CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMITI versus STATE OF U.P AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 13-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
~-
J_ 
Article 32-Epistolary juridiction-Protection of Fundamental 
Rights-Public interest and public protection-Genuine interest-
Misuse of-Not to be permitted-Court to act with !lreat deal of cir· 
cumspection and caution. 
c 
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. 
Dismissing the writ petition, 
G 
HELD: 1. Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preser-
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-
B 
c 
D 
guard must be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of 
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. 
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. 
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) 
G 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 577 of 1988. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
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 
~--
-
l 
SANGHARSH SAMIT! v. STATE OF U.P. [MUKHARJI, J.] 
741 
SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, CJ. A letter written to this Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.