Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking directions to prevent pollution in the Sujanganga Nehar canal and to construct a protective periphery wall around it. The canal is surrounded by a historical fort, a protected monument, which was being polluted. The State Pollution Control Board and the Municipal Corporation of Bharatpur had failed to take action. The High Court transferred the writ petition to this Tribunal, following which the applicant approached the Supreme Court, which also transferred the matter to this Tribunal. Notices were issued to relevant authorities including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF), the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board, and the Public Works Department (PWD). One respondent was deleted from the case as wrongly impleaded. The record shows affidavits filed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and PWD, with partial compliance regarding encroachments removal. The High Court had earlier directed removal of encroachments and compliance with environmental safeguards, including waste segregation and pollution testing. The case also involves concerns about damage to the fort and moat, and accountability for financial losses due to faulty canal construction. The Tribunal directed various authorities to take steps and submit reports, and disposed of the application with a timeline for further consideration.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether directions should be issued to prevent pollution in the Sujanganga Nehar canal and to construct a protective wall around it.
  2. Whether the responsible authorities have complied with environmental laws and previous court directions regarding removal of encroachments and pollution control.
  3. What measures are necessary to preserve the historical fort and moat adjoining the canal.
  4. How accountability is to be fixed for alleged financial waste due to faulty canal design and construction.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the affidavits and records, noting partial compliance with earlier directions relating to removal of encroachments and environmental safeguards. It observed that many encroachments remain and that pollution control measures were insufficient. The court emphasized the need for segregation of hospital waste, pollution testing, and establishment of appropriate facilities. It also highlighted the damage to the historical fort and moat, directing the Archaeological Department to survey and propose restoration plans. The court considered the filing of a First Information Report regarding financial irregularities and directed the respondents to update on the investigation. The Tribunal entrusted local authorities with responsibility for enforcement and monitoring, requiring status reports within specified timelines. The reasoning reflects a procedural and supervisory approach to ensure compliance with environmental and heritage protection laws.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal disposed of the application after directing the Collector and District Magistrate of Bharatpur to take necessary steps to remove encroachments and protect the canal, and to file a status report by 31 December 2018. The applicant was allowed to present views to the Collector, with further consideration scheduled for March 2019. The decision enforces compliance with prior orders and environmental laws but does not establish new legal precedent. The direct effect is continued judicial supervision and enforcement action to safeguard the canal, the adjoining historical monument, and the environment.

    Shree Nath Sharma v. Union Of India And Others

    1. The applicant approached the Rajasthan High Court for direction to check pollution in Sujanganga Nehar and to construct a periphery wall around the said canal for protection from pollution. It was stated that the said canal is surrounded by a historical fort which was a protected monument. The same was being polluted. The State Pollution Control Board as well as the Municipal Corporation of Bharatpur have failed to take any action.

    2. The High Court directed transfer of the Writ Petition to this Tribunal. The applicant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the matter to this Tribunal.

    3. Notice was issued to the MoEF, the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board and the Executive Engineer, PWD - Respondent - 11 who has since retired, apart from others. The learned counsel for the Applicant states that respondent no. 11 is not required and has been wrongly impleaded. His name is accordingly deleted.

    4. We find from the record that an affidavit was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the CPCB, Respondent no. 5. However, the said affidavit does not deal with the matter. There is also an affidavit filed by the PWD to the effect that the encroachments have been demarcated. There is also a direction of the High Court dated 14.11.2011 in C.W.P. No. 065/96 decided on 16.08.2000 for removing the encroachments, 41 encroachments are said to have already been removed and 5 still remain to be removed. The order of the High Court dated 14.11.2011, however, records that there are 860 encroachments out of which 760 have been removed. It is also mentioned that there are other encroachments also. Accordingly, the High Court directed as follows:

    “In the circumstances, Respondents are directed to show what steps have been taken for segregation of hospital waste as per the Rule and submit compliance report that segregation of waste has been started within a period one month from today. Let an effort be also made by the Respondents to establishment of plant at Alwar cannot serve the purpose to District Bharatpur.

    The Respondents are also directed to submit the traffic plan prepared in 2001 and what extent it has been implement. Let specific Affidavit be filed in this regard.

    With respect to Pollution free environment, we direct the Pollution Control Board to conduct air and water test at the various places and to submit report within a period of one month and also submit proposal what steps required to be taken for providing pollution free environment. Present status report with respect to steps to be taken preserve environment be also indicated.

    With respect to the fixation of accountability of officers/officials as huge amount of more than 3 crores had gone in waste on account of faulty design and construction of canal, it is submitted that First Information Report has been filed. Let the Respondents place on record the stage of investigation and also place on record the case diary on the next date.

    It is also submitted that the fort and Moat of Bharatpur Canal have been severely damaged at several places. Archaeological Department to make survey and submits its plan for recuperation of the fort and Moat amount required for the purpose of its proper restoration.

    We also request the District Bharatpur to make inspection with respect to the aforesaid various aspects enumerated in the order and submit the report within a period of six weeks from today. It is open to the parties to provide material to the District Judge. Copy of the petition and the order passed on 11.05.2010 and copy of this order be forwarded to the District Judge.”

    5. Learned Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board states that within one month from today, necessary steps will be taken for enforcing the environmental laws. We direct the Collector and District Magistrate, Bharatpur to take necessary steps for removing the encroachments and also for protection of the canal in question.

    6. The applicant is at liberty to put forward his view point before the Collector which may be dealt with in accordance of law.

    7. We direct the Collector Bharatpur to file a status report of the steps taken in the matter on or before 31 December, 2018. The application is disposed of.

    8. The report may be put up for further consideration in March 2019.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Shree Nath Sharma v. Union Of India And Others
    (Jul 31, 2018)