A. R. C. Cement Limited V. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction
A. R. C. Cement Limited v. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction
AIR 1998 Delhi 359
Civil Writ Petition No. 3791 of 1996, D/-23-9-1997
A. P. Misra, C. J. and Dalveer Bhandari, J.
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), S. 20 – Sick Industrial Company – Company polluting the atmosphere – No alternative site found out by company promptly – Financial Institutions not ready to waive huge interest due from Company – Expert body such as operating agency scrutinizing matter and recommen&ing company for being wound up and not for revival – Order for winding up of Company – No interference by High Court.
Almitra Patel v. Union of India&
(1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 416
J.S. Verma, C.J. and B.N. Kirpal and V.N. Khare, JJ.
ORDER - We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Vellapalli, learned Senior Counsel. We consider it appropriate at this stage to constitute a Committee and to specify the specific aspects which the Committee is required to examine. We direct accordingly.
2. The Committee for Class I Cities (having population over one lakh) shall consist of the following:
(1) Mr. Asim BurmanChairman
Commissioner, Calcutta Municipal Corporation
(2) Mr. S.R. Rao Member
Secretary, SSI, Govt. of Gujarat & ex-Commr. Surat
(3)Mr. S.K. ChawlaMember
Chief Engineer, CPWD
(4)Mr. P.U. Asnani Member
Urban Env. Infrastructure Rep for India, USAID and Consultant,
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(5) Dr. SarojMember
Jt. Director, Ministry of Environment & Forests
(6)Mr. Rajat BhargavaMember
Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation
(7)Mr. Yogendra TripathiMember
(Dy. Secy. Urban Dev. MOUA & E)
(8)Mrs Almitra PatelMember
(Convenor, INTACH Waste Network)
3. The terms of reference for the Committee shall be as under:
To look into all aspects of urban solid waste management, particularly:
(1)Examine the existing practices and to suggest hygienic processing and waste disposal practices and proven technologies on the basis of economic feasibility and safety which the Corporations/Government may directly or indirectly adopt or sponsor.
(2)Examine and suggest ways to improve conditions in the formal and informal sector for promoting eco-friendly sorting, collection, transportation, disposal, recycling and reuse.
(3)To review municipal bye-laws and the powers of local bodies and regional planning authorities and suggest necessary modifications to ensure effective budgeting financing, administration, monitoring and compliance.
(4)Examine and formulate standards and regulations for management of urban solid waste, and set time-frames within which the authorities shall be bound to implement the same.
4. The Committee is requested to give its report as early as possible preferably not later than 30-6-1998. The Committee is also requested to give such interim reports as it may find convenient so to do.
5. The secretarial assistance at Delhi will be provided by the Ministry of Urban Development which will also make all other arrangements required by the Committee for its proper functioning while arrangements within the States/Union Territories would be made by the State/Union Territory concerned. The expenses incurred for the purpose to the same extent would be borne at this stage by the Ministry of Urban Development and the State Governments/ Union Territories concerned. The final responsibility for meeting these expenses would be decided later on.
6. The local authorities and State Governments/Union Territories concerned shall extend all cooperation and assistance to the Committee for its proper functioning.
Arun Sanyal v. State of West Bengal
AIR 1998 Calcutta 331
Writ Petition No. 7702 (W) of 1998, D/-9-6-1998
B. P. Banerjee and Ronojit Kumar Mitra, JJ.
Bengal Municipal Act (15 of 1932), S. 250 – Duty of Municipal Corporation – Employees of Corporation dumping garbage at particular place in resident locality – Municipal Corporation directed to take effective steps to keep area clean.
Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta
AIR 1998 Calcutta 121
Writ Petition No. 2725 of 1996, D/- 26-9-1997
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee and Asis Baran Mukherjee, JJ.
Constitution of India, Arts. 19(I)(g), 21- Right to manufacture, sell and deal with fire works – No inherent right in a citizen to manufacture the fire works which creates sound beyond permissible limits – Restriction on manufacture of such fire works by authorities in pursuance of order of High Court however, without taking formal decision regarding sound level of fire works to be used in State – Pollution Control Board directed to take such decision after considering all aspects of matter.
Environment (Protection) Act (29 of 1986), S. 2(b).
Environment (Protection) Rules (1986), R. 3.
