Page 27 - 15DEC2019E-5

LEGAL

resuscitate by merely filling a hole with mere numbers and their attempt to jus-
water elsewhere. tify the same through replacement by
“Many animals and marine organ- geographically larger artificial water
isms present in the earlier the site bodies fails to capture the spirit of the
would parish, and wouldn’t resuscitate Constitutional scheme and is, therefore,
by merely filling a hole with water else- impermissible,” the judges added.
where. Further, the soil quality and oth-
er factors at the alternate site might not etitioner had also contended
be conducive to the growth of the same that neither the mandatory envi-
flora, and the local environment would P ronmental clearances under the
be altered permanently. The respond- Environmental (Protection) Act, 1984
ents’ reduction of the complex and had been obtained by the industrialists
cascading effects of extinguishing nat- nor the statutory authorities applied
ural water bodies into mere numbers their mind that the project would nega-
and their attempt to justify the same tively impact the environment and hu-
through replacement by geographi- man health. But the NGT, in its order of
cally larger artificial water bodies fail to March 6, relied upon an affidavit by the
capture the spirit of the Constitutional Greater Noida Authority that a bigger
scheme, and is, therefore, impermissi- alternative pond was being developed
ble,” the court observed striking down and proceeded to wrap up Singh’s case.
The Supreme Court, however, found
The Greater Noida merit in Singh’s submissions that de-
In the light of settled law, the Apex spite replication and relocation of
Court set aside National Green Tribu- Authority has been water bodies, it is nearly impossible to
nal’s orders of allowing allotment of set off all the damages caused due to
ponds and water bodies on the condi- asked to stop diverting such acts, besides affecting the lives of
tion of alternative development. The water bodies for people around such water bodies. The
bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra bench also noted that Sharp sought to
and Justice Surya Kant observed, industrial activities. avail the benefit of the 2016 policy even
“Schemes which extinguish local water The judgment can go a though the land was allotted to the
bodies albeit with alternatives, as pro- company in 2012.
vided in the 2016 Government Order long way in reclaiming The court rejected the submissions
by the State of UP, are violator of Con- and reviving water of the counsel for the Greater Noida
stitutional principles and are liable to Authority that the spot in the question
be struck down.” bodies in the country was a ‘slightly sloped seasonal rainfall
“The UP government’s policy con- catchment area’ and not a ‘pond’, on the
travenes its Constitutional obligations,” basis of photographs and revenue re-
the court observed. “Article 48Aof the UP government policy which aimed to cords of the water body.“Water bodies,
Constitution casts a duty on the State attract private investment showing its specifically, are an important source of
to endeavour to protect and improve liberal approach. fishery and much needed potable wa-
the environment and to safeguard the The apex court noted that the state ter. Many areas of this country peren-
forests and wild life of the country, and government’s scheme of allowing the nially face a water crisis and access to
Article 51A (g) expects every citizen to destruction of existing water bod- drinking water is woefully inadequate
perform his fundamental duty to pro- ies and providing for replacements for most Indians. Allowing such invalu-
tect and improve the natural environ- exhibits a mechanized effort to envi- able community resources to be taken
ment,” it said. ronmental protection, which is not an over by a few is hence grossly illegal,”
The court ruled that our Constitu- alternative.“Although it might be pos- held the bench. The Court also directed
tional scheme and judicial develop- sible to superficially replicate a water the Greater Noida Authority to restore,
ment of environmental law grants all body elsewhere, however, there is no maintain and protect the subject wa-
persons to have a right to a healthy guarantee that the adverse effect of ter bodies in Singh’s village Saini, and
environment. The Court said that such destroying the earlier one would be gave them three months to remove all
acts would kill the vegetation around offset...the local environment would be obstructions from the catchment area
water bodies, will also affect the water altered permanently,” the bench held. through which natural water accumu-
table apart from making many animals “It underscored that “reduction of lates in the village ponds.
and marine organisms present in the the complex and cascading effects of
earlier site would perish, and would not extinguishing natural water bodies into LETTERS@TEHELKA.COM

27