necessary to
recognise the danger in order to strike a balance between
the quality of life to be preserved and the economic devel-
opment to be encouraged. Dealing with this aspect in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 1 SCR 279, it has
been stated that whenever applications for licences to
establish new industries are made in future, such applica-
tions should be refused unless adequate provision has been
made for the treatment of trade effluents flowing out of the
factories. So, this letter was treated as a writ petition
and notice was issued,
742
counter affidavits was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3
being the proprietor of Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills. Reference
was made to the decision of this Court in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 2 SCR 67 wherein
this Court underlined the importance of satisfactory verifi-
cation of allegations. The Court was asked to be ever vigi-
lant against abuse of its process and there was need for
appropriate verification. There is a statute for controlling
pollution. It is wellsettled that if there is a statute
prescribing a judicial procedure governing a particular
case, the court must follow such procedure. It is not open
to the court to by pass the statute and evolve a different
procedure at variance with it. It is further asserted on
behalf of the respondents that between the petitioner Sita
Ram Pandey and respondent No. 3, there was a long rivalry.
According to respondent No. 3, the petitioner is an anti-
social-element and his only aim was to extract money from
the people like respondent No. 3 as in the present case.
It has further been stated that there has been criminal
proceeding against the petitioner and several items have
been marked in the affidavit in opposition. The particulars
make out a rather disgraceful state of affairs. It has been
alleged that Mr. Sita Ram Pandey for the last so many years
was blackmailing the people, and a case u/s 500 of the I.P.C
being Case No. 121/88 was filed. It has been further averred
that respondent No. 3 has complied with the provisions of
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and
of the water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
and there is no complaint of any kind from any person, body
or authority. The correspondence, in this connection, has
been set out.
It further appears that as early as 1980, the petitioner
had made various complaints to the A.D.M. (Supply), Distt.
Varanasi, alleging that respondent No. 3 was accused of
smuggling of coal and diesel blackmailing. It was dismissed.
It further appears that there was no complaint from anybody
apart from the present petitioner by any authority as to the
non-compliance of any statute by respondent No. 3. The
orders passed by the Pollution Control Board which had been
annexed, also indicate that there are no instance of viola-
tion of the said Acts.
Time was sought on behalf of respondents for filing a
rejoinder which, unfortunately, has not been filed, and no
satisfactory explanation has been given therefore. Certain
letters alleged to have been written on behalf of the peti-
tioners were sought to be placed before us in the Court
today.
743
Having considered the facts, circumstances, nature of
the allegations and the long history of enemit and animosi-
ty, we are of the opinion that prima facie the provisions of
the relevant Act, namely, the Air Pollution Control Act have
been complied with and there is no conduct which is at-
tributable to respondent No. 3 herein leading to pollution
of air or ecological imbalances calling for interference by
this Court.
Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preser-
vation of fundamental rights of the citizens. Every citizen
has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of
life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Consti-
tution of India. Anything which endangers or impairs by
conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of
laws, that quality of life and living by the people is
entitled to be taken recourse of Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion. But this can only be done by any person interested
genuinely in the protection of the society on behalf of the
society or community. This weapon as a safeguard must be
utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of circum-
spection and caution. Where it appears that this is only a
cloak to “feed fact ancient grudge” and enemity, this should
not only be refused but strongly discouraged. While it is
the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is
also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under
Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused
creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventing other
genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by
the Court. That would be an act or a conduct which will
defeat the very purpose of preservation of fundamental
rights.
Having regard to the ugly rivalry here, we have no doubt
that between the contestants, the Court was misled and we
must, therefore, proceed with caution. There was no funda-
mental right violation or could be violative if the allega-
tions of the so-called champions on behalf of the society
are scrutinised. We must protect the society from the so-
called ‘protectors’. This application is legally devoid of
any merit or principles of public interest and public pro-
tection. This application certainly creates bottlenecks in
courts, which is an abuse of process of this Court. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in dismissing this application with
the observations made herein.
G.N. Petition dis-
missed.
744