Environment Management

Domestic Legal Framework

Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006

International Legal Framework

Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment (United Nations)

Regional Legal Framework

REGULATION (EC) No 1221/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25  November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No  761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and  2006/193/EC

Cases

CASES ON CER (CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)

  1. UPPCB v.MODI DISTILLARY  AIR 1988 SC 1128:- ERRONEOUS DESIGNATION OF MODI DISTILLARY OFFICERS TO THOSE OF  MODI INDUSTRIES LTD.
  2. K.K.NANDHI v. AMITHABHA BANERJEE 1983 Cr.L.J 1479:-ARGUMENT THAT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ENUMERATE HOW MNGR. WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OPERATIONS OF PLANT & HOW HE HAD VIOLATED Ss.25 & 26, REJECTED – HELD, MNGR. PRIMA FACIE LIABLE U/S 47 OF WA
  3. MAHMUD ALI v. ST. OF BIHAR AIR 1986 PAT.133 :-ST. ALLOWED TO IMPLEAD M.D FOR VIOLATIONS, WHEN IT WAS SHOWN  AT THE TRIAL THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT- RELIANCE ON S. 319 Cr, P.C  THAT ALLOWS Ct. TO TAKE COGGNIZANCE OF PERSONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, IF THE EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL POINTS TO THEIR CULPABILITY
  4. HARYANA PCB v. BHARAT CARPETS LTD.1993 FOR.L.T 97:- SECURITY AND PRODUCTION OFFCRS. CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS-Ct. ORDERED  GOING FOR THE BIG FISH THAN CATCHING THE SMALL FRY!
  5. J.S.HOJA v.STATE 1990 AAL.L.J 41:- PLEA  OF RETD, SECY. & DIR.THAT THEY SHOULD  NOT BE IMPLEADED- REJECTED –             ‘ RESPONSIBLE WHEN THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED’
  6. Z..KOTASEK v.ST. OF BIHAR, 1984 Cr.L.J. 683:- BATA SHOE CO. & ITS MNGR. IN THE DOCK- POLLUTION OF INTER-STATE RIVER(-GANGA)-QN. OF JDN.-REJECTED
  7. HARYANA ST. BRD. V. JAI BHARAT WOLLEN FINISHING WORKS1993 FOR. L.T 101:-PROSECUTION OF FIRM , PARTNER & MNGR. FOR DISCHARGE OF UN-TREATED EFFLUENTS IN TO AN OPEN DRAIN IN PANIPAT, WITHOUT CONSENT –NOTICE ISSUED BY BRD. IGNORED-HELD, LIABILITY OF PARTNER/ MNGR. DEPENDS ON WHETHER ONE WAS IN-CHARGE OF OR RESPONSIBLE  TO THE FIRM FOR THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS- SLEEPING PARTNER ACQUITTED-CO. & MNGR. IMPOSED WITH PENALTIES(Rs.3000 & Rs.2500 respectively)
  8. DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LTD.v.ST.OF GUJARAT 1992 (1) GUJ.L.HER.9- CHAIR PERSON & 5 OTHERS MOVED H.C Misc. Cri. Appln. U/S 428 Cr.P.C FOR QUASHING  & SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ISSUING PROCESS AGAINST THEM IN Cri. CASE BY MAGISTRATE, FOR THEIR ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER POLLUTION CONTROL LAW-HELD, BOTH THE OFFENDING CO. AND THE DIRECTORS OWE A FOREMOST DUTY  TO THE CT., TO THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE TO PLACE ON RECORD FULL & TRUE DISCLOSURE  OF THE FACTS AND PARTICULARS, POINTING OUT  THERE FROM AS TO WHETHER THE PARTICULAR DIRECTOR OR SUCH OTHER PERSONS WERE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MMT. OF THE CO. AT THE RELEVANT TIME WHEN THE ALLEGED OFFENCE CAME TO TAKE PLACE
  9. N.A.PALKHIVALA v. M.P.PRADUSHAN NIWARAN MANDAL, BHOPAL1990 Cri.L.J 1856 :-THE CHAIRMAN & Dy. CHAIRMAN OF THE CO., BY VIRTUE OF THE OFFICE HELD BY THEM , CAN NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE CO. AS THEY ARE NOT THE PERSONS DIRECTLY IN CHARGE OF AND RESPONSIBLE TO THE CO. FOR THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS UNDER S. 4O AA
  10. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors In the present case, the Bombay High Court continued this glorious tradition and interpreted regulations governing the use and redevelopment of vacant mill located in the heart of Mumbai in such a manner that the interests of the citizens are safeguarded. Like smog choked Delhi that was saved by the Supreme Court through the compulsory use of CNG for certain vehicles and other measures, the present matter provided a unique window of opportunity to the apex court to revitalize land starved, open spaces starved south Mumbai through interpreting laws that governed the use of mill lands in a purposive manner.The mill lands that form the subject matter of litigation in the present case are mostly located within south Mumbai meaning the value of the real estate in question was extremely sizeable. The entire mill area comprises 600 valuable acres in the heart of choked south Mumbai.  In 1991, the State of Maharashtra introduced the development control rules (DCR) under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 with a view to revive the area. In 2001, major changes were introduced in an extremely dubious fashion. Now, as per DCR 58 of 1991, the expression used was “lands after demolition of existing structures in case of a re-development scheme” to decide the total area of land on which the fractions would be calculated.  In other words, the entire land of the mill will be considered. The govt amended the DCR 58 through an executive notification and made a number of changes. As regards the above expression, it substituted it with the ambiguous expression “open land and balance FSI”. The issue was complicated by the fact that the ambit of “demolition” had not been specified in the original DCR of 1991.Two crucial issues therefore arose: one is the amendment constitutionally valid given that one of its potential interpretations radically alters the legislative policy underlying the parent stature?if the provision can be read down to preserve its constitutionality, what is its meaning applying a purposive interpretation?

