Chanditala Pukur (Natagarh)

India / Bangla / Sodpur / Natagarh
 water, pond
 Upload a photo
Nearby cities:
Coordinates:   22°41'42"N   88°24'5"E

Comments

  • CHANDITALA PUKUR WAS A LARGE SIZE CLEAR WATER TANK ABUTTING CHANDITALA ROAD/BARASAT ROAD AT SODEPUR WARD NO. 32 UNDER PANIHATI MUNICIPALITY, J.L. NO.14, DAG NO. 32, 33, 34, 34/725, 33/724 AND 37 KHATIAN NO.111, 107, 461, MOUZA GHOLA WHICH ARE CLASSIFIED AS TANKS IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS. NOW IT IS BEING SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED BY DUMPING GARBAGE AND VARIOUS FILLING MATERIALS. PANIHATI MUNICIPALITY IS A SILENT SPECTATOR DESPITE BEING REMINDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL TO FULFILL ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ARE ANNEXED HEREWITH. SUNIL RANJAN CHAKRABARTY 34 BODHIKANAN P.O. SODEPUR KOLKATA - 700 110
  • CHIEF ENVIRONMENT OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL HAD WRITTEN TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PANIHATI MUNICIPALITY ON 18TH JANUARY 2002 BUT TILL DATE (14.06.2011) THE LETTER IS STILL UNREPLIED AND NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE MUNICIPALITY FOR CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF CHANDITALA PUKUR. Government of West Bengal Department of Environment 4, Fairlie Place, 2nd Floor, Calcutta – 700 001 Phone No.:220-7852 No.EN/ /IC-18/86(Pt-I) Date: January 18, 2002 From : N. Sen, IFS Chief Environment Officer To The Chairman Panihati Municipality Panihati SUB.:: Unauthorised filling up of a Tank abutting Chanditala Road / Barasat Road at Sodepur, Ward No.32 under Panihati Municipality, J. L. No. 14, Dag No. 32, 33 & 34, Khatian No. 461, Mouza : Ghola Ref.:: This office memo no. EN/560/IC-18/86(Pt-I) dated 21st March, 2001 Sir, It is matter of great regret that no reply has been received from you to my office memo no. quoted above even after a lapse of 10 months. You are therefore again requested to intimate whether appropriate action was taken in the matter consequent to letter no.8(B)/CMDA/Sectt/VIII-30/90 dt. 01/01/2001 from the Dy. Secretary, CMDA. You are also requested to indicate whether preventive action was taken in terms of notification issued by Land and Lane Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal. In this connection I am enclosing a copy of letter no.APDR/CEO-DoE 2002-002 from the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, Raja Road, P.O. Sukchar, Pin-743179 which will speak for itself. You are requested to ensure suitable action in consonance with the demands of the association reiterated against paragraphs (a), (b) & (c) which are perfectly reasonable. An early reply intimating the action taken by you will be highly appreciated. Sd/- Chief Environment Officer No.EN/81/IC-18/86(Pt-I)/I(7) Date: January 18, 2002 Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to: 1. Chief Engineer, CMW&SA, 32, B.B.D. Bag (South), Kolkata – 700 007. 2. Additional District Magistrate, Land and Land Reforms Officer, 24 Pgs. (N), Barasat 3. District Magistrate, Land and Land Reforms Officer, 24 Pgs. (N), Barasat 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Barrackpore, 24 Pgs. (N) 5. Sri Rabindra Nath Ghosh, Secretary, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (A.P.D.R.), Panihati Branch, Sodepur Station Road, Sodepur, Bastuhara Bazar near Lokashanskriti Bhawan, P.O. Panihati, Dist. 24 Pgs (North) 6. Shri Santi Roy & Others, 56 Chanditala Road, Bodhikanan, P.O. Sodepur, Dist. 24 Pgs (N), Pin-743178. 7. Shri Kedareswar Biswas, Secretary, H.B.Town Nagarik Surakha Samity, A-30 Central Road, H.B. Town, Sodepur, Dist. North 24 Parganas Sd/- Chief Environment Officer
