Facts LK Koolwal, the Petitioner, sought to enforce the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (the Act)

in the city of Jaipur. Under the Act, the Municipality has a duty to clean public places of all filth. The
Petitioner contended that several areas in Jaipur were frought with sanitation problems and the
Municipality was not performing its duties under the Act. The writ petition was filed under Articles
51A and 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directive orders against the Municipality to remedy
the sanitation issues that plagued several localities in the city of Jaipur. Decision and Reasoning On
the issue of sanitation, the Court held that a citizen has the right to know the functioning of State
machinery, especially in matters of sanitation. As to the performance of duties of the Municipality,
the Court held that a citizen has the right to move the courts if a State instrumentality or agency fails
to perform its duties. It also held that that lack of funds is no excuse for not implementing the law.
The Court emphasized the obligation of State instrumentalities in performing their duties under
Article 51A of the Constitution of India and the right of any citizen to move the courts to enforce
such duties. The Court recognized that insanitation could adversely affect the life of a citizen and
lead to an early death. Therefore it was essential that the Municipality take immediate steps to
rectify the situation. The Court therefore directed the Municipality to clean the affected areas within
six months and submit periodic reports before the Court on its progress.

The situation discovered was rather alarming Then followed an intense activity to preserve trees.
Simultaneously strenuous effort was made to stop illicit felling of trees. In Andhra Pradesh there is
no “Chipko” movement Effort however is made to streamline the statutes, to preserve trees. In this
regard on May 23, 1985 by G. O. Ms. No. 234 Andhra Pradesh Saw Mill Regulations of 1969 were
radically amended. It can be seen in the above case-law that the court considered the Chipko
incident, and this in turn was instrumental in directing the mind of the court towards a just outcome
and judgement.
The appellant firm was granted lease for mining at Morai of Taluka pardi village of Gujarat on or
about 8th November 1971 for a period of 10years. This placed was reserved for quarry lease by mines
and power department. After 10years when the appellants applied for renewal of license it was
rejected. On the ground that area fell under reserved area of 1980 (2) Forest Conservation act.
Forest department failed to give NOC. But according to Appellants forest department had deserved
the area from reserved area and permitted the quarry lease. Court found that there was
deforestation happening at large scale and renewal was not a matter of Right. Petition was
dismissed.
Abstract

A writ petition was filed by Ganesh Wood Products against the decision of the Government of the
State of Himachal Pradesh to refuse the establishment of katha factories in the State. The
Government submitted that such establishment would lead to indiscriminate felling of the so called
khair trees which would have a deep and adverse effect upon the environment and ecology of the
State. The raw material available in the State, namely the khair trees, for manufacturing katha was
not sufficient to sustain the proposed industries. The High Court allowed the petition. The
Government appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
The Respondent, Ganesh Wood Products, submitted that according to the New Industrial Policy
introduced by the Government of India, a citizen of India had an unquestioned and absolute right to
establish a small-scale industry at any time, at any place and of whatever capacity he may choose.
The Government was bound to register any and every application for establishing a small-scale
industry and it had no power to cancel or disapprove such registration.
The Court noted that there was no enactment made by the legislature of the State of Himachal
Pradesh governing the establishment of the industries in question. In the absence of an enactment,
the executive power of the State extended to the said subject matter. While acting in its executive
capacity, the Government was entitled to lay down policies and preferences in the interest of the
State, its economy, and the Himachal Pradesh Forest Policy. The Government had the power to
approve applications and this included the power to disapprove. The only obligation of the State in
such event was to extend a fair and equitable treatment to all persons coming before it. It was open
to the Government to say that having regard to the availability of the raw material it did not approve
more than a particular number of factory units.
The Court also emphasized that during the years of 1992 and 1993 every proposed factory using
khair trees was approved by the State authority in charge. This was contrary to public interest
involved in preserving forest wealth, maintenance of environment and ecology and considerations of
sustainable growth and inter-generational equity. After all, the present generation had no right to
deplete all the existing forests and leave nothing for future generations.
The obligation of sustainable development required that a proper assessment should be made of the
forest wealth and the establishment of industries based on forest produce should not only be
restricted accordingly but their working should also be monitored closely to ensure that the required
balance was not disturbed. In terms of forest wealth and environment, it also did not make a
difference if the trees to be used came from private forests or from Government forests. In
conclusion, the Court remitted the matters to the High Court for a fresh disposal of the writ petitions
and restrained the factory units from taking any further steps towards setting up the units pending
the final orders by the High Court.
In this case, the Supreme Court had to judge whether or not there was a necessity for the
reintroduction of the Asiatic lion, an endangered species which is threatened of extinction.

The plaintiffs seek from the Supreme Court an order that would force the State of Gujarat to create
a second home for Asiatic lions at Kuno. The defendant, the State of Gujarat, motivated it refusal by
explaining that there are already Asiatic lion sanctuaries in the forest of Gir and that t here was no
need to create a new one in Kuno. Also the State of Gujarat pointed out that the reintroduction of
the Asiatic lions in Kuno would create some conflict with the local communities, especially with the
farmers. Finally, the defendant justified its position by explaining that fighting poaching should be a
priority instead of creating new sanctuaries.

