National Green Tribunal
Sh. Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 February, 2026
Item No.08
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.135/2025(CZ)
Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Applicant(s)
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 09.02.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): Mr. Kanishk Devesh Sharma, Adv. with
Mr. Deepak Kumar Kori, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rachit Soni, Adv. for
Mr. Shoeb H. Khan, Adv. for State of Rajasthan
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for
Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv. for RSPCB
ORDER
1. The grievance of the Applicant is the continuous deterioration of water quality in the sacred pond adjoining Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Temple, Jhalawar. The pond, which historically served as a pure source of water for religious, cultural, and community use and was once a natural habitat for migratory birds and rare species of flora and fauna, is now severely polluted due to the discharge of untreated domestic sewage, dairy waste, and municipal effluents. Rapid population growth, unregulated urbanization, and unplanned construction of drains (nalas) have resulted in the direct discharge of waste into the pond, causing ecological imbalance, loss of biodiversity, and public health hazards.
2. This is not only an environmental issue but also a violation of constitutional provisions, according to the provisions of Article 21 read 1 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
with article 48 (A) of the directive principles of State Policy, Right to Life includes right to have fresh air and healthy environment. Article 48(A) directs the states to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, nobody has the right to create pollution endangering the life of others. This universe and living beings are creation of almighty called Bhagwan which means and includes" Chiti, Jal, Pawak, Gagan, Sameera, Panch Rachit Yah Adham Sareera". These five words signify five elements of life:- Bha-Bhumi, Ga = Gagan, Wa = Vau, Aa = Agni, Na = Neer. When natural cycle of all five is disturbed due to mixing of poisonous or harmful material, it is nature of pollution, while Article 51A(g) places a fundamental duty on every on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including ponds and water bodies.
3. The matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 25.09.2025 and notices were issued to the Respondents with direction to submit the reply, in addition to constituting a Committee with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The members of the Joint Committee visited the site and submitted the report.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant are that the Temple of Shri Kalyan Rai Ji, situated near the main entrance of the historical and religious city of Jhalawar, outside the rampart, is an ancient and priceless heritage site of about 350 years old. The temple is a center of religious faith and cultural heritage, attracting thousands of devotees and tourists from Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and other States every day. All major Hindu festivals and rituals are celebrated in a grand manner in the temple premises. It is stated that in front of the 2 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
temple premises, there exists a very ancient sacred pond (Kund) which has been in use for centuries. This pond holds great religious and spiritual significance as devotees worship its water, take ritual baths, and the same water is also used for performing the daily abhishek of Lord Shri Kalyan Ji and Lord Bholenath. The residents of the surrounding areas have traditionally used this pond water for drinking, as it was earlier completely pure and clean. A few years ago, the Nagar Palika Jhalawar administration diverted a major city drain carrying the sewage and filth of Jhalrapatan towards the front of the said sacred pond. The said drain carries human excreta, urine, plastic bags, carcasses of dead animals, and all kinds of municipal waste. apart from the religious and cultural importance, the said pond earlier served as a natural habitat for several rare species of migratory water birds, aquatic plants, and other biodiversity. The unchecked discharge of domestic sewage, dairy waste, and untreated effluents, coupled with rapid population growth and unregulated, unplanned construction of drains (nalas) around the pond, has caused large-scale ecological degradation. The waste material from these drains directly mixes into the pond water, resulting in severe deterioration of its quality.
Consequently, the pond, which once supported rich flora and fauna, has now lost its ecological balance. The rare bird species and aquatic life that previously flourished have either migrated elsewhere or vanished entirely, causing an irreversible loss of biodiversity. the devotees visiting the temple are compelled to pass through the pond area, and thus have to bear the stench and unhygienic conditions. The Pujari family of the temple has to bring clean water from long distances for the Lord's bhog and abhishek. The nearby residents are also suffering immensely on account of this grave pollution.
3O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has relied on the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
"1. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598: "Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life."
2. State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205, at page 212:
"6.Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation."
3. Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496, at page 500: "13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution."
4. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606, at page 628: "As was observed by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath our legal system based on English common law 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 public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership."
5. Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549, at page 574: "75. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388, Kuldip Singh, J., writing for the majority held: "34. 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 a legal duty to protect the natural resources." 76. The Supreme Court of 4 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
California, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine Country also known as Mono Lake case summed up the substance of the doctrine. The Court said: "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 the right only in those rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistent with the purposes of the trust." This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the State holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts must make a distinction between the Government's general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources [Joseph L. Sax "The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention", Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jan. 1970) pp. 471-566]. According to Prof. Sax, whose article on this subject is considered to be an authority, three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine [ibid]: 1. the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;
2. the property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent; 3. the property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources."
6. Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors., 2019 SCC Online 1510 pr 20 "Waterbodies, specifically, are an important source of fishery and much needed potable water. Many areas of this country perennially face a water crisis and access to drinking water is woefully inadequate for most Indians. Allowing such invaluable community resources to be taken over by a few is hence grossly illegal."
