M.C. MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH, (1997) 1 SCC 388
FACTS
The Indian express published an article which stated that a private company, span motels Pvt Ltd.( The motel company) the owner of the span company had started an ambitious project called the span club . It was. Believed that Kamal Nath, the environment minister has direct links with the company. The company encroached 27.12 hectares of land to the company on 11th April 1⁹4. The encroachment left an impact on it’s activity which involved moving bulldozers and earth movers to turn the course of river for the second time. In September 1993 , the activities by the company resulted in flood in the river and worth of Rs 105 crores were destroyed.
ISSUES
REFERRED CASE LAWS
Illinois Central Railroad & Co. vs. People of State Illinois [146 US 387 (1892)]: When a State holds a resource which is available for the free use of the general public, a court will look with considerable scepticism upon any governmental conduct which is calculated either to relocate that resource to more restricted uses or to subject public uses to the self-interest of private parties.
Gould vs GreyLock Reservation Committee [350 Mass 410 (1966)]: The profit-sharing feature and some aspects of the project itself strongly suggest a commercial enterprise. In addition to the absence of any clear or express statutory authorization of as broad a delegation of responsibility by the Authority as is given by the management agreement, we find no express grant to the Authority or power to permit use of public lands and of the Authority’s borrowed funds for what seems, in part at least, a commercial venture for private profit.
Sacco v. Development of Public Works [532 Mass 670]: The improvement of public lands contemplated by this section does not include the widening of a State highway. It seems rather that the improvements of public lands which the legislature provided for ... is to preserve such lands so that they may be enjoyed by the people for recreational purposes.
Robins vs. dept of Public Works [244 NE 2d 577]: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts restrained the Public Works Department from acquiring Fowl Meadows, “wetlands of considerable natural beauty... often used for nature study and recreation” for highway use.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. UOI: The court explained that the precautionary principle and the polluter pay principle. They have also declared that as essential features of the Stockholm declaration.
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine Country [33 Cal 3d 419] {Mono Lake Case}: The Court explained the concept of public trust doctrine in the following words:
By the law of nature these things are common to mankind - the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.
Marks v. Whitney [6 Cal 3d 251]: The Court summed up the powers of the State as trustee in the following words:
“Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right of protection only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust .....”
JUDGEMENT
The public trust doctrine, as discussed by us in this judgment is a part of the law of the land.
The lease granted to the Motel by the said lease deed in respect of 27 bighas and 12 biswas of area, is cancelled and set aside. The Himachal Pradesh Government shall take over the area and restore it to its original-natural conditions.
The pollution caused by various constructions made by the Motel in the riverbed and the banks of River Beas has to be removed and reversed. We direct NEERI through its Director to inspect the area, if necessary, and give an assessment of the cost which is likely to be incurred for reversing the damage caused by the Motel to the environment and ecology of the area.