The supreme Court held that re-introduction of the Asiatic lion in Kuno was a priority that cannot be
delayed if we want to protect this species from extinction. The court considered that the fact that
the Asiatic lion had been historically present in Kuno and that there was an important prey ratio is a
guarantee that the re-introduction should take place there. As a result, the court requested the
Ministry of Environment and Forest to issue an order to re-introduce the Asiatic lion in Kuno within a
six month period.
Because there was no compensation to the private owners who had private forest- any forest cover
in a particular area owned by private parties and for selling the trees in that forest the owner should
take the permission from the government. Government ordered that such forests will be taken by
the government and will be provided to the people who were needful to do agriculture on lease.
High court rules in favour of the private owners but the SC held this law was constitutional. Since the
benefits is given to the landless people, tribal who were suffering for a very long time.
Section 9 of the Indian High court Act of 1861 to issue wirts
The petitioners in the present case, residents of Bhilwara District of Rajasthan, complained of the
lack of drainage facilities made available by the district administration due to which drinking water,
drain and storm water use to mix and get collect in open chowks, leading to the growth of insect and
moss and possible threat of epidemics. The petitioner supported their cause by submitting the letter
of the district medical officer about his view the said collection of water may lead to spreading of
infectious disease and is generating nuisance to he residents. The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959
deal with the primary and secondary functions of the Boards, and it shows that the primary duty of
the Board to keep the city clean, removing filth, rubbish or other noxious and offensive matter and
constructing drains, sewers, drainage works etc. As the Board has not cared to take any action in the
matter, the petitioners have a filed a writ of Madamus praying for a direction to the Municipal Board
for removal and discharge of the filth and dirty water and the construction of proper drainage or
sewers for the discharge of such water. The Court allowed the writ petition by awarding suitable
order and direction to the Municipal Board to clean by the city and for maintain proper drainage
system.
1. Not only the injured but the people who feels that a particular person is injured can also give a
public interest litigation.

2. It basically means that in case principle of natural justice is violated or some government authority
exceeds its power then rule of alternate remedy will be applied. If a person complaints that his
fundamental right is violated with following the normal litigation then the court will say he has not
utilised alternate remedy

3. Res Judicata- If a court has dismissed a particular case or gave a judgement in a particular case
then a person cannot file same case in the same court.

4. It basically in simple terms it is limitation period. You should come before the court before the
expiry of limitation period.
`

Oleum gas leak-

The contention was based on mining santition given, so issue was using for forest land for non-forest
purpose. An NGO filed a complaint asking why did gov give a protected land which is a tiger reserve
to mining. SC directed state to declare the land to be a tiger reserve and stop all minig activity
In this case the land was shown as forest and in possession of the Forest Department. The only
question was as to whether petitioner can carry on Saw Mill on the forest land. It was stated that
since the petitioner was not granted license for Saw Mill after 1997, so cannot be renewed. The
Supreme Court while considering the question about the object and purpose of the enactment of
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 issued some guidelines which is as follows:

“In view of the meaning of the word “forest” in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central
Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any “forest”. In accordance with
Section 2 of the Act, all ongoing activity within any forest in any State throughout the country,
without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is therefore, clear
that the running of Saw Mills of any kind including veneer or ply wood mills, and mining of any
mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the
Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all
such activities forthwith

A public interest litigation was filed to stop the illegal mining in deradoon. One was in a ecological
sensitive area and other in a tourist area. 2 out of 3 quarrys were closed and the employees were
asked to relocate.
A banglesh based company. There was dispute regarding the leasing for mining limestone. Two
issues- forest land used for non-forest purpose. Whether environment clearance was proper.
According to Acts, documents all clearance was proper.
Women participation – no mention- no mention- mentioned
MODULE 4
Gelding-male horse, kids-young ones of animals; cattle refers to animals which are used for transit
Banahi RAM entered into a lease agreement for mining mica with state of Bihar. But later he entered
2 clauses for adding 2 other minerals to avoid further payment of royalty. Later forest conservation
act 1980 came preventing forest land for non-forest purpose. He said no trees fell during the process
finally courts judgement was that till the lease agreement finishes they can mine minerals that is 2
others to as long the mining is restricted to that allotted area with no tress felling and payment of
loyalty to government is done.

UNIT 4
Forest regulation
Unitil and unless government gives a official notification in the official gazette it will not be a
reserved forest

4 – notification given by state government to appoint forest settlement officer- to monitor, survery
etc the forest lands.

5-

7-
Section 8 – THE p0wer he can to enter upoan any area to demarcate them if need he could deal with
a
He didn’t pay the amount which he was supposed too pay. So government acquired the land under
Indian forest act declared that particular area to be protected forest . The documents with him
proves that exclusive rights of that property was not given to government.
Why FCA 1980 came?

Objectives of FCA

Authorities under FCA

Power of state gov is to restrict the activites of any authority, take prial permission from central gov
to permit any non-forest activites.

Section 3 – A committee constituted by cneetral government to help them to conserve forest.

Ambika quarrying

SC said primary duty of state is to protect envionrment and rights of communites so lease was not
renewed.

Sriram sah-His orchad didn’t come under section 2 because it was a private plantation so court gave
him permission to cut trees.
This particular legislation is not protecting wildlife and forests, there was lot of eviction of
indigenous people and dregradation of forest and wildlife because centre government had so many
arbitrary power from this legislation which was used to make dams, mining etc.