7. Ld. NGT vide order dated 27.08.2020 in OA 351/2019, Raja Muzaffar Bhat vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., has observed: "One of the serious challenges is solid and liquid waste 5 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
management, apart from encroachments. There are binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India on the subject of scientific management of solid waste and sewage/effluents in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, ('Water Act') Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, ('Air Act) and waste management rules framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ('EP Act'). There is large scale non-compliance of the said statutory provisions which has led this Tribunal to consider the issue of river pollution in OA No. 673/2018, News item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted:
CPCB" in view of acknowledged data of 351 polluted river stretches in the country. Apart from the said issue, large scale failure has been found in the matter of solid waste management as repeatedly recorded in O.A. No. 606/2018. The Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs were required to remain present in person before this Tribunal for interaction and further planning. In O.A. No. 325/2015, Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. UOI & Ors., the Tribunal has considered the issue of restoration of water bodies. In Original Application No. 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr. v. UOI & Ors., the issue of untreated sewage or effluent being discharged in water bodies have been taken up for consideration. There are several other matters dealing with the such issues, including coastal pollution, pollution of industrial clusters etc. 9. There is discussion in the media about inadequacy of monitoring of action for restoration of lakes, wetlands and ponds which is certainly necessary for strengthening the rule of law and protection of public health and environment. Several directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan and Ors. v. UOI & Ors."
7. By filing the present Original Application, the Applicant has prayed the following reliefs:-
"I. Direct the Respondents to immediately to take effective measures to construct a proper drainage system and stop the discharge of untreated sewage, dairy waste, and other municipal effluents into the sacred pond situated near Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Temple, Jhalawar. II. Direct the Municipal Council, Jhalawar and the State Pollution Control Board to prepare and implement a time-bound action plan for restoration, cleaning, and rejuvenation of the said pond, including 6 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
treatment of contaminated water and removal of accumulated waste and debris.
III. Impose environmental compensation/costs on the defaulting Respondents, for having caused irreversible damage to the environment, public health, and heritage value of the pond. IV. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, fit, and proper in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
8. We have also examined the Joint Committee Report which is as follows:-
"REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 135/2025 (CZ) IN THE MATTER OF SHREE KALYAN RAY JI MANDIR SAMITI V/s STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ...........x..............x...........x.....................x..............
3. Background: -
The committee was informed relevant facts by concerning department which are summarized as below:-
(a) Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Jhalawar is an ancient temple located in the Jhalrapatan city of Jhalawar Distt. in Rajasthan and is being managed by a private trust named Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti.
(b) There is a sacred pond inside the temple premises which is filled with water coming from the nearest surface water body known as Gomti Sagar Talab.
(c) The water from Gomti Sagar talab reaches to the sacred pond through an ancient built water channel continuously for filling the sacred pond and the overflow water after filling the sacred pond drains out from the pond to a nearby open municipality drain located outside the temple premises on the opposite side of the road carrying the city domestic sewage for treatment/disposal.
(d) During the rainy season, the storm/rainwater gets accumulated in this open municipality drain along with the sewage water which led to the rise in water level in the drain creating pressure difference due to which the water of drain gets flows in the reverse direction into the sacred pond of the 7 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
temple. This leads to the mixing of untreated city sewage with pond water thus degrading the water quality of the temple's pond.
4. Inspection of Joint Committee:
Members of joint committee conducted discussions and accordingly, Joint Committee comprising the following members visited the site on dated 01.11.2025:-
1) Shri Abhishek Charan, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhalawar District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
2) Shri Anurag Yadav, Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jhalawar, Distt, Jhalawar, Rajasthan
3) Shri Narendra Kumar Meena, Tehsildar, Jhalrapatan, Distt.- Jhalawar, Rajasthan
4) Shri Avadh Shringi, Junior Engineer, Nagar Palika, Jhalrapatan, Distt. -Jhalawar, Rajasthan The Joint Committee observed the following: -
a) Outside the temple's premises near its entrance on the opposite side of the road, there is an open municipality drain carrying the city domestic sewage for treatment/disposal.
b) The water from nearby surface water body-Gomti talab continuously flows down into the sacred pond located inside the temple's premises near its entrance through an ancient built water channel and this water after filling the pond overflows through various multiple outlets in the pong into this open municipality drain through natural gravity due to pressure difference
c) But sometimes during the rainy season, there is accumulation of rain water in this drain as it is an open drain leading to sudden increase in water level of the drain creating pressure difference due to which the water from this drain flows in reverse or backward direction into the sacred pond resulting in mixing of domestic sewage water with pond water leading to deterioration of water quality of the pond.
d) Looking to the above, joint committee members is of the opinion or view that a piping system along with a reflux valve should be installed to prevent the backflow of sewage water of municipality drain into the sacred pond thus preventing the 8 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
contamination of pond water of the temple and resulting in permanent solution of the problem.
5. Conclusions:
On the basis of the observations of joint committee and information by concerned department, following has been concluded: -
(a) A piping system along with a reflux valve should be installed to prevent the backflow of sewage water of municipality drain into the sacred pond thus preventing the contamination of pond water of the temple and resulting in permanent solution of the problem.
(b) Nagar Palika Jhalrapatan, Distt. Jhalawar through its letter dated 06.01.26(Annexure-3) informed that the tendering process for awarding tender to a contractor firm for work of laying of pipeline along with installation of reflux valve has already been completed and now the actual work has been started and is under progress at the site location. After completion of the work, the issue will be resolved. Working agency of the above work is Nagar Palika, Jhalrapatan, District-Jhalawar & compliance of the work shall be submitted by Nagar Palika, Jhalrapatan soon."
