Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Environment protection act notes
Environment protection act notes
Object:
S. 2(a), env includes: a. water, air and land, b. the interrelationship among and between a., human
beings, living creatures, plants, microorganisms and property.
- major urban ills such as noise, traffic, transportation system, slums and congestion are absent from
the act.
MC Mehta v UOI (Taj Trapezium Case) – emission of SO2 (coal and diesel) – 10 fold of standard fixed
by the CPCB – ‘acid rain’ – corrosion of marble to Taj Mahal.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v UOI, untreated effluent from tanneries – changed physico-chemical
properties of soil – contaminated underground water – drinking water of 350 wells polluted.
Air Act under S. 2(a) – includes noise as pollutant (beyond 65 dB, more than 100 dB intolerable and
affects health – Bijayananda Patra v District Magistrate
- Hot mix plant- resurface to airport runway – hazardous industry – air pollution
S. 2(f) – person who has control of affairs or factory/ who is in possession of the substance
S. 3 – powers, S. 3(1) – take all measure as it deems necessary to protect and improve quality
- Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd v UOI – central govr should appoint theory at state and central level
for national forest policy, 1988, discussion, participation and circulation.
- if EIA of project done by MoEF in ’94 then no need for 2006 notification.
In subhash Kumar v state of bihar, court to prevent Bokaro collieries from the polluting the river by
disallowing discharge of slurry in i.
- Orders and intro of BS-VI grade auto-fuel all over India used in NCT and 30 other cities
- Production of vehicles by company to subscribe w these standards by 1 April 2020
Pros and Cons of proposed activity including the natural, social and economic aspects. Whether the
project can start or not.
- Int association for impact assessment (IAIA) process of identifying, predcting, evaluating and
mitigating the biophysical, social and other effects of development proposals
- To ensure sus dev
- National organisation of reform of marijuana law v US
- Even very early (napoleon in 1910 - into categories)
- Our common future inspired the same in many European countries
Mandatory method
Cost-benefit analysis – compares all expected present and future benefits of a project with costs
- This was adopted by the courts in G. Sundarrajan v UOI and Goa Foundation v Konkan
Railway Corpn.,
- Espoo convention
- To carry out an EIA on early stages of planning of certain activities – Ukraine
Indian Model
In Noida memorial complex near Okhla bird sanctuary, re – EIA notification calls for a close second
look, project under 8(a) and 8(b) to be defined w/ clarity
- Env clearance given by centr govt in 1987, prior to ’84. Dispute – height of dam – settled by
award in ’78 – construction taken up in ’87.
- Writ filed to challenge the construction – SC – 100 cr of public money spent, groups in PIL
cant be entertained.
- Even though notification of ’94 not applicable to mining mineral but coz of degradation, EIA
is must. Also applicable for renewal.
- SC appointed a monitoring committee
- Complete ban
Rule 3 of EPA rules – procedure for emission or discharge of env pollutants from industries in
Schedules I – IV.
In Deepak Kumar v State of Haryana (illegal mining in Haryana, Rajasthan and UP), no EIA required if
mining is less than 5 hectares, but if it is near a stream and will have an impact then it requires EIA.
SC In F.B. Taraporewala v Bayer India Ltd directed centr govt to constitute authority to examine
relocation of industrial and residential areas under S. 3(3) of EPA and Maharashtra town planning
act. Chemicals would cause harm to the residents in case of any accident.
Laying down procedures for prevention of accidents which may cause env pollution and remedial
measure for such accidents.
For handling of hazardous substances
- Research foundation for science v UOI, (breaking of ship at yard containing asbestos – ‘blue
lady ship’) – SC directed govt to form a code for recomm. of expert committee for ship
breaking industry
Indian council for enviro-legal action v uoi; constituted Maharashtra coastal zone mngmt authority.
To prevent coastal env, inquiry into cases of violation. The working of the same examined in Sneha
mandal coop housing society v UOI.
- Kuldip singh – pity that no authority has been created under S. 3(3).
Vellore – green bench for env pollution cases as in WB and MP. – precautionary and polluter pays
principles. Untreated toxic effluents from tanneries – 584 industries from north arcot were plluting
river palar – land poll – 170 chemical types in process – spoiled soil and underground water – sc
issued directions – installation of poll control devices.
