ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 02-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 352 
ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4941 of 2013) 
JULY 02, 2013 
;r 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
c 
Arts. 48-A and 51-A(g) read with Art. 21 - Protection and 
improvement of environment including forests, rivers, lakes 
and wildlife - Held: The constitutional mandate and the 
"doctrine of public trust" enjoins upon the Government to 
protect the resources for enjoyment of general public rather 
0 
than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial 
exploitation to satisfy the greed of few - In the instant case, 
execution of the project, including construction of restaurant 
on the bank of river, is ex- facie contrary to the mandate of 
G.O. dated 13.1.1978, which was issued byState Government 
E in discharge of its Constitutional obligation under Art. 48-A -
- Respondents are directed to demolish the structure raised 
- Doctrine of public trust - G.O. dated 13.7.1978 issued by 
Government of Kera/a - Environmental law. 
Aluva Municipality in Kerala reclaimed a part of 
F Periyar river within its jurisdiction. The District Tourism 
Promotion Council, decided to construct a restaurant on 
the reclaimed land by citing convenience of the public 
coming on"5ivarathri festival as the cause. The proposal 
of the prOJect at an estimated cost of Rs.55,72,4321- was 
G accorded administrative sanction by the State 
Government. When construction of the building was 
started, the appellant, a registered body engaged in the • 
protection of environment in the State of Kerala, filed a . 
writ petition before the High Court and prayed that the 
H 
352 
ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION v. 353 
STATE OF KERALA 
respondents be restrained from continuing with the A 
construction of the hotel building on the banks of river 
Periyar. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed 
1 the writ petition observing that only a restaurant was 
being constructed and not a hotel, as claimed by the 
appellant. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 "Doctrine of the Public Trust" enjoins 
upon the Government to protect the resources for the 
enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their C 
use for private ownership or commercial exploitation to 
satisfy the greed of few. The courts in different 
jurisdictions have, time and again, invoked the public trust 
doctrine for giving judicial protection to environment, 
ecology and natural resources. This Court also D 
recognized the importance of the public trust doctrine and 
applied the same in several cases for protecting natural 
resources which have been treated as public properties 
and are held by the Government as trustee of the people. 
[Para 3 and 5] [356-B-C, F-G] 
E 
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12 = 
(1997) 1 SCC 388; M./. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam 
Sahu 1999 (3) SCR 1066 (1999) 6 SCC 464; Intellectuals 
Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. 2006 (2) SCR 419 (2006) 3 F 
SCC 549; and Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel. 
Martins 2009 (3) SCR 1 = (2009) 3 SCC 571- relied on. 
l/linois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of 
Illinois, 146 US 387; Gould v. Greylock Reservation 
Commission 350 Mass 410 (1966); Sacco v. Development G 
of Public Works, 532 Mass 670; Robbins v. Deptt. of Public 
Works 244 NE 2d 577 and National Audubon Society v. 
Superior Court of Alpine County 33 Cal 3d 419 - referred to. 
1.2 Art. 48-A as inserted in Part IV of the Constituticn H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 7 S.C.R. 
A of India, casts upon the State the responsibility of making 
an endeavour to protect and improve the environment 
and to safeguard fores~ and wildlife of the country. By 
the same amendment, Fundamental Duties of the citizens 
were enumerated in Art. 51-A, inter alia, the duty to protect 
8 
and improve the natural environment including forests, 
lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living 
creatures [Article 51-A(g)]. The G.O. dated 13.1.1978 is 
illustrative of the State Government's commitment to 
protect and improve the environment as enshrined in Art. 
C 48A. The object of the G.O. is to ensure that no project 
costing more than Rs.10 lakhs should be executed and 
implemented without a comprehensive evaluation by an 
expert body which can assess possible impact of the 
project on the environment and ecology of the area 
including water bodies, i.e., rivers, lakes etc. Ther
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.