  • LETTER OF APDR WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENT OFFICER ON 18TH JANUARY 2002 QUOTE ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS RAJA ROAD, P.O. SUKCHAR, PIN-743179, DIST. – NORTH 24-PARGANAS PH. NOS. 553 – 2140 / 553 – 9116 APDR/CEO-DoE-2002-002 7/1/2002 The Chief Environment Officer Department of Environment Government of West Bengal 4 Fairlie Place, Calcutta - 700 001 Sub: Large size tanks abutting Chanditala Road/Barasat Road at Sodepur Ward No. 32 under Panihati Municipality, J.L. No.14, Dag No. 32, 33, 34, 34/725, 33/724 and 37 Khatian No.111, 107, 461, Mouza Ghola which are classified as tanks or visible as water bodies for the last sixteen (16) years i.e. from 1986 Land area – Five bighas (approximately) Owners: Sunil Kumar Khoso, Anil Khoso, Nikhil Khoso, Naba Khoso and Jaggannath Khoso all son of late Panchu Ghopal Khoso residing at Ghola Bus Stand, Barasat Road, P.S. – Ghola, Dist. – North 24-Parganas Dear Sir, This has reference to your letter No. EN/560/1C-18/86 (Pt-I)/I/(7) dt. 21/03/2001, and information gathered from the local people and in view of a letter dt. 16/12/2001 signed by one Subhendu Chanda (copy enclosed) a non-owner praying for construction of embankment around the said tanks. In this connection we have the following facts for your consideration and necessary action: 1) In 1987 offenders started to fill up the said tanks but could not succeed because the local people came forward and protested. In this connection letter dt. 18/09/1987 addressed to the Chairman of Panihati Municipality by Sri Dilip Chakraborty of Chanditala. ‘B’-Block and forty-three (43) others is self-supporting (copy enclosed). Point No. 4 in the said letter dealt about the soil erosion and dilapidated condition of the embankments of the tanks. During that period neither the municipal authority nor the applicants and/or owners were completely silent over the issue. 2) In September / October 2000 also this group owners and land developers’ initiative to ‘stop soil erosion’ and/or developing the area was successfully thwarted through active intervention of your office and also the following authorities vide (i) Director of Fisheries letter No.IFP-136 dt. 30/10/2000 (ii) CMDA letter No.8(B)/CMDA/Sectt/VIII-30/90 dt. 01/01/2001 and (iii) ADM & DL&LRO letter No.44(5)/26/V-Cell/LR(N) dt. 04/01/2001. These three letters are enclosed for your kind perusal and necessary action. Under such circumstances of crooked planning by well-known land brokers of the locality we urge upon you to see that a) the work of constructing embankment walls etc. should be strictly carried out under strict official supervision if permitted to do so. b) in no case fly ash should be used as filling material for reclaiming already submerged land if any. c) The collection of necessary material for filling operation are obtained by excavating the tank itself. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-Rabindra Nath Ghosh Secretary Encl: As above UNQUOTE
  • DEPUTY SECRETARY, CONSTITUTION CELL,CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 3A, AUCKLAND PLACE, CALCUTTA – 17 HAD ALSO WRITTEN TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PANIHATI MUNICIPALITY AND REQUESTED HIM TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE MATTERS OF TANK FILLING IN CHANDITALA PUKUR IMMEDIATELY FROM HIS END IN TERMS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE WEST BENGAL TOWN & COUNTRY (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1979 AND THE CONCERNED LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN FOR MUNICIPALITIES LYING ON THE EAST BANK OF RIVER HOOGHLY, AS THE POWER UNDER THE SAID ACT HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO LOCAL BODIES. CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 3A, Auckland Place, Calcutta – 17 No._____/CMDA/Sectt./VIII-30/90 Dated _______ 2001 From : Deputy Secretary Constitution Cell, C M D A To : The Chairman, Panihati Municipality, Panihati Sub: Unauthorized filling up of a tank abutting Chanditala Road/Barasat Road at Sodepur, Ward No.32 under Panihati Municipality, J. L. No. 14, Dag No. 32, 33 & 34, Khatian No.461, Mouza:Ghola Sir, I am directed to forwards herewith copies of representations received from (i) Sri Rabindra Nath Ghosh, Secretary, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, Panihati Branch, Sodepur Station Road, (ii) Sri Santi Roy and Others and (iii) Sri Kedareswar Biswas, Secretary, H. B. Town Nagarik Suraksha Samity, A-30 Central Road, H.B. Town, Sodepur, Dist. North 24-Parganas vide letter No. APDR/CEO-CMDA 2006-06 dated 5.12.2000, No.SR&O/CEO-CMDA-2000/105 dated 19.12.2000 and No.BHTNSS/011/2K dated 21.11.2000 in connection with the above mentioned subject and to request you kindly to take appropriate action in the said matters immediately from your end in terms of relevant provisions of the West Bengal Town & Country (Planning & Development) Act, 1979 and the concerned Land Use and Development Control Plan for Municipalities lying on the east bank of river Hooghly, as the power under the said Act has been delegated to Local Bodies. You are also requested to kindly see that the preventive action is taking too in the said matter in terms of Notification issued under No.1224/CMDA/Sectt/I-98/85(Pt.II) dated 24.12.85 and the guidelines of the Land & Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal as also circulated vide this office letter No. 289/CMDA/Sectt/VIII-124/86(A) dated 25.2.91. I am also directed to request you to kindly furnish this office a report in the matter early for intimating the same to the appropriate Authority. Enclo: As stated Yours faithfully, Sd/- Dy. Secretary (Constn.) C M D A Copy to:- 1) Chief Engineer, CMW&SA, for information and necessary action please, A copy of the petition is enclosed. Copy along with the copy of complaints forwarded for information to :- 2) Additional District Magistrate, Land & Land Reforms Officer, North 24-Parganas, Barasat 3) District Land & Land Reforms Officer, North 24-Parganas, Barasat 4) Sub-Divisional Officer, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas. He is also requested to kindly look into the matter and take an appropriate action from his end as deem necessary. Enclo: As stated Sd/- Dy. Secretary (Constn.) C M D A No.8 (3)/CMDA/Sectt./VIII-30/90 Dated 01- 01- 2001 Copy for information to 1) Sri Rabindra Nath Ghosh, Secretary, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (A.P.D.R.), Panihati Branch, Sodepur Station Road, Bastuhara Bazar near Lokashanskriti Bhawan, P.O. Panihati, Dist. North 24-Parganas. 2) Sri Santi Roy and Others, 56, Chanditala Road, Bodhikanan, P.O. Sodepur, Dist. North 24-Parganas (Pin-743178). 3) Sri Kedareswar Biswas, Secretary, H. B. Town Nagarik Suraksha Samity, A-30 Central Road, H.B. Town, Sodepur, Dist. North 24-Parganas. Sd/- Dy. Secretary (Constn.) C M D A