In S. Jagannath v UOI (shrimp farms on sea coast and construction of ponds is hazardous, ‘polluter
pays principle’ they had to pay individuals and reverse ecology of that area) – constitute authority
under 3(3) for protection of ecological fragile coastal area, waterfront and others
Nation env tribunal and national env appellate authority were constituted under S. 3(3) of EPA
In Mahabir soap and gudakhu factory v UOI: (manu tobacco toothpaste) govt issued direction to
petitioner to close down, and told authorities to disconnect water and electricity. But no hearing
given, but it gave 15 days after issuing notice, man partners filed objection w/in 15 days, inquire in
factory u/s 21, 25 and 26 of Water Act. After, closure was directed till measure were taken.
Court said no rule provides for opportunity to be heard. No denial of natural justice.
Similar in Narula Dyeing and Printing works v UOI, directions u/s 5 by Gujju SPCB to close down. They
challenged powers of state govt to do so and no personal hearing. Court said centr govt can delegate
u/s 23 of the Act.
In sachidanand pandey v state of WB
Chap III
DS Rana v ahemdabad municipal corp, melt of gold and silver – harmful to health of public,
commissioner of municipal corp refused to renew license – to shift to industrial zone- within powers.
Indian council for enviro legal action v uoi: 5 factories – hyaluronic acid – bichhari village – Udaipur –
untreated effluents – damage to soil and water – 60 wells over 350 heactres became red and unfit –
land infertile – frist court ordered closure then later payment – strengthen env protection
machinery. 4 cr.
S. 18 – Protection of govt and its employees, corollary to S. 17. Protection for anything done in good
faith.
Also, to be read w. S. 15 - 19. cognizance of offences; except complaint made by a. centr govt or on
his behalf and b. any person – notice – not less than 60 days – to centr govt
Notice can be given in acc of rule 11 – form IV, if in UT, to CB/MoEF, if in state, SB, govt of state
S. 20; empowers central govt to require any govt or other authority to furnish any info, report or
returns
All members of authority under S. 3 or any employee under him will be public servants u/s 21 of IPC.
S. 23 – power to delegate does not give absolute power and cannot include s 3(3)
NOISE POLLUTION:
- Nuisance
Dealt w noise pollution in EPA – Church of God (full gospel) v KKR Majestic colony
- Aircraft act, 1934 (S.5) ONLY UNDER Indian aircraft(public health) rules, 1946
- To no check to curb noise under railway act
- Motor vehicles act 1988, and noise control – S 110, rules made by state is not as effective to
check noise pollution
MP Control of music and noises, act, bihar control of the use and play of loudspeakers, act, - S.3
- Bijayananda patra v DM Cuttack, to have permanent monitoring body and separate courts to
deal w/ noise pollution
- Church of God, preaching should not be disturbing others
- Narendra prasadji, art 25 and 26 are not absolute
- Mc mehta v UOI – badkhal lake and surajkund area – 200 m around green belt
- Shobhana ramasubramanyam v Chennai metropolitan dev auth – noise produced by
machinery more than 86dB is disturbing residential area – closure of works – env rights as
third gen rights
- Hetalban jitendrakumar v Sabarmati police station – 2 and half yr old boy lost one eye due to
firework – 15k rupees as relief
- Not until 42nd amendment via 48-A and 51(A)(g) to protect and improve env
- Obligation on central govt
- State of Rajasthan v G Chawla – whether state legislature has right to prev + ctrl noise pollu
and make it punishable – ajmer act was challenged saying state govt had no power to do so
– not unconsti and is a reasonable restriction.
- State can make laws under entry 8 ‘public health and list of sanitation of list II prov under
schedule 7)
Exemption/relaxation reasonable
- Constitutional validity of rule 5(3) challenged in noise pollution, re v uoi; state govt to permit
use from 10-12 during festive for max 15 days in a year – granted by central govt under EPA
S 25 is valid.
- Burrabazar fire works dealer v commr. Of police – rr, fr, noise and health blah blah
- Same in om birangana v state of orissa – art 25 subject to 19(1)(b)
- Arjun Gopal v UOI
- Anirudh kumar v MCD – to close the pathological lab illegal operation in residence building
noise pollu beyond limits.