9. It is of utmost importance for meeting the rising demand for water augmentation, improving the health of waterbodies as they provide various ecosystem services that are required to manage microclimate, biodiversity and nutrient cycling. Many cities are working towards conservation of waterbodies like the steps initiated in the capital city of Delhi for instance. In turning Delhi into a city of lakes, rejuvenation of 201 waterbodies has been finalised. Of these, the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) plans to revive 155 bodies while the Flood and Irrigation Department will revive 46. DJB claims that the aim is to achieve biological oxygen demand or BOD to 10ppm and total suspended solids to 10mg/l. Also the establishment of the Wetlands Authority by the Delhi government is a welcome step towards notifying and conserving natural waterbodies.
In order to achieve the goal of revival of waterbodies, it is important to 9 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
understand that one solution may not fit all the waterbodies.
Depending on the purpose, ecological services, livelihood and socio-
cultural practices, the approach will vary from one waterbody to another. However, the issues with regard to lack of data and action plans, encroachments, interrupted water flow from the catchment, siltation, violations of laws, solid waste deposit and polluted water, involvement of too many agencies, etc. have to be taken into consideration.
10. Action needs to be taken towards:-
1. Attaining sustainability. Thus, emphasis on long-term goals, operation and maintenance should be included along with the allocation of budget.
2. Success of the lakes should be tested on all three fronts namely economic, environmental and social. Many studies point that a deliberate effort has to be made on the social front for which better publicity of the environmental benefits of the project and enhancing environmental awareness, especially among the local community is required.
3. Encouraging local people to collaborate with other stakeholders to successfully utilise resources and ensure the protection and conservation of waterbodies.
4. Traditionally, water was seen as a responsibility of citizens and the community collectively took the responsibility of not only building but also of maintaining the water bodies. This needs to be brought back into the system.
5. Thus, an integrated approach taking into account the long-term sustainability, starting from the planning stage where looking at every waterbody along with its catchment, is required.
11. It is further reported by the State Pollution Control Board that untreated/sewage water is being discharged continuously in the water body. The rule does not provide such activities. The legislature has enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to 10 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of water and for carrying out the aforesaid purpose the Board has been constituted. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the problem of pollution of rivers, water bodies and streams has assumed considerable importance and urgency in recent years as a result of the growth of industries and the increasing tendency to urbanization. It is therefore essential to ensure that the domestic and industrial effluents are not allowed to be discharged into the water course without adequate treatment as such discharges could render the water unsuitable either source of drinking water as well as for supporting fish life and for use in irrigation.
Pollution of rivers, water bodies and streams also causes increasing damage to the country's economy. The relevant sections of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 are as follows:-
"Section 2 (e)-
Pollution which means such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms.
Section 17- That the State Board shall plan a comprehensive programme for the prevention, control or abatement of pollution of streams and wells in the State and to secure the execution thereof; to advise the State Government on any matter concerning the prevention, control or abatement of water pollution; to evolve methods of utilisation of sewage and suitable trade effluents in agriculture; to lay down standards of treatment of sewage and trade effluents to be discharged into any particular stream taking into account the minimum fair weather dilution available in that stream (1)(l)(i) take 11 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
necessary action for the prevention, control or abatement of discharge of waste into streams or wells or water bodies.
Section 24- Provides prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, -
(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in accordance with such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to enter (whether directly or indirectly) into any 1 (stream or well or sewer or on land); or
(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences.
(2) (c) putting into an stream any sand or gravel or other natural deposit which has flowed from or been deposited by the current of such stream.
Section 25 Provides restrictions on new outlets and new discharges. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board,--
(a) establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or an extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or
(b) bring into use any new or altered outletsfor the discharge of sewage; or (c) begin to make any new discharge of sewage;
Provided that a person in the process of taking any steps to establish any industry, operation or process immediately before the commencement of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988, for which no consent was necessary prior to such commencement, may continue to do so for a period of three months from such commencement or, if he has made an application for such consent, within the said period of three months, till the disposal of such application."
Section 33 12 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Power of Board to make application to courts for restraining apprehended pollution of water in streams or wells
1) Where it is apprehended by a Board that the water in any stream or well is likely to be polluted by reason of the disposal or likely disposal of any matter in such stream or well or in any sewer or on any land, or otherwise, the Board may make an application to a court, not inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, for restraining the person who is likely to cause such pollution from so causing.
2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) the court may make such order as it deems fit.
3) Where under sub-section (2) the court makes an order restraining any person from polluting the water in any stream or well, it may in that order-
(i) direct the person who is likely to cause or has caused the pollution of the water in the stream or well, to desist from taking such action as is likely to cause pollution or, as the case may be, to remove from such stream or well, such matter, and
(ii) authorise the Board, if the direction under clause (1) (being a direction for the removal of any matter from such stream or well) is not complied with by the person to whom such direction is issued, to undertake the removal and disposal of the matter in such manner as may be specified by the court.
4) direct the person who is likely to cause or has caused the pollution of the water in the stream or well, to desist from taking such action as is likely to cause pollution or, as the case may be, to remove from such stream or well, such matter, and i authorise the Board, if the direction under clause (i) (being a direction for the removal of any matter from such stream or well) is not complied with by the person to whom such direction is issued, to undertake the removal and disposal of the matter in such manner as may be specified by the court.
33 A. Power to give directions Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, but subject to the provisions of this Act, and to any directions that the Central Government may give in this behalf, a Board may, in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under this Act, issue any directions in writing to any person, officer or authority, and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such directions. Explanation For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power to issue 13 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
directions under this section includes the power to direct- (a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; or (b) the storage or regulation of supply of electricity, water or any other service.
