Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Mahammad Rahamatullah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep.By Its ... on 7 January, 2022
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
W.P. No.4070 of 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief :
"..to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 for carrying out the conversion works and changing the physical features of the water body known as "KONERU" situated at Sy.No.697 Rayachoti town, YSR Kadapa District inspite of receipt of our representation dt.2.2.2016 at the behest of 6th respondent, without following due process of law, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The brief facts of the case are that :
2. The petitioner is the resident of Mohammedpura street, Rayachoty Town, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, the 2nd respondent is the District Collector, 3rd respondent is the Revenue Divisional Officer, 4th respondent is Tahsildar and 5th respondent is the Rayachoty Municipality and the 6th respondent is Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple represented by its Executive Officer, who proposed the conversion works and changing the physical features of the water body known as "Koneru"
situated at Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti Town, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
3. The petitioner submits that he is the resident of Mohammedpura Street, adjacent to the Koneru. Since several decades, in his ancestral residential house, the petitioner is personally affected with the illegal and unwarranted activities of the respondents for tampering and changing the physical 2 features of water body known as "Koneru", situated at Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti Town, Y.S.R District for the purpose of constructing 6th respondent temple, depriving the right of petitioner to get the water from the Koneru. As a matter of fact, as per the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register of Rayachoti town, the subject land in Sy.No.697 admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.08 cents is originally a Grama Kantam.
4. However, in due course of time, the Government has allotted house pattas to the poor people, mostly to the Minority Community, since then, they have been in possession and constructed their houses and living therein with their respective families. However, so far as petitioner‟s residential house is concerned, it is his ancestral property, purchased for valid sale consideration from its vendor on 26.08.1990.
5. After making such allotments to the poor people, in the remaining extent of 0.75 cents, the Government has dug the pond for storing water for the use of people residing in and around the said area, and with the help of subject pond the ground water level in that area is being maintained at good levels and in fact, it is the main source of water to the people residing in and around of the subject pond. Therefore, in the event of any tampering and changing the physical features of the pond for any purpose, it will adversely affect the area in maintaining the ground water level, as it is the main water body providing water directly or indirectly to the people residing in the said area.
3
6. While so, the respondents are trying to change the physical features only with a view to deprive the petitioner from enjoying the right to draw water from the pond. The petitioner contended that, he submitted a representation dated 01.02.2016 to the authorities requesting not to change physical features of the Pond (Tank), but no action has taken so far.
7. The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit admitting about existence of Koneru (Tank), the said Koneru is known as "Holi Koneru". In the counter affidavit, the 6th respondent contended that, it is false that the Government has dug the pond for storing water for the purpose of people residing in and around the said area. It is further false that with the help of the said pond, the water level in the area is being maintained and it is false that it is the main source of water for the people residing in and around the pond, requested to pass appropriate orders.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. The Koneru (Tank) is situated in Sy.No.697, Rayachoti Town, YSR District and it is in use, due to passage of time, it is filled with mud and garbage, therefore, the 6th respondent is in the process of cleaning, de-silting the Koneru (Tank) and such act would not amount to change or disturb the physical features of the Koneru (Tank).
9. The petitioner made representations to the 6th respondent on 01.02.2016 and 02.02.2016 respectively, for taking necessary action on the complaint, but no action has been taken on the representation and complaint of the petitioner. It is against the purport of Articles 48A and 4 51A(g) of Constitution of India and it is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner sought direction as stated supra by issuing writ of Mandamus.
10. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shaik Mahammad Rahamatullah contended that it is the duty of the State to protect the water bodies and cannot permit anyone to convert water body into residential land and it is violative of Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.
11. The State is under obligation to protect the ecology, improve environment, safeguard forests and wild life. The State shall endeavor to protect, to improve the environment, to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country vide Article 48-A of the Constitution of India.
12. Article 51A deals with fundamental duties. According to Article 51A(g), it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Thus, Article 48- A and Article 51A(g) obligates the State to protect environment and make every endeavor to protect lakes, rivers etc., to maintain the ecological balances. Since the ownership and control over material resources of the community lies with the State, such resources are to be distributed as best to sub-serve the common good - vide Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India.
