Holding

The petition was dismissed as frivolous and without merit because no violation of environmental statutes or fundamental rights was established.

Summary

The Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti filed a letter alleging that an oil mill and a refinery in the Sarnath area were causing severe air and water pollution, leading to health hazards and ecological damage, and treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32. The respondents, including the State of U.P. and the mill proprietor, contended that they complied with the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and that no complaint had been lodged by any authority. The Court examined whether the petition raised a genuine public‑interest issue, whether the petitioner had locus standi, and whether the alleged pollution amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Relying on the lack of any statutory breach, the absence of complaints, and the long‑standing rivalry between the parties, the Court held that the petition was frivolous and devoid of merit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for abuse of the constitutional process.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable for alleged environmental pollution in the absence of any statutory violation or complaint.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi and is acting in genuine public interest.
Whether alleged pollution, if any, infringes the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Whether the court can intervene despite the respondents' compliance with the Air and Water Pollution Acts.

Legislation cited

Subjects

environmental lawArticle 32Article 21public interest litigationpollutionfundamental rightsmisuse of processlocus standi

Judgment

CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMJTI
A
v.
STATE OF U.P AND ORS.

AUGUST 13, 1990

[SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ AND K.N. SAIKIA, J.J B

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21-Environmental pollu-
tion-Allegations-Scrutiny of-Found to be frivolous-No complaint
- ~ from any other person or authority-cHeld pollution laws not violated.

Article 32-Epistolary juridiction-Protection of Fundamental
Rights-Public interest and public protection-Genuine interest-
c
Misuse of-Not to be permitted-Court to act with !lreat deal of cir·
cumspection and caution.

The Petitioner, representing a Social Organisation, has written a
Jetter alleging environment pollution in some villages and the adjoining D
Sarnath Temple. The letter was treated as Writ Petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India. It was alleged that the smoke and dust
emitted from the Chimneys of Respondent No. 3, viz., an oil Mill and a
refinery plant in the area, and the effluents discharged by the plants
has been causing serious environmental pollution in the thickly
populated area, leading to epidemic diseases. It was further alleged that E
even the flora was badly affected by pollution. Petitioner prayed for
directions 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 Pollu-
tion) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) F
Act, 1974 and there was no complaint 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.
G
Dismissing the writ petition,

HELD: 1. Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preser-
J_ vation of fundamental rights of the citizens. Every citizen has a mnda-
mental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as
contemplated by Artkte 21 of the Constitution oflndia. Anything which H

739
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 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 safe-
guard must be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of
B 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.
c That would be an act or a conduct which will defeat the very purpose of
preservation of fundamental rights. [743B-E]

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors., [1984) 2 SCR
67, referred to.
D
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 cham-
pions on behalfofthe society are scrutinised. [743G)

·E 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 respondent No. 3 herein leading to
pollution of air or ecological 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
F from anybody apart from the petitioner, or any authority as to the
non-compliance of any statute by Respondent No. 3. [743A-B; 742G)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 577 of 1988.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
G
S.R. Bhat and R. Venkataramani for the Petitioner

Dr. B.S. Chauhan for the Respondents and Shobha Dikshit for
the State ofU.P.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANGHARSH SAMIT! v. STATE OF U.P. [MUKHARJI, J.] 741

SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, CJ. A letter written to this Court
A
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 environmental pollution in the area. It was
also alleged therein that the Jhun jhunwala 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 B
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 foui 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
c

of children was affected. It was further alleged that the schools, nurs-
ing homes, leprosy homes and hospitals situated on the one kilometre
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 D
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 leakage.
E
In that background, the petitioner prayed for necessary direc-
tions to check the pollution, and also enclosed a printed leaflet alleging
mal-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 F
Samiti stated to be a social organisation about environmental 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 Qf life to be preserved and the economic development to be G
encouraged. Dealing with this aspect in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
& Ors., [1988] 1 SCR 279, it has been stated that whenever applica-
l tions for licences to establish new industries are made in future, such
applications 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, H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ll990] 3 S.C.R.

counter affidavits was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 being the
A 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 verification of allegations. The Court was asked to be ever
vigilant against abuse of its process and there was need for appropriate
B verification. There is a statute for controlling pollution. It is well-
settled that if there is a statute prescribing a judicial procedure govern-
ing 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 proce-
dure at variance with it. It is further asserted on behalf of the respon-
dents that between the petitioner Sita Ram Pandey and respondent
No. 3, there was a long rivalry. According to respondent No. 3, the
c 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 proceed-
ing against the petitioner and several items have been marked in the
D 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 Coqtrol of Pollution) Act, 1981 and of the water
E (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and there is no comp-
laint of any kind from any person, body or authority. The correspon-
dence, 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), Dist!. Varanasi,.allegi~g
F 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 violati0n of the
G said Acts.

Time was sought on behalf of respondents for filing a rejoinder
which, unfortunately, has not been filed, and no satisfactory explana-
tion has been given therefor. Certain letters alleged to have been
written on behalf of the petitioners were sought to be placed before us
H in the Court today.
SANGHARSH SAMITI v. STAIB OF U.P. [MUKHARJI, J.J 743

Having considered the facts, circumstances, nature of the allega- A
J-. lions and the long history of en emit and animosity, 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 attributable to respondent No. 3 herein leading to
pollution of air or ecological imbalances calling for interference by this
B
Court.·

Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of
r ~undamental rights of the citizens. Every citizen has a fundamental
right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemp-
lated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Anything which
endangers or impairs by tonduct of anybody either in violation or in c
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 D
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 pem!itted
to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventUig
Y other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the E
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 fundamental right violation or F
could be violative if the allegations of the so-called champions on
f '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 protection. This appli-
cation certainly creates bottlenecks in courts, which is an abuse of
process of this Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in dismissing G
this application with the 0bser.Yations made herein.

J_G.N. Petition dismissed.