Section 41- Failure to comply with directions under Sub-Section (2) or Sub- Section (3) of Section 20, or order issued under Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of 32 or directions issued under Sub-Section (2) of Section 33 of Section 33А.
1. Whoever fails to comply with any direction given under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 20 within such time as may be specified in the direction shall, or conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both and in case the failure continues, with an additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure continues after the conviction for the first such failure.
2. Whoever fails to comply with any order issued under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 32 or any direction. issued by a court under sub-section (2) of section 33 or any direction issued under section 33A shall, in respect of each such failure and on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years and with fine, and case the failure continues, with an additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure continues after the conviction for the first such failure.
3. If the failure referred to in sub-section (2) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years and with fine.
Section 42- Penalty for certain acts.
(1)Whoever-
(a) destroys, pulls down, removes, injures or defaces any pillar, post or stake fixed in the ground or any notice or other matter put up, inscribed or placed, by or under the authority of the Board, or
(b) obstructs any person acting under the orders or directions of the Board from exercising his powers and performing his functions under this Act, or
(c) damages any works or property belonging to the Board, or 14 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(d) fails to furnish to any officer or other employee of the Board any information required by him for the purpose of this Act, or
(e) fails to intimate the occurrence of an accident or other unforeseen act or even under section 31 to the Board and other authorities or agencies as required by that section, or
(f) in giving any information which he is required to give under this Act, knowingly or willfully makes a statement which is false in any material particular, or
(g) for the purpose of obtaining any consent under section 25 or section 26, knowingly or willfully makes a statement which is false in any material particular, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to 1 [ten thousand rupees) or with both.
(2) Where for the grant of a consent in pursuance of the provisions of section 25 or section 26 the use of a meter or gauge or other measure or monitoring device is required and such device is used for the purposes of those provision, any person who knowingly or willfully alters or interferes with that device so as to prevent it from monitoring or measuring correctly shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to 1 [ten thousand rupees] or with both.
Section 43 Penalty for contravention of provisions of Section 24. Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 24 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 1 (one year and six months) but which may extend to six years and with fine.
Section 44- Penalty for contravention of Section 25 or Section 26. Whoever contravenes the provision of section 25 or section 26 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 1 one year and six months) but which may extend to six years and with fine.
Section 45- Enhanced Penalty after previous conviction.
If any person who has been convicted of any offence under section 24 or 25 or section 26 is again found guilty of an offence involving a contravention of the same provision, he shall, on the second and on every subsequent conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 2 (two years) but which may extend 15 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
to seven years and with fine: Provided that for the purpose of this section no cognizance shall be taken of any conviction made more than two years before the commission of the offence which is being punished.
Section 45A Penalty for contravention of certain provisions of the Act.
3. [Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or fails to comply with any order or direction given under this Act, for which no penalty has been elsewhere provided in this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both and in the case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention or failure continues after conviction for the first such contravention or failure.
Section 48 Provides that offences by government departments. Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of Government, the Head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Section 60 The Provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act.
Thus, it is a statutory duty of the State Pollution Control Board to check the abatement of the water pollution and also advice the authorities concerned and failure to comply the statutory duty is defiance of the act and necessary action with calculation and recovery of environmental compensation is the pious duty of the Pollution Control Board. We hope and trust that the State Pollution Control Board will not hesitate to proceed according to law and try to fulfill the purpose of the act."
12. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that a decision has been taken by the District Administration for construction of memorial statue and platform and beautification by way of construction of 19 columns of foot-bridge for construction of slab which is not permitted 16 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
in the wetland rules. State/District Administration/District Magistrate/CMO is required to strictly follow the Wetland Rules which is quoted below:-
"i. It is proper to quote the Sections of Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 which are as follows:-
Section 2 (g) "wetland" means an area of marsh, fen, peatland or water; whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters, but does not include river channels, paddy fields, human-made water bodies/tanks specifically constructed for drinking water purposes and structures specifically constructed for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation purposes.
Section 4 Restrictions of activities in wetlands.-
1) The wetlands shall be conserved and managed in accordance with the principle of 'wise use as determined by the Wetlands Authority.
2) The following activities shall be prohibited within the wetlands, namely,-
(i) conversion for non-wetland including encroachment of any kind;
(ii) uses setting up of any industry and expansion of existing industries;
(iii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of construction and demolition waste covered under the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016; hazardous substances covered under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 or the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro- organisms Genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989 or the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008; electronic waste covered under the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016;
(iv) solid waste dumping;
(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from industries, cities, towns, villages and other human settlements;
(vi) any construction of a permanent nature except for boat jetties within fifty metres from the mean high flood level observed in the 17 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
past ten years calculated from the date of commencement of these rules; and,
(vi) poaching.
Provided that the Central Government may consider proposals from the State Government or Union Territory Administration for omitting any of the activities on the recommendation of the authority."
ii. It has further been provided in the Section 5 of the Wetlands Rules directing the State Government to prepare a list of all the wetlands of the State within three months from the date of publication of these rules and to prepare a list of wetlands to be notified, within six months from the date of publication of these rules taking into cognizance any existing list of wetlands prepared/notified under other relevant State Acts and recommend identified wetlands, based on their Brief Documents, for regulation under these rules. Further, there is a provision to prepare a comprehensive digital inventory of all wetlands within a period of one year from the date of publication of these rules and upload the same on a dedicated web portal to be developed by the Central Government for the said purpose, the inventory to be updated every ten years. It has further been provided that the State has to develop a comprehensive list of activities to be regulated and permitted within the notified wetlands and their zone of influence. In cases wherein lands within boundary of notified wetlands or wetlands complex have private tenancy rights, recommend mechanisms for maintenance of ecological character through promotional activities.