  • CHIEF ENVIRONMENT OFFICER OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL HAD WRITTEN LETTER ON MARCH 21, 2001 TO THE CHAIRMAN OF PANIHATI MUNICIPALITY WHICH IS SELF-EXPLANATORY AND STILL UNREPLIED Government of West Bengal Department of Environment 4, Fairlie Place, 2nd Floor, Calcutta – 700 001 Phone No.:220-7852 No.EN/ /IC-18/86(Pt-I) Date: March 21, 2001 From : N. Sen, IFS Chief Environment Officer To The Chairman Panihati Municipality Panihati SUB.:: Unauthorised filling up of a Tank abutting Chanditala Road / Barasat Road at Sodepur, Ward No.32 under Panihati Municipality, J. L. No. 14, Dag No. 32, 33 & 34, Khatian No. 461, Mouza : Ghola Ref.:: No.8 (B)/CMDA/Sectt./VIII-30/90 dated 01- 01- 2001 from the Dy. Secretary, CMDA Sir, You are requested to intimate whether appropriate action was taken in the matters under reference. You are also requested to kindly indicate whether preventive action has been taken in terms of notification issued by Land & Land Reforms Department, Govt. of West Bengal. An early action will be highly appreciated. Sd/- Chief Environment Officer No.EN/560/IC-18/86(Pt-I)/I(7) Date: March 21, 2001 Copy with the request to intimate the present development of the matter to: 1. Chief Engineer, CMW&SA, 32, B.B.D. Bag (South), Kolkata – 700 007. 2. Additional District Magistrate, Land and Land Reforms Officer, 24 Pgs. (N), Barasat 3. District Magistrate, Land and Land Reforms Officer, 24 Pgs. (N), Barasat 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Barrackpore, 24 Pgs. (N) 5. Sri Rabindra Nath Ghosh, Secretary, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (A.P.D.R.), Panihati Branch, Sodepur Station Road, Sodepur, Bastuhara Bazar near Lokashanskriti Bhawan, P.O. Panihati, Dist. 24 Pgs (North) 6. Shri Santi Roy & Others, 56 Chanditala Road, Bodhikanan, P.O. Sodepur, Dist. 24 Pgs (N), Pin-743178. 7. Shri Kedareswar Biswas, Secretary, H.B.Town Nagarik Surakha Samity, A-30 Central Road, H.B. Town, Sodepur, Dist. North 24 Parganas Sd/- Chief Environment Officer
  • JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL HAD ALSO WRITTEN LETTER ON 24th JULY, 2003 TO THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NORTH 24-PARGANAS IN THIS REGARD TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY AND TAKE NECESSARY STEPS QUOTE Government of West Bengal Department of Environment 4, Fairlie Place, 2nd Floor, Calcutta – 700 001 Phone No.:220-7852 No.EN/943/IP-41/2003 Date: the 24th July, 2003 From : Joint Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal To The D.M. 24-Parganas (North) Barasat SUB.:: Unauthorized filling up of Tank abutting Chanditala Road / Barasat Road at Sodepur, Ward No.32 under Panihati Municipality Sir, I am directed to forward herewith a copy of the complaint from Shri Tufan Chakraborty, Secretary, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, Panihati Branch on the above mentioned subject for your kind information. Panihati Municipality, was earlier requested vide this Deptt. Letter No. EN/560/IC-18/86(Pt.I) dt. 21/03/2001 and EN/81/IC-18/86(Pt.I) 18/01/2002 (copy enclosed) to take appropriate action and report the matter at this end, but no response has so far been received from this end. I am, further directed to request you kindly make an enquiry and take necessary steps from your end with an intimation to this Department. Yours faithfully Sd/- M. Dasgupta Joint Secretary No.EN/943/IP-41/2003/1(3) Date: the 24th July, 2003 Copy forwarded for information & necessary action to: 1. The Joint Secretary, Fisheries Department 2. Sr. Law Officer, WBPCB 3. Chairman, Panihati Municipality Sd/- M. Dasgupta Joint Secretary No.EN/943/IP-41/2003/2(1) Date: the 24th July, 2003 Copy forwarded for information to Shri Tufan Chakraborty, Secretary, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, Panihati Branch. Sd/- M. Dasgupta UNQUOTE
  • SANTI ROY & OTHERS, 56 CHANDITALA ROAD, BODHIKANAN P.O. SODEPUR, DIST. NORTH 24-PARGANAS, PIN : 743 178 SR&O/CoPM 2001 2001 The Officer-in-Charge Ghola Police Station Sukanta Pally Ghola Dist. – North 24-Parganas Sub : Illegal filling of Water Bodies – River Sonai comprising R.S. Dag Nos.2655, 2658, 2649 and 2651, Mouza Natagarh, P. S. Ghola, which are classified as tanks Dear Sir, Kindly