13. The vacant lands, lakes, rivers etc., are under the direct control of the State and the State has to maintain those rivers, lakes, tanks as stated above by applying the doctrine of public 5 trust and right to life. It is for the State to allot such land in various circumstances being the custodian of the property of the public. The doctrine of public trust was considered by the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India1where the Himachal Pradesh State Government had leased out a protected forest area on the bank of river beas to motels, for commercial purposes, the Supreme Court held that the State is more responsible for maintaining natural resources. Similarly, the Apex Court in Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and ors.2 2held that right to life is a fundamental right which includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. At the same time, in the guise of sustainable development, the State cannot allow the properties to whomsoever the State likes.
14. While allowing the public property to the 3rd parties, the State has to keep in mind its consequences on the environment and the obligation of the State under the Constitution of India to keep up the heritage and culture. The 42nd amendment to the constitution of India added Articles 48A and 51A(g) which fall under the directive principle of State policy and the fundamental duties respectively. The Supreme Court of India in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal3 3stated that the Court is bound to bear in mind the above said articles whenever a case related to environmental problem is brought to the court. In Damodar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation4 4the Apex Court held that the environmental pollution and spoliation which is slowly 1 (1997) 2 SCC 653 2 1991 AIR 420 3 1987 AIR 1109 4 AIR 1987 AP 171 6 poisoning and polluting the atmosphere should also be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
15. Similar question came up for consideration before the Apex court in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. & Ors5.5 wherein the Division Bench of the Apex Court has considered the allotment of tanks known as „Avilala Tank‟ and „Peruru Tank‟, which are situated in the suburbs of Tirupathi Town, which is a world renowned popular pilgrim centre to housing board for construction of residential houses to the public, but a social spirited person approached the court for judicial remedy before this Court challenging the allotment of land by G.O.Ms. No.181 Rev. dated 15.3.1991 alienating an extent of 150 acres of land which belongs to the tank bed area of Peruru tank to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (in short, TTD) and to Housing Board etc., were challenged. The Writ Petition No.7955 of 1994 was filed assailing G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.3.1991 in respect of alienation of Peruru tank bund land to TTD and Writ Petition No.8650 of 1994 was filed assailing G.O.Ms.No.84- Revenue Department, dated 28.1.1994 in respect of alienation of Avilala tank bed area land to A.P. Housing Board. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on various grounds and aggrieved by the order of this Court, the public spirited person approached the Supreme Court. The Apex Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, concluded that alienation of tank bund land vide G.O. Ms.No.84, dated 28.1.1994 is in violation of Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, after considering the doctrine of „sustainable development‟ and observed as follows :
5
(2006) 3 SCC 549 7 "On realizing the importance of restoration of tank basins towards conservation of water and recharging of ground water, increase the storage capacity of tanks, renovating the tank bunds as well as feeder channels, TUDA has taken over 30 tanks in its operational area for taking up the improvements. Proposals include removal or eviction of encroachments, desilting of tank basins, clearing of jungle, strengthening of tank bunds, excavation of boundary trenches, widening and excavation of feeder channels, construction of boundary pillars and compound walls along the tank boundary. Block plantation, programmes for development as landscaped parks and water based entertainment units for the benefit of the public in off shore areas of the tanks have been proposed wherever feasible and viable.
Towards protection of environment, provision for treatment system is also made in the project to take care of entry of drainage/sullage into the tank storages. Block plantation on all on-shore areas of tank have been taken up as a part of Neeru Meeru programme to prevent erosion of soils and entry of encroachments which will have long term positive environment results." But, appointed an expert committee to examine the issue and after careful perusal of expert committee‟s report, it was accepted to some extent, but, in the interest of protecting environment and social development, this Court placed reliance in the case of M.C.Mehta's case (supra), wherein the Apex Court in para 35 held as under :
"The issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibility, who under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not for the Courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures, the Courts can serve as an instrument for determining legislative intent in the exercise of powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But, in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resource 8 and convert them into private ownership or commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the Courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public and in public interest to encroach upon the said recourses."
16. On the basis of the principle in M.C.Mehta's case the Supreme Court held that the responsibility of the state to protect the environment is now a well-accepted notion in all countries. It is this notion that, in international law, gave rise to the principle of "state responsibility" for pollution emanating within one‟s own territories [Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports (1949)4].
17. The Apex Court also referred the declaration of environment and development passed during the Earth Summit at 1992 to which India is also a party, adopted the notion of sustainable development principle i.e., in order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.
18. The Apex Court in the case of Essar Oil v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti [2004(2)SCC 392, para 27] was pleased to expound on this. Their Lordships held : "This, therefore, is the sole aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in population together with the consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, filling up of lakes and the pollution of water resources and the very air that we breathe. However there need not necessarily be a 9 deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other."
19. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [1996 (5) SCC 281, Para 31] where their Lordships said : "While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environmental destruction and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment should go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of the environment." The concept of sustainable development also finds support in the decisions of this court in the cases M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), (1997) 2 SCC 653, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995) 3 SCC 363 and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 664. In light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely asserting an intention for development will not be enough to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a principle of sustainable development and finds a balance between the developmental needs which the respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appellants allege. Another legal doctrine that is relevant to this matter is the Doctrine of Public Trust, This doctrine, though in existence from Roman times, was enunciated in its modern form by the US Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad Company v. People of the State of Illinois. [146 US 537(1892)] where the Court held :
10
20. The bed or soil of navigable waters is held by the people of the State in their character as sovereign, in trust for public uses for which they are adapted. The State holds the title to the bed of navigable waters upon a public trust, and no alienation or disposition of such property by the State, which does not recognize and is not in execution of this trust is permissible. What this doctrine says therefore is that natural resources, which includes lakes, are held by the State as a "trustee" of the public, and can be disposed of only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust. Though this doctrine existed in the Roman and English Law, it related to specific types of resources. The US Courts have expanded and given the doctrine its contemporary shape whereby it encompasses the entire spectrum of the environment. The doctrine, in its present form, was incorporated as a part of Indian law by this Court in the case of M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath (supra) and also in M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464.
21. The Apex Court in M.C.Mehta‟s case observed as follows :
"Our legal system includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The state is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The State as a trustee is under the legal duty to protect the natural resources. Thus, the Apex Court also further adverted to the doctrine of intergenerational equity which is of recent origin and the Stockholm Declaration, 1972 refers to it in principles 1 and 2. In this context, the environment is viewed more as a resource basis for the 11 survival of the present and future generations. Principles 1 and 2 are as follows :
Principle 1 - Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for the present and future generations.
Principle 2 - The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, lands, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.
22. Article 48-A of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Article 51A of the Constitution of India, enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.
23. Taking into consideration of various factors and the law laid down by the Apex court as referred to supra, the Supreme Court succinctly issued following guidelines :
"With regard to Peruru tank :
a. No further constructions to be made.
b. The supply channel of Bodeddula Vanka needs to be cleared and revitalized. A small check dam at Malapali to be removed to ensure the free flow and supply to the tank.
c. Percolation tank to be constructed and artificial recharge to be done to 12 ensure the revival of the tank, keeping in mind its advantage at being situated at the foot hills.
d. The area allotted by Mandal Revenue Office for construction of the tank to be increased to a minimum of 50 acres. Percolation tank with sufficient number of recharge shafts to be developed to recharge the unsaturated horizons up to 20 m. The design of the shafts etc. to be prepared in consultation with the CGWB. The proposed percolation tank to be suitably located along the bund keeping in view the inlets, irrigation sluices and surplus water.
e. Feasibility and cost estimation for the revival of the old feeder channel for Swarnamukhi River should be carried and a report to be submitted to the Court.
f. Each house already constructed by the TTD must provide for roof top rain water harvesting. Abstraction from ground water to be completely banned. No borewell/tubewell for any purpose to be allowed in the area.
g. Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation with the CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting in the area on ground water regime.
With regard to Avilala tank :
(i) No further construction to be allowed in the area.
(ii) Each house already constructed by the APHB/TUDA must provide structure for roof top rain water harvesting. All the storm water in the already built colonies to be recharged to ground water. Structures for such purposes to be designed in consultation with the CGWB.
(iii) No borewell/tubewell for any purpose to be allowed in the area.
(iv) An area of 40 acres presently reserved for the Government should not be developed in any way that may lead to concretization of the ground surface. Recharge structures to be constructed for rainwater harvesting.
(v) Piezometers to be set up at selected locations, in consultation with the CGWB to observe the impact of rain water harvesting in the area on ground water regime."
24. The facts of the above case are almost identical to the facts of the present case, except the purpose of allotment. If 13 this principles is applied to the present facts of the case, de-silting the tank does not amount to changing the physical features of water body known as "Koneru" situated at Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti town, Y.S.R Kadapa District, is in utter violation of Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India and the allotment is liable to be set aside.
