Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Though notice was personally served on the second respondent, she did not appear. The first respondent was served by affixture and also by notice to her brother. She also did not appear. Respondents 1 and 2 are not represented by counsel also.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors., and in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, and argued that the precautionary principle and the burden of proof in environmental cases as laid down by the Apex Court which is the law of the land was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at all and therefore the learned Sessions Judge wrongly set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Learned counsel argued that eventhough petitioner did not adduce oral evidence after the conditional order was passed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate before making the conditional order absolute had called for the reports from the Revenue Inspector as well as the Environmental Engineer to find out whether the contentions raised by the respondents in their objection that precautionary measures were taken and they had complied with the conditions provided by the Pollution Control Board and the functioning of the Unit is not causing nuisance is correct and only after appreciating the said materials and holding that respondents did not adduce any evidence the conditional order was made absolute and this fact was omitted to be taken note of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and hence the order is illegal.

We are, however, of the view that "The Precautionary Principle" and "The Pollutes Pays Principle" are essential features of "Sustainable Development". The "Precautionary Principle" - in the context of the municipal law - means:
(i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
(iii) The "onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.

It was then held:--

The Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land.
The Apex Court finally held:--
In view of the above mentioned constitutional and statutory provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are part of the environmental law of the country.
The law has been further widened and emphasised in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, . The Apex Court held:-
It is to be noticed that while the inadequacies of science have led to the "precautionary principle", the said "precautionary principle" in its turn, has led to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden as to the absence of injurious effect of the actions proposed, -- is placed on those who want to change the status quo (Wynne, Uncertainty and Environmental Learning, 2 Global Environmental Change 111 (1992) at p. 123). This is often termed as a reversal of the burden of proof, because otherwise in environmental cases, those opposing the change would be compelled to shoulder the evidentiary burden, a procedure which is not fair. Therefore, it is necessary that the party attempting to preserve the status quo by maintaining a less polluted state should not carry the burden of proof and the party who wants to alter it, must bear this burden.