Author- Shivam Shukla, University Of Allahabad, Prayagraj, U.P.

CASE DETAILS         

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is one of the biggest and most helpful measures to provide remedies to the aggrieved people who themselves could not approach the Courts. Especially in situations where the threat to Public Interest emerges and no one is to decide who will seek the Court. In this case, Environmental degradation due to illegal encroachment by a private company (SPAN MOTELS PVT. LTD)  is leading to the emergence of such an issue that will ultimately affect the people at large. On top of that such kind of illegal activity in hilly areas of Kullu, Rangri, Chakki, Naggar and other regions of Himachal Pradesh, drastically affects the native people of the area and their natural resources and cultural ethnicity.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural background of the Case

1. Petitioner: M C Mehta
2. Respondent: Kamal Nath and Others
3. Court: Supreme Court of India
4. Date of judgement: December 13, 1996
5. Bench: Justices Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad
6. Approaching the court: The Petitioner, M. C. Mehta filed the case directly in the Supreme Court of India in the form of a Public interest litigation (PIL) against the environmental degradation caused due to the illegal encroachment of land by Span Motel Private Limited in the hilly areas of Himachal Pradesh, having a connection with Kamal Nath a renowned Political personality of that area.

Factual Background of the Case

1. The case is rooted in a report published in one of the articles of the “Indian Express” talking about the indulgence of Kamal Nath with Span Motels Private Limited and the construction of Span Club, which was allegedly encroached upon 27.12 bighas of land, including forest land.
2. Affidavit by Mr Mukherji: A clarification through an affidavit was made by S. Mukerji, President of the Span Motels Private Limited, that Kamal Nath and his family had a business interest in the Company. However, they weren’t involved in the management activity of the company.
3. Lease agreement: “Government land measuring 40 bighas 3 Biswas situated alongside Kull- Manali Road on the bank of river Beas was granted on lease to the Motel for a period of 99 years with effect from October 1, 1972, to October 1, 2071. The lessee was granted permission to enter and occupy the said area to put up a motel and for installing ancillaries in due course as may be subsequently approved by the lessor”.
4. Reasons given by the company for construction in the unauthorized area: due to the severe flood erosion last year, the company had to build extensive stone, cemented and wire-mesh-created embankments all along the river banks and their own cost. Along with this. They also beautified the area and harmonised it for the locals by developing the entire waste and “banjar” area.
5. Environmental threats: the Supreme Court noticed the actual loss caused to the environment along with the potential threats that could further result if no action is taken on the acts of the company.  

LEGAL ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether encroachment upon the forest land and other government land for the construction of Sthe Pan Club by the Span Motels Private Limited illegal?
2. Whether inducting Kamal Nath as Respondent by the court in this case is wrong?
3. Whether the duty of the government under the Public Trust Doctrine has been breached as it leased the forested land to Span Motel Private Limited?

PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

It was submitted by the petitioners that all the construction work done by Span Motel Private Ltd. violates the law being done on illegally encroached land. Also, the act of the Company of diverting the river flow under the veil of protection of their land as well as the villages situated in that direction against the lease.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The Respondents submitted that the construction was done for the protection purpose of their land from soil erosion as well as the villages that would have fallen in between the river flow. On top of that, they submit that on refusal of application from the Divisional Officer due to lack of revenue compelled them to take such initiative on their resources. Thus, there was no such intentional mala fide encroachment.
2. Kamal Nath the face of the respondent pleaded that all the allegations against him were false on the basis that he has no title regarding the Company’s properties. Moreover, these allegations were a conspiracy to defame him and injure his reputation.
3. Banwari Lal Mathur, the executive director of the Span Motels tried to prove that the shares of the Motel were owned by Mr. Kamal Nath’s family and not by him. But the Court chose not to comment.
4. The Motel contends that the actions taken by them were taken on the land leased to them officially by the government and it was done to guard not only the land under the lease but also keep in mind the villages falling in the course of the river.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Doctrine of Public Trust: It means that there is a cordial relationship between the people and the state. It is presumed by the people of the nation that the natural resources like air, water, land etc. that are generally considered as the state’s property shall be used for the public interest and hence protect the public trust whenever feasible.