Art.19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India does not guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade or business which creates pollution or which takes away that communities safety, health and peace. Accordingly, there is no inherent or fundamental right in a citizen to manufacture, sell and deal with fire works which will create sound beyond permissible limit and which will generate pollution which would endanger the health and the public order. A citizen or people cannot be made a captive listener to hear the tremendous sounds caused by bursting out from a noisy fire works. It may give pleasure to one or two persons who burst it but others have to be a captive listener whose fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (a) and other provisions of the Constitution are taken away, suspended and made meaningless. However, as in the instant case, without taking any formal decision the Pollution Control Board issued orders in pursuance of direction of High Court restricting manufacture, sale, use of certain fire works creating sound beyond permissible limits, the Board was directed to take such decision regarding sound level to be used in the State, after considering all aspects of matter. In such a case, it could not be said that the Parliament and/or the Legislature in their wisdom, had not passed any law for putting such a restriction and in the absence of any specific provision in any law, the administration cannot do this thing through the order of the Court. If a citizen has a right it is also equally a duty on the part of High Court to see that such rights are preserved and not allowed to be destroyed. Legislature may not rise to the occasion but that does not mean that Court will keep its hand folded in the absence of any legislative mandate. The courts are the custodian of the rights of the citizens and if the court is of the view that citizens’ rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India are violated, the court is not powerless to end the wrong. Principle of judicial activisms confers power upon the court to be active and not to remain inactive for the purpose of protecting rights, duties and obligations of the people. Further, in India, no effective and elaborate law has been made for controlling the noise creator. But under Art. 19 (1) (a), read with Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the citizens have a right of a decent environment and they have a right to live peacefully, right to sleep at night and to have a right to leisure which are all necessary ingredients of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
(Paras 53, 54, 57, 61, 67)
…9. It is submitted that the provisions of under Section 16 (2)(h) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 1981 provided power upon the Central Pollution Control Board “lay down standards for the quality of air” and definition of environment pollutants has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which means” any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to environment”. Rule 3 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 provides:
“(1) For the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing and abating environmental pollution, the standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from the industries, operations or processes shall be as specified in (schedule I to IV).
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the Central Board or a State Board may specify more stringent standards from those provided in (schedule I to IV) in respect of any specific industry, operation or process depending upon the quality of the recipient system and after recording reasons, therefore, in writing.”
Centre for Environmental Law v. Union of India
1998 ELD 4
Interlocutory Application No. 2 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995, decided on 7-11-1997
G.T. Nanavati, S.C. Agarwal, JJ.
Ss. 6, 4, 21 – Constitution of Wildlife Advisory Board, appointment of Honorary Wildlife Wardens and issuance of proclamations under S. 21 - Affidavits filed by various States about steps taken in connection with – Further time granted for compliance with Court’s orders.
Centre for Environmental Law v. Union of India
1998 ELD 6
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995 with Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 241 of 1998, decided on 17-7-1998
M. Srinivasan, S.C. Agarwal, S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
(A) Ss. 33A, 34 and 24 – Directions issued – All States and Union Territories directed: (1) under S. 33A to take concrete steps for the establishment of centres for immunisation of livestock; (2) under S. 34 to frame the necessary rules for purpose of registration of persons in possession of arms within two months and process of registration to be completed within four months thereafter; (3) under S. 24 to indicate the present position with regard to the process of determination of rights and acquisition of rights over land within declared sanctuaries; and (4) to indicate within four weeks the steps taken to provide forest guards with modern arms and communication facilities.
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Notice for initiating contempt proceedings directed to be issued to the Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka as no one appeared and also no affidavit filed regarding steps taken towards issuance of proclamation under S. 21 of wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in respect of establishment of wildlife sanctuaries.
(C) S. 12 – Contempt notice against Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland, who present in person, discharged in view of explanation offered in affidavit.
Centre for Environmental Law v. Union of India
1998 ELD 9
Interlocutory Application No. 2 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995, decided on 20-3-1998
S.C. Agarwal, S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
(A) Ss. 4, 6, 21, 33A, 34 – Constitution of Wildlife Advisory Board, appointment of Wildlife Wardens and issuance of proclamations under S. 21.
(B) State Govts/UTs further directed to file affidavits indicating compliance with the provisions of Ss. 33A and 34 and steps taken to prohibit the activities in a national park/sanctuary which are prohibited under the provisions of the Act.
Para 8
Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India
1998 ELD 10
Interlocutory Application No. 2 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995, decided on 16-1-1998
S.C. Agrawal and A.P. Misra, JJ.
ORDER
Regarding constitution of Wildlife Advisory Boards
1. From the affidavits that have been filed after the passing of he order dated 7-11-1997 it appears that the Boards have been constituted in all the States/Union Territories.
Regarding appointment of Honorary Wildlife Warden
2. Affidavits have been filed by the States concerned which show that except the national capital territory of Delhi, Honorary Wildlife Wardens have been appointed in the other States/Union Territories. The learned counsel appearing for Delhi State states that the process for appointment is going on and the order for appointment would be issued within four weeks.
3. In our order dated 7-11-1997 we had noticed that only one Honorary Wildlife Warden had been appointed in the State of Uttar Pradesh even though there are a large number of districts. The learned counsel for the State had stated that the process for appointment of Honorary Wildlife Wardens for the districts was going on and that such appointments shall be made within four weeks Shri R.C. Verma, the learned counsel for the State, states that it has not been possible to make the appointments on account of the impending general election and the model code of conduct. He prays for six weeks' further time for making the appointment. We are not satisfied that this is a proper justification for not taking action in the matter of appointment of the Honorary Wildlife Wardens. We, however, give four weeks' time to the State Government to make such appointments.