Section 7 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 provides as follows:-
"Delegation of powers and functions to the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations.-
(1) The concerned Department of the State Government or Union Territory Administration shall, within a period of one year from the date of publication of these rules, prepare a Brief Document for each of the wetland identified for notification, providing:-
(a) demarcation of wetland boundary supported by accurate digital maps with coordinates and validated by ground truthing;
(b) demarcation of its zone of influence and land use and land cover thereof indicated in a digital map;
(c) ecological character description;18
O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(3) The State Government or Union Territory Administration shall, after considering the objections, if any, from the concerned and affected persons, notify the wetlands in the Official Gazette, within a period not exceeding 240 days from the date of recommendation by the Authority".
Accordingly, it is mandatory duty of the State Authorities to demarcate and publish the list of wetlands within the period as prescribed above and if it is not done it is violation of rules and necessary disciplinary action should be taken against the authority concerned. We are of the view that the rules could have been followed and if not done the respondents are directed to expedite it, execute it and to publish in public domain.
iii. When the law protector becomes the law violators, how law will be protected. The basic principle of rule of law is to follow rule/allowed to can never law and not to break or violate it. For the negligence of those to whom public duties have been entrusted be cause public mischief. Public servants if committing wrong in discharge of statutory functions and later on if it was found not be in accordance with law within the knowledge of the officer concerned then it cannot be said to be the work and duty within the definition of State Act.
iv. The action and construction is not only disregard to the law but it is negation of the authority of the State by the public official doing the act and expending the budget in accordance with their wishes. An action specifically punitive action does lie for doing what the legislature has authorized if it is done negligently carelessly and in violation of the law. Under our Constitution sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. Each hierarchy in the Act is empowered to entertain a complaint by the consumer for value of the goods or services and compensation. Any act by any officer in violation of the rules is abuse of power, deliberate maladministration, and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury. The servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate 19 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
to their duty of service. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty mala-fidely and not in accordance with the guidelines, when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.
v. Absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The Rule of Law means that the decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules, such decisions should be predictable and the citizens should know where he is. If decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such decision is the anti-thesis of a decision taken in accordance with the Rule of Law. Even where there is no ministerial duty as above, and even where no recognised tort such as trespass, nuisance, or negligence is committed, public authorities or officers may be liable in damages for malicious, deliberate or injurious wrong-doing. There is thus a tort which has been called misfeasance in public office, and which includes malicious abuse of power, deliberate maladministration, and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury."
13. We have further considered the relevant provisions and sustainable development and reminded the State with the state duties which is 20 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
discussed in Original Application No.17/2018(CZ) decided on 21.09.2020, which is quoted below:-
"1. In the case reported in S.G. Jaisinghani. Vs. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that absence of arbitrary power, is first essential of 'rule of law' upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.
In the case reported in (2009) 10 SCC 388, Shanti Zenith Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case an applicant approaches the Court, complaint against statutory authority alleging arbitrariness, bias or favouritism, the Court being the custodian of law must examine the allegation as to whether there is any substance in those allegations. Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in the case of S.G. Jaisinghani (supra) and ruled that State action must be bona fide and not be arbitrary or suffering from favouritism.
2. In the case reported in AIR 1975 SC p. 2260, Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the rule of law as under:
"205. Rule of Law postulates that the decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is not predictable and such decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law."
94. In the case reported in (2011) 6 SCC 508: NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association. Vs. NOIDA and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasising for maintenance of rule of law in the country observed that public bodies or the State instrumentalities are trustees of the public property and their action must be in conformity with the 21 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Statutory provisions and also should be just and fair, to quote relevant portion:
"38. The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse etc., acts as a trustee and, therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee.
39. State actions are required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a "democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination". The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.
40. The Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The doctrine has grown from Article 21 of the Constitution. In essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic society. (Vide: M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 266; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1628; Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation, AIR 1988 SC 157; Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 537; and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2468)."
95. A country should not be ruled by men but should be ruled by law. It means, the State action must conform to statutory provisions. The power must flow from Rules, Regulations and statutory provisions. In absence of powers conferred by the statutory provisions, State or its instrumentalities cannot divest a person from his or her property or 22 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
abridge or dilute the right protected by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India safeguarding life, liberty livelihood or quality of life."
3. Arbitrariness of public authorities are antithesis of rule of law. In M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 266, the Supreme Court observed that where Government activity involves public element, the "citizen has a right to claim equal treatment", and when "the State acts to the prejudice of a person, it has to be supported by legality." Functioning of "democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination".
Similarly, in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India & ors., AIR 1979 SC 1628, the Apex Court observed that every action of the executive Government must be informed by reasons and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of rule of law and its bare minimum requirement.
Thus, the decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation and the plea of legitimate expectation relates to procedural fairness in decision making and forms a part of the rule of non-arbitrariness as denial of administrative fairness is Constitutional anethama (Vide E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555; Smt Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597; Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Delhi Auto & General Finance Put. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2263; and Ku. Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1991 SC 537).
The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action and such action is liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. (Vide Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation, AIR 1988 SC 157).