Polluter Pays Principle: This means that “Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on”. Thus, the Companies causing such harm shall be liable for it and it has to work for the revamping the loss occurred.

Precautionary Principle: this principle states that it is the duty rather than the responsibility of the person or industry whose carelessness might lead to hazardous pollution to take care and be vigilant towards their activities at the prompt. They must ensure such steps so that their action does not result in ill effects on nature.  

JUDGEMENT

1. “The prior approval granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest by the letter dated November 24, 1993, and the lease-deed dated April 11, 1994, in favour of the Motel was quashed”.
2. “The Motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area”.
3. The motel Management shall show why a pollution fine shall not be levied over it in addition.
4. The Motel shall build a wall at a distance of 4 meters from the rooms in the leased land without utilizing any part of the river basin. This wall shall separate the rooms from the river’s basin.
5. “The Motel shall not discharge untreated effluent into the river.”
6. It is to be proved by the Motel that why it shall not be liable to pay Pollution-fine and damages imposed on it.

RATIO DICENDI

1. The Public Trust Doctrine, as discussed in this judgement is a part of the law of the land.
2. Since Span Club was not for the Exclusive use of any individual, therefore it becomes important that the river be restored to its natural course and the land of the villagers must be restored.
3. Because of the distance of the river from the rooms i.e. 40 meters, there was no real threat to the rooms even during the peak time of flood in the Beas River.
4. In the letter to the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, dated October 19, 1988, requesting to stop erosion by appropriate measures, it was obvious that the motel had encroached upon an additional area of 22.2 bighas adjacent to the leasehold land.
5. Beas River’s right bank where the Motel is situated mostly cones under the forest area.

GUIDELINES 

1. The director of NEERI was given direction by the court to inspect the region, if necessary and to assess the cost, likely to be incurred to pay the damage caused by the actions of the Motel.
2. “The Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board shall not permit the discharge of untreated effluent into river Beas. The Board shall inspect all the hotels/institutions/factories in the Kullu-Manali area and in case any of them are discharging untreated effluent/waste into the river, the Board shall take action by law.”

OVERRULING JUDGEMENT

M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (2000 AIR SC 1997):

1. The Court held that Article 142 is curative, but it doesn’t authorize the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant.
2. The Court can not make a new statement which was not mentioned earlier by ignoring the specified rules and statutes.

OBITER DICTA

1. That the allegations made over Mr Kamal Nath by the “Indian Express’s Article” were highly exaggerated, erroneous, mischievous and mala fide and were published with an intent to defame the respondent.
2. The Motel started being operated in 1975. The Motel had two clusters with 8 dwelling units of 3 rooms each. There is no clear connection of the river basin with these rooms and the river was 50 meters away. There were over 800 trees in this area of 40 bighas.
3. It was criticized by the Supreme Court that Kamal Nath leased ecologically sensitive land for commercial purposes. The principle of the Public Trust Doctrine came into play. The Court said that public officials must act in conformity with environmental protection policies and laws.

 CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS

The present case is one of the epitomes of the vigilance of the court towards the protection of nature and its resources. It has been re-recognized that the right to live in a pure and pollution-free environment is a fundamental right under the purview of Article – 21.

All the natural resources i.e. air, water, sunlight forest etc. available on this earth are of public use. Thus, as per the Public Trust doctrine

REFERENCES

1. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC 388
2. Illinois Central Railroad Co. V. People of the State of Illinois 146 US 387
3. Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission 350 Mass 410 (1996)
4. Sacco v. Development of Public Works 532 Mass 670
5. Robbins v. Dept. Of Public Works 244 NE 2d 577
6. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County 33 Cal 3d 419
7. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
8. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212