25. The main endeavour of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue is de-silting works does not amount to changing the physical features of water body known as "Koneru" situated at Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti town, Y.S.R Kadapa District, in the interest of public.
26. The Supreme Court, while considering the similar question, has given wider importance to the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution of India guarantees to all persons a fundamental right to life and right to life is not confined to mere animal existence but extends to the right to live with basic human dignity. The A.P. High Court observed that enjoyment of life and its attainments and fulfillment guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution embraces the protection and reservation of the nature‟s gifts, without which life cannot be enjoyed. The court further observed that protection of environment is not only the duty of the citizens but is also the obligation of the State and all other state organs including the courts. The supreme Court while dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution has held that the need for a decent and civilized life includes the right to food, water and a decent environment and further observed that water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse, an oppression. The primary use to which water is put being drinking, it would be mocking nature to force the people who live on the bank of a river to remain thirsty. The Supreme Court 14 further observed that drinking is the most beneficial use of water and this need is so paramount that it cannot be made subservient to any other use of water, like irrigation. So, the right to use of water for domestic purpose would prevail over other needs. Vide M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (supra).
27. The Constitution obligates the State to protect river water, lakes etc., with a view to enhance environment and to avoid environmental degradation. While the Constitution does not specifically recognize a fundamental right to water, but court decisions deem such a right to be implied in Article 21. Also Article 39(b) mandates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (supra) the Apex Court recognized that the right to life „includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.‟ In Sardar Sarovar‟s case the Supreme Court went further and directly derived the right to water from Article 21. It is stated that the „water is the basic need for the survival of the human beings and is part of right of life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharia the Supreme Court held that every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution, that he has also the right under Article 21 to his life and that right under Article 21 embraces not only physical existence of life, but also the quality of life. The Apex Court in P.R.Subhash Chandran v. Government of A.P. also held that under the constitution, the role of the State to provide every citizen with adequate clean drinking water and to protect water from getting polluted is not only a fundamental directive principle in the governance of the state but is also a penumbral right under Article 15 21 of the Constitution of India.
28. Viewed from any angle, it is the obligation of the State to protect the water pollution and protect lakes, rivers, tank beds etc., in terms of Articles 48A and 51A(g).
29. If the issue is considered in human rights perspective, the protection of environment is a human right. Article 25 of universal declaration guarantees everyone a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Article 12 of International covenant on economic social and cultural rights deals with human rights to enjoy pollution free environment. Article 12 is extracted hereunder for better appreciation:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:
(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;
(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;
(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
30. Thus, clause-2(b) obligates State parties to the covenant to improve all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene. To implement those human rights guaranteed under 16 Article 12 (2)(b) several covenant declarations are formulated, including World Summit on sustainable development, 2002 and prepared draft principles of human rights and the environment, which are as follows :
"Draft Declaration of Human Rights and the Environment:
Preamble Guided by the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of the World Conference of Human Rights, and other relevant international human rights instruments, Guided also by the Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the World Charter for Nature, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, and other relevant instruments of international environmental law, Guided also by the Declaration on the Right to Development, which recognizes that the right to development is an essential human right and that the human person is the central subject of development,Guided further by fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, Reaffirming the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights, Recognizing that sustainable development links the right to development and the right to a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment, Recalling the right of peoples to self- determination by virtue of which they have the right freely to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, Deeply concerned by the severe human rights 17 consequences of environmental harm caused by poverty, structural adjustment and debt programmes and by international trade and intellectual property regimes, Convinced that the potential irreversibility of environmental harm gives rise to special responsibility to prevent such harm, Concerned that human rights violations lead to environmental degradation and that environmental degradation leads to human rights violations, Declare the following principles :
Part I
1. Human rights, an ecologically sound environment, sustainable development and peace are interdependent and indivisible.
2. All persons have the right to a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment. This right and other human rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, are universal, interdependent and indivisible.
3. All persons shall be free from any form of discrimination in regard to actions and decisions that affect the environment.
4. All persons have the right to an environment adequate to meet equitably the needs of present generations and that does not impair the rights of future generations to meet equitably their needs.
Part II
5. All persons have the right to freedom from pollution, environmental degradation and activities that adversely affect the environment, threaten life, health, livelihood, well-being or sustainable development within, across or outside national boundaries.
6. All persons have the right to protection and preservation of the air, soil, water, sea-ice, flora and fauna, and the essential processes and areas necessary to maintain biological diversity and ecosystems.
