AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter has been taken up suo motu in the light of captioned media report to the effect that there is unscientific discharge of sewage and garbage resulting in water pollution of Thanneerkulam lake in Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu.
It is well known that water bodies have great environmental significance and need to be protected by remedial action of removing garbage/waste and encroachments. We may refer to order of this Tribunal dealing with the issue of protection of water bodies dated 18.11.2020 in O.A. No. 325/2015, Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. Union of India & Ors. Following observations in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were quoted therein:
i. “State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205, at page 212:
“6. 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.”
ii. Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496, at page 500:
“13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
iii. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606, at page 628:
“… … …
… As was observed by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath our legal system based on English common law includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, 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.”
iv. Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549, at page 574:
“75. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388, Kuldip Singh, J., writing for the majority held:
“34. Our legal system … includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. … The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources.”
The Supreme Court of California, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine Country also known as Mono Lake case summed up the substance of the doctrine. The Court said:
“Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering the right only in those rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistent with the purposes of the trust.”
This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the State holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts must make a distinction between the Government’s general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources [Joseph L. Sax “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jan. 1970) pp. 471-566]. According to Prof. Sax, whose article on this subject is considered to be an authority, three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine [ibid]:
the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;
the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent;
the property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.”
v. Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors., 2019 SCC Online 1510 pr 20
“…. …. …
…. Water bodies, specifically, are an important source of fishery and much needed potable water. Many areas of this country perennially face a water crisis and access to drinking water is woefully inadequate for most Indians. Allowing such invaluable community resources to be taken over by a few is hence grossly illegal.”
In view of above, the matter needs to be looked into and remedial action taken by the District Magistrate, Tiruvallur and Tamilnadu State PCB as per law.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Tiruvallur District and TN State PCB by email for compliance.