In the State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Nalla Raja Reddy & ors., AIR 1967 SC 1458, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court observed as under:-
"Official arbitrariness is more subversive of doctrine of equality than the statutory discrimination. In spite of statutory discrimination, one 23 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
knows where he stands but the wand of official arbitrariness can be waved in all directions indiscriminately."
Similarly, in S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1967 SC 1427, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court observed as under:-
"In the context it is important to emphasize that absence of arbitrary power is the first essence of the rule of law, upon which our whole Constitutional System is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon Executive Authorities, must be confined within the clearly defined limits. Rule of law, from this point of view, means that the decision should be made by the application of known principle and rules and in general such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is, if a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law."
4. Statutory rules are required to be observed. It is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not as per the rules or regulations and supported by a statute, the Court must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid.
In Sirsi Municipality Vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855, the Supreme Court observed that "the ratio is that the rules or the regulations are binding on the authorities."
Similarly, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 1331, has observed as under:-
"The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate actions in violation of rules and regulations. The existence of rules and regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. The statutory regulations in the cases under consideration give the employees a statutory status and impose restrictions on the employer and the employee no option conditions. In cases of statutory bodies there with to vary the is no personal element whatsoever because of the impersonal character of statutory bodies..............the element of public employment or service and the support of statute require observance of rules and regulations. Failure to observe requirements by statutory bodies is enforced by courts by declaring 24 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(action) in violation of rules and regulations to be void. This Court has repeatedly observed that whenever a man's rights are affected by decision taken under statutory powers, the Court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural justice and compliance with rules and regulations imposed by statute."
14. On more than one occasion, the Courts have expressed their concern for preservation of water bodies. In 2001 (6) SCC 496, Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs Kamla Devil, the Apex Court considered Section-117 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. As per said provision, certain powers were given to the Gaon Sabhas and other local Authorities. While interpreting the said provision, it was held that it is difficult to sustain the order of the High Court. There exists a concurrent finding that a pond exists and the area covered by it varies in the rainy season. In such a case, no part of it could have been allotted to anybody for construction of house building or any allied purposes. The judgment of Hinchlal Tiwari (supra) was again considered in 2011 (11) SCC 396 [Jagpal Singh Vs State of Punjab. In addition, the judgment of Madras High Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 1 (MAD) L. Krishnan Vs State of T.N. was considered and it was held that the Court will pass a similar order as it was passed in Hinchlal Tiwari and L. Krishnan (supra).
15. In 2015 SCC Online Utt 1829 [Tahseen Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others] Alok Singh, J. held as under:-
"What we have witnessed since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous person using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with their original character, for 25 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
personal aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs.
[Emphasis supplied] At the cost of repetition, it is apposite to remember that the Apex Court, in no uncertain terms, clarified that construction activity even in the close vicinity of the lakes; is impermissible. Resultantly, the High Court directed the Authorities to remove encroachments and restore the water body in its original form.
26. In 2013 SCC Online P&H 10564 [Jagdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana and others), the High Court followed the ratio decidendi of Hinchlal Tiwari (supra) and opined that the Gram Panchayat which has a statutory obligation to ensure that water bodies are not diverted for any other use and further to ensure that these water bodies are protected, cleaned and recharged, it cannot be allowed to use a part of it for installation of a statue of a resident of the village. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in 2013 SCC Online Cal 1060 [Sandhya Barik & others Vs. State of West Bengal & others] expressed its view that this is bounden duty of panchayat and other authorities to prohibit such construction and said property cannot be alienated or permitted to be destroyed in any manner. No construction can be permitted over such water body. Construction, if any, which have been made by any person, the respondent cannot claim equity. Even if any sanction is granted with regard to construction over the canal, the same is illegal and void. It was further directed that if there exists any encroachment water body, appropriate action must be taken for clearing the encroachment made over the canal. The public trust doctrine expounded by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta was followed by Calcutta High Court in Sandhya Barik (supra).
In view of constitutional scheme, public trust doctrine and object engrained in Section-7 of the Adhiniyam, Gram Sabha cannot take any decision or pass resolution to raise construction either by disturbing the water body or on the periphery (esM-) of the water tank. In M.C. Mehta (supra), such action was clearly disapproved by Supreme Court. The common string in the judgments referred hereinabove is that herculean efforts should to be made to protect the water bodies. Such bodies are required to be protected from greedy politicians and persons. Ancient poet Rahim said:
26O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
रहिमन पानी राखिए, हिन पानी सि सून।
पानी गये न उिरे मोती, मानुश, चून ।।
Meaning thereby:
Water is most important. As without water, there is no wealth (pearls), life or earth."
16. In view of constitutional scheme Interestingly, in Jagpal Singh (supra), the Apex Court with pains recorded that 'our ancestors were not fools'.
They knew that in certain years, there may be droughts or water shortages for some other reasons, and water was also required for cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence, they built a pond attached to every village, a tank attached to every temple etc. These were their traditional rain water harvesting methods, which, served them for thousands of years. With great concern, Apex Court emphasized that the ponds are now a day's auctioned of at throw away prices to businessmen for fisheries in collusion with Authorities/ Gram Panchayat Officials, and even this money collected from these so called auctions are not used for the common benefit of the villagers but misappropriated by certain individuals. The time has come when these malpractices must stop. We deem it apposite to direct the State Government and the concerned Collector to ensure that all such constructions/encroachments are removed. The official respondents shall remove such constructions and encroachments and file a compliance report. It shall be the duty of respondents to restore water pond to its original shape and condition and preserve it as per the constitutional mandate.