    The broad pro environmental stance of the Supreme Court in the past several decades had given rise to a valid expectation that in the present case too, it would give priority to long term environmental benefits rather than short term commercial profit.  After all, the court had never let a hostile legislature and executive to deter it from safeguarding the environment in the past. Given that the law is a complex web of conflicting interests where often the dominant pressure group manages to secure its interests in the framing of regulations, the duty of the court to remain vigilant becomes all the more important. In this case, the conflict was between the interests of the mill-owners and that of the general public experiencing what the environmentalists call the “double burden” of environmental health risks.


1 Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. v. Anuj Joshi (2013)6MLJ579, 2013(10)SCALE261,
2 Association for Environment Protection v. State of Kerala AIR2013SC2500, 2013(3)EFLT598, ILR2013(3)Kerala149,
3 G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India (2013)4MLJ46, 2013(7)SCALE102, (2013)6SCC620,
4 Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013)4SCC575, 2013(4)ABR858, 2013(3)EFLT388, 2013(2)KLT235
5 Ajay Tiwari v. State of U.P. 2013(2)ADJ707, AIR2013All107
6 Tamil Nadu Cricket Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013)3MLJ522
7 Nahur Vivekanand Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India 2013(4)ALLMR279
8 Cauvery Neervala Aathara Pathukappau Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu
9 Gram Panchayat Navlakh Umbre v. Union of India 2013(1)ABR439, 2012(114)BOMLR2695,
10 Ranubha Rajmalji Jadeja v. Union of India 2013(3)EFLT415(NULL),
11 Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR2012SC1386, (2012)4SCC629,
12 R.K. Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR2012SC389, (2012)2SCC232,
13 R. Dwarakinath v. State of Karnataka
14 Gujarat Positra Port Company Ltd. v. Union of India
15 Mohd. Arshi v. Union of India
16 Dileep Kumar Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand 2011ELR(UTTARAKHAND)1441,
17 Thankamany v. State of Kerala ILR2011(2)Kerala446, 2011(2)KLJ635,
18 In Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary v. Anand Arya (2011)1SCC744,
19 Vinesh Kumar Sanghal v. State of Uttarakhand
20 M.S. Sai Kumar v. Government of Puducherry
21 S. Nandakumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu
22 Gujarat Dystuff Manufacturers Asso. V. State of Gujrat
23 Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India
24 Balachandra Bhikaji Nalwade v. Union of India ILR(2009)Supp.()Delhi362,
25 Thervoy Gramam Munnetra Nala Sangam v. Union of India
26 Prafulla Samantra v. Ministry of Environment and Forests 159(2009)DLT604, (2009)ILR 5Delhi821,
27 Janardan Bezbarua v. Oil India Ltd. (2010)6GLR70, 2008(3)GLT739,