Regarding issuance of proclamations under Section 21 of the Act
4. We find that he requisite steps for issuance of such proclamations have not been taken in a large number of States.
Andhra Pradesh
5. In Andhra Pradesh there are four national parks but no proclamation has been issued in respect of any of them. There are 20 sanctuaries. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is admitted that proclamation has not been issued in respect of 7 sanctuaries. As regard 5 sanctuaries no information has been given as to whether proclamation has been issued or not.
Arunachal Pradesh
6. In the State of Arunachal Pradesh out or 10 sanctuaries final notification has been given as to whether proclamation has been issued in respect of the remaining 2 sanctuaries.
Gujarat
7. There are 4 national parks and 21 sanctuaries in the State of Gujarat. In the affidavit that have been filed on behalf of the State all that is stated is that initial notifications have been issued but the nature of the notification has not been disclosed. It is not clear as to whether the proclamations under Section 21 have been issued or not in respect of the national parks and the sanctuaries.
Haryana
8. In the State of Haryana there are 9 sanctuaries. Final notification has been issued in respect of one sanctuary. It is stated that proclamation is not required to be issued in respect of 4 sanctuaries which are situate in the reserve forest. No information has been given regarding issuance of proclamation for the remaining sanctuaries.
Karnataka
9. In the State of Karnataka there are 5 national parks and 19 sanctuaries but in the affidavits that have been filed on behalf of the State no information has been furnished with regard to issuance of proclamation under Section 21 or the issuance of the final notification.
Manipur
10. In the State of Manipur there are 2 national parks and 3 sanctuaries. Final notification has been issued in respect of one national park. There is no information as to whether a proclamation has been issued or not with respect to the other national park. Proclamation has not been issued in respect of the 3 sanctuaries.
Nagland
11. There is 1 national park and 2 sanctuaries. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State no information has been given as regards the issuance of a proclamation or the final notification in respect of the same.
Rajasthan
12. There are 2 national parks and 25 sanctuaries. Proclamation has not been issued in respect of 12 sanctuaries.
Tamil Nadu
13. There are 5 national parks and 17 sanctuaries. Proclamation has not been issued for any of them.
Tripura
14. There are 4 sanctuaries in the State of Tripura. Proclamation has not been issued in respect of any of them.
Uttar Pradesh
15. There are 7 national parks and 29 sanctuaries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Final notification has been issued in respect of 6 national parks. Proclamation has not been issued in respect of one national park. Proclamation has not been issued in respect of any of the 29 sanctuaries.
West Bengal
16. There are 5 national parks and 15 sanctuaries. Final notification has been issued in respect of 3 national parks. Proclamation has not been issued for two national parks as they are forest land. 13 out of 15 sanctuaries are on the forest land for which no proclamation is required. No information has been given as to whether the 2 sanctuaries are on the forest land and if not whether proclamation has been issued or not.
Andaman and Nicobar
17. There are 9 national parks and 95 sanctuaries. Final notification has been issued in respect of 7 national parks. Proceeding has been pending in respect of the remaining two as marine national parks. Proclamation has not been issued in respect of 4 sanctuaries.
Chandigarh
18. There are 2 sanctuaries. Proclamation has not been issued in respect of one sanctuary. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the Administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, states that proclamation has not been issued in respect of the said sanctuary for the reason that it lies within the reserve forest and proclamation is not required to be issued.
Goa
19. There is one national park and 4 sanctuaries. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the State it is not clear as to whether proclamation under Section 21 has been issued in respect of the national park. Proclamation under Section 21 has been issued in respect of 2 sanctuaries but it has not been issued for the remaining 2 sanctuaries. It is not clear as to whether proclamation is required in respect of those sanctuaries or not.
Delhi
20. There is 1 sanctuary but proclamation has been issued.
Lakshadweep
21. There is 1 sanctuary but proclamation has been issued.
Daman and Diu
22. In the Union Territory of Daman and Diu there is 1 sanctuary but proclamation has not been issued.
23. It would thus appear that in the States/Union Territories referred to above proclamations under Section 21 have been not issued in respect of several national parks and sanctuaries. By our order dated 22-8-1997 we had directed the State Government/ Union Territory Administration concerned to issue the proclamation under Section 21 in respect of the sanctuaries/national parks within two months and complete the process of determination of rights and acquisition of land or rights as contemplated under the Act within period of 1 year.
24. By our order dated 7-11-1997 further time of two months was granted to take steps in that regard. It is a matter of regret that in spite of the aforesaid directions of this Court the State Governments and the Administration of the Union Territories referred to above have not taken the necessary steps for issuing the proclamation under Section 21 in respect of the national parks/sanctuaries. Although, we had directed that in the event of failure to comply with the said directions, contempt proceedings will have to be initiated against the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, we are giving a last opportunity to the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned to take steps to issue the requisite proclamation under Section 21 of the Act in respect of the national parks/sanctuaries for which such proclamation is required to be issued under the Act within a period of six weeks. It is, however, made clear that in the event of failure to comply with this direction contempt proceedings will be initiated against the person/ persons responsible. The States/Union Territories concerned shall file affidavits regarding compliance by 16-3-1998.