17. In view of the Constitution Provisions, Adhiniyam and the Rules and Governments Orders issued under the Adhinyam and Land Revenue Code, the Municipal Corporation is not justified in taking the decision.
to construct the commercial shops on the periphery of the pond. In 27 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
view of settled legal position this Tribunal has scintilla of doubt that the corporation has exceeded its authority while passing such resolution. The action of Corporation runs contrary to public trust doctrine. It is to be noted that any autonomy given by the Constitution or by Adhiniyam needs to be tested on anvil of enabling provisions.
When impugned action was tested on the anvil of such enabling provisions, the said action was not found to be inconsonance with the enabling provisions nor can such action be said to be in a larger public interest.
18. It is to be noted that the right to the people to live in the healthy environment with minimum disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agriculture land and undue affection of air, water and environment. It is for the Government for the Nation and not for the Court to decide whether the deposit should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental consideration or the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It may be perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vision over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilization, that could indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advise, the Government should take a policy decision and formally implement the same and for the purpose it is for the expert committee to examine as to whether the ponds and water bodies can be converted into commercial complex and can these operations be permitted on the cost of environmental damage.
19. We know and can take judicial cognizance of the fact that entire country is facing a tremendous scarcity of drinking and potable water almost everywhere and, in fact, it is a global phenomenon. It is this 28 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
reason which required Regulators/Statutory Authorities to act responsibly for protection of environment and ecology and in particular, wetland/water bodies. They are expected to function in a more responsible and accountable manner and deeper study ought to have been made, before allowing any construction activities in vicinity of a wetland/water body, more so when project site is abutting the wetland itself. Importance of water no one can deny.
20. It cannot be doubted that water though cover three-fourth of earth, still drinking and potable water is in great scarcity. Manmade ventures are the basic cause for this situation. Protection of wetland assumed international importance at very late stage. However, serious concern at global level is writ large from the fact that in 1991, Convention in Ramsar was held only to discuss protection of wetland. Some important wetlands across the world were identified therein. Signatory countries vowed to protect wetland by taking all necessary measures including stringent actions. This is a matter of common knowledge that people residing in urban areas had turned cities into jungles of concrete.
Nature has lost its place, healthy and clean environment has been compromised in the name of development. The consequences are air pollution, scarcity of drinking water, extreme heat and cold, lack of raining etc. earlier's comfortable life in such cities has become a nightmare. Resourceful people are now resorting to other areas on the outskirt or near such cities where they can enjoy proximity with nature. This attempt or desire is nothing but costing heavy to nature. It is a concerted effort by greedy elite class to cause destruction of nature in un-probed areas, which have remained untouched till date, but now are being frequently occupied by them. These constructions near water bodies or forest areas etc. are not as a necessity to provide shelter to 29 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
homeless needy people or development to economy in general but virtually a part of luxury life for those who can afford. The elite class and its greed, in the name of development, has already destroyed cities and now moving towards the areas, rich in natural flora and fauna including forests, lakes, rivers, streams i.e., different type to water bodies and wetlands. In the name of stay in the lap of nature, in reality they are causing damage and destructing nature. In fact, commercial or residential construction projects do not need vicinity of wetlands or water bodies etc., as a necessity but Promoters/PPs/Developers normally choose such sites so as to increase salability and commercial value of their projects/constructions.
21. Various statutory authorities which were constituted to serve as a watchdog for protection of these places, rich in natural flora and fauna, are not very sincere and serious in protection but working only technically. They are liberal in allowing these activities instead of adopting strict and stringent measures necessary for protection. We can see destruction of Aravalli Hills in National Capital Delhi itself, and disappearance of several small chains of hills in many States. When we come to the garden city of Bengaluru itself, the facts have already been noted that in the past there were hundreds of lakes in the city which are now reduced to just two figures. Most of the lakes have been reclaimed, encroached or otherwise usurped by the so called development activities.
22. Problem of environment today is a Global phenomenon. The irresponsible and unmindful development has proved an enemy to environment. It has increased pollution everywhere compelling Global leaders to take recourse for protection of environment, if necessary, by 30 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
framing strict and stringent provisions, but fact remains, that condition of environment today is extremely alarming.
23. It is the pious duty of the Municipal Corporation to make a planning including town planning, planning for economic and social development, roads and bridges, water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes, public health, sanitation conservancy and Solid Waste Management, urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects, slum improvement and up-
gradation, urban poverty alleviation. Provisions of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens, playgrounds promotion of cultural educational and aesthetic aspects. Cattle ponds prevention of cruelty to animals and public amenities.
24. We may note the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject which are as follows:-
"i. State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205, at page 212:
6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation.
ii. Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496, at page 500:
"13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution."
iii. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606, at page 628:
..............x..............x..............x.............x...................31
O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
33. ... As was observed by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath our legal system based on English common law 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 public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources.
These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.
iv. Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549, at page 574:
75. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388, Kuldip Singh, J., writing for the majority held:
"34. 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 a legal duty to protect the natural resources."
76. The Supreme Court of California, in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine Country also known as Mono Lake case summed up the substance of the doctrine. The Court said:
"Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. It is affirmation of the duty of the State to protect and the people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering the right only in those rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistent with the purposes of the trust."
