http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5