Skip to main content

Followers

3.Santosh Kumar Gupta (Petitioner) Vs Secretary, Ministry of Environment (Respondent)

AIR 1998 MP 43

Sub: This case is related to Section 31 A of the Air Pollution (Preven- tion and Control) Act, 1981


Facts of the case: -

1. In this case, two public interest litigation petitions have been filed before the Gwalior Division Bench of the High Court.


2. First petition has been filed with a complaint that vehicles filled with kerosene oil, diesel etc in an Unauthorized manner are being run in Gwalior and its surrounding areas. 


3. It has created polluted environment in and around Gwalior areas and residents are facing health hazards there.


4. In this petition, it was prayed that the Court should issue directions to the Respondents for regular checking of the vehicles and to restricts the number of vehicles and to reduce the pollution level.


5. In the second petiton, it was prayed that the Court should constitute a pollution committee which will check the vehicles so that air pollution may be prevented and controlled.


6. The Government of MP be directed to make available smoke meter, etc. to the checking staff and give directions according to the provisions of the Air Pollution Act.


7. Since, clean air and clean water is the Fundamental Right of the citizens. Therefore, the Court should issue directions to control environmental pollution in the public interest.


High Court :-

The Court has considered that efforts for controlling the air pol- lution created by the vehicles are not sufficient on the part of the State Government and it has issued the following directions --


1. The MP Government should make available at least four smoke meter and one gas analyzer to measure carbon mon- oxide and other polluting gasses being emitted from the motor vehicles plying in the city of Gwalior.


2. The State Government should make available modern equipments to check the carbon monoxide so that it may not take much time in checking.


3. The Inspector General of Police, MP should issue directions to his subordinate officers to implement the ingredients of Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules.


4. The State Government should earmark such roads which may be declared one-way for public vehicles.


5. The Additional Advocate General, Gwalior will obtain a compliance report under Rule 16 from the Chief Secretary, Transport Commissioner and Director General of Police within three months and present it before this Court.


Judgment: The petition is disposed of as per aforesaid directions.


Law points :-

1. Clean environment is the Fundamental Right of every citizen.

2. Regular checking of such vehicles is necessary which are causing pollution, this is the duty of the State.

3. The State Government should issue directions to its different departments to control the pollution by vehicles.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut
Post a Comment
Read more

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.
Post a Comment
Read more