This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when the State holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no matter how consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts must make a distinction between the Government's general obligation to act for the public benefit, and the special, more demanding obligation which it may have as a trustee of certain public resources (Joseph L. Sax-The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention), Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jan. 1970) pp. 471-566). According to Prof. 32 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Sax, whose article on this subject is considered to be an authority, three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust doctrine [ibid]:
1. The property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;
2. The property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent;
3. The property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional uses, or (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources."
v. Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors., 2019 SCC Online 1510 pr 20:
20..... Waterbodies, specifically, are an important source of fishery and much needed potable water. Many areas of this country perennially face a water crisis and access to drinking water is woefully inadequate for most Indians. Allowing such invaluable community resources to be taken over by a few is hence grossly illegal."
17. In NGT order dated 27.08.2020 in OA 351/2019, Raja Muzaffar Bhat vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., it was observed:
......x.....................x................x..............x..............
34. One of the serious challenges is solid and liquid waste management, apart from encroachments. There are binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Almitra H. Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors1. and Paryavaran Suraksha vs. Union of India2 on the subject of scientific management of solid waste and sewage/effluents in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, („Water Act") Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, (Air Act) and waste management rules framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (ΕΡ Act"). There is large scale non-compliance of the said statutory provisions which has led this Tribunal to consider the issue of river pollution in OA No. 673/2018, News item published in "The Hindu" authored by Shri Jacob Koshy Titled "More river stretches are now critically polluted:
CPCB" in view of acknowledged data of 351 polluted river stretches in the country. Apart from the said issue, large scale failure has been found in the matter of solid waste management as repeatedly recorded in O.A. No. 606/2018. The Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs were required to remain present in person before this Tribunal for interaction and further planning. In O.A. No. 325/2015, 33 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. UOI & Ors., the Tribunal has considered the issue of restoration of water bodies. In Original Application No. 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anr. v. UOI & Ors., the issue of untreated sewage or effluent being discharged in water bodies have been taken up for consideration. There are several other matters dealing with the such issues, including coastal pollution, pollution of industrial clusters etc.
35. There is discussion in the media about inadequacy of monitoring of action for restoration of lakes, wetlands and ponds which is certainly necessary for strengthening the rule of law and protection of public health and environment3. Several directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan and Ors. v. UOI & Ors."
18. We also note that the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO) has issued an advisory on "Conservation and Restoration of Water Bodies in Urban Areas"5 in August, 2013 which need to be followed. The matter was also considered by the Standing Committee on Water Resources (2015-
16), Sixteenth Lok Sabha. Its Tenth Report has been published by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation under the heading "Repair, Renovation and Restoration of Water Bodies- Encroachment on Water Bodies and Steps Required to Remove the Encroachment and Restore the Water Bodies"6 in August, 2016. Further, the "Guidelines for the Scheme on Repair, Renovation and Restoration (RRR) of Water Bodies under PMKSY (HKKP)" have been published by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Govt. of India in June, 2017. The said report also provides useful material to be looked into by the enforcement agencies.
20. There is, thus, need for continuous planning and monitoring at National, State and District levels. Suggestions and observations of CPCB and the Oversight Committee need to be acted upon."
25. The matter was again taken up on 09.07.2024 and considering the report, this Tribunal directed as follows:-
"i. "Respondent have to strictly comply Section 4 of the Wetland Rules and to ensure that there will not be any encroachment on wetland, 34 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
there will not be any construction activities, discharge of untreated water or throwing of the garbage or solid waste or plastic waste in the water body/wetland.
ii. Respondents are restrained from going ahead with raising of any permanent construction over the water body of the lake. Constructions or the pillars to the extent which has been raised shall be demolished within one month from today.
iii. Since permanent construction at the prohibited site has caused damage to the site and requires a restoration of the site, as also restoration of the ecology and remediation of damage already done to the environment, we constitute a committee consisting Director, CPCB at Bhopal, one representative from the Secretary (Environment) and one representative from the Central Ground Water Authority to assess the environmental compensation."
26. In view of the above discussion and analysis of the report submitted by the Joint Committee, we direct as follows:-
(i) The District Administration/Municipal Commissioner concerned is directed to ensure the compliance of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and to ensure that there shall not be any encroachment on the water body and not to discharge any untreated water or dumping of garbage, solid waste/plastic waste in the water body, and any encroachments on the water body be removed according to rules by the Municipal Council.
(ii) The Municipal Corporation, Jhalawar, will prepare a time bound action plan for the restoration of the water body which shall be examined by the State PCB and the State PCB has to monitor the compliance of the environmental rules and to take action including the calculation and realization of environmental damage according to rules.
(iii) A piping system along with a reflux valve shall be installed to prevent the backflow of sewage water of municipality drain 35 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
into the sacred pond thus preventing the contamination of pond water of the temple and resulting in permanent solution of the problem. The Nagar Palika Jhalrapatan, Distt.-Jhalawar is directed that the work of laying of pipeline along with installation of reflux valve shall be completed within a time frame say within three months.
(iv) The Nagar Palika, Jhalawar, is directed to submit the compliance report within six months to the Ld. Registrar, National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, on email or website and the Ld. Registrar has to examine it and in case of any violation, the matter be placed before this Tribunal.
27. With these observations, the Original Application No.135/2025(CZ) stands disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 09th February, 2026, Original Application No.135/2025(CZ) AK 36 O.A. No.135/2025(CZ) Shri Kalyan Rai Ji Mandir Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.