7. All persons have the right to the highest attainable standard of health free from environmental
8. All persons have the right to safe and healthy 18 food and water adequate to their well-being.
9. All persons have the right to a safe and healthy working environment.
10. All persons have the right to adequate housing, land tenure and living conditions in a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment.
11 . All persons have the right not to be evicted from their homes or land for the purpose of, or as a consequence of, decisions or actions affecting the environment, except in emergencies or due to a compelling purpose benefiting society as a whole and not attainable by other means. All persons have the right to participate effectively in decisions and to negotiate concerning their eviction and the right, if evicted, to timely and adequate restitution, compensation and/or appropriate and sufficient accommodation or land.
12. All persons have the right to timely assistance in the event of natural or technological or other human-caused catastrophes.
13. Everyone has the right to benefit equitably from the conservation and sustainable use of nature and natural resources for cultural, ecological, educational, health, livelihood, recreational, spiritual or other purposes. This Includes ecologically sound access to nature. Everyone has the right to preservation of unique sites, consistent with the fundamental rights of persons or groups living in the area.
14. Indigenous peoples have the right to control their lands, territories and natural resources and to maintain their traditional way of life. This includes the right to security in the enjoyment of their means of subsistence.
Indigenous peoples have the right to protection against any action or course of conduct that may result in the destruction or degradation of their territories, including land, air, water, sea-ice, wildlife or other resources.
Part III
15. All persons have the right to information concerning the environment. This includes information, howsoever compiled, on actions and courses of conduct that may affect the 19 environment and information necessary to enable effective public participation in environmental decision-making. The information shall be timely, clear, understandable and available without undue financial burden to the applicant.
16. All persons have the right to hold and express opinions and to disseminate ideas and information regarding the environment. All persons have the right to environmental and human rights education.
17. All persons have the right to active, free, and meaningful participation in planning and decision-making activities and processes that may have an impact on the environment and development. This includes the right to a prior assessment of the environmental, developmental and human rights consequences of proposed actions.
18. All persons have the right to associate freely and peacefully with others for purposes of protecting the environment or the rights of persons affected by environmental harm.
19. All persons have the right to effective remedies and redress in administrative or judicial proceedings for environmental harm or the threat of such harm.
Part IV
20. All persons, individually and in association with others, have a duty to protect and preserve the environment.
21. All States shall respect and ensure the right to a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment. Accordingly, they shall adopt the administrative, legislative and other measures necessary to effectively implement the rights in this Declaration.
These measures shall aim at the prevention of environmental harm, at the provision of adequate remedies, and at the sustainable use of natural resources and shall include, inter alia, collection and dissemination of information concerning the environment;
prior assessment and control, licensing, 20 regulation or prohibition of activities and substances potentially harmful to the environment;
public participation in environmental decision-making; effective administrative and judicial remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm;
monitoring, management and equitable sharing of natural resources;
measures to reduce wasteful processes of production and patterns of consumption;
measures aimed at ensuring that transnational corporations, wherever they operate, carry out their duties of environmental protection, sustainable development and respect for human rights; and measures aimed at ensuring that the international organizations and agencies to which they belong observe the rights and duties in this Declaration.
22. States and all other parties shall avoid using the environment as a means of war or inflicting significant, long-term or widespread harm on the environment, and shall respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development.
23. All international organizations and agencies shall observe the rights and duties in this Declaration.
Part V
24. In implementing the rights and duties in this Declaration, special attention shall be given to vulnerable persons and groups.
25. The rights in this Declaration may be subject only to restrictions provided by law and which are necessary to protect public order, health and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
26. All persons are entitled to a social and international order in which the rights in this Declaration can be fully realized."
31. In any view of the matter, even this dispute is considered either in constitutional perspective or human rights perspective, de-silting the tank does not amount to changing the 21 physical features of the water body known as "Koneru" situated at Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti town, YSR Kadapa District, to violate constitutional obligation of the State under Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, so also Article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12 of International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Therefore, the allotment of tank bed itself is illegal and consequently constructions, if any, raised shall be removed.
32. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, declaring the action of respondents in not taking action on the representations of the petitioner dated 01.02.2016 and 02.02.2016 respectively, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, directed the respondents to stop conversion work and changing physical features of the water body known as "Koneru" situated Sy.No.697 in Rayachoti town, YSR Kadapa District. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
JUSTICE M.SATYANARYANA MURTHY Date: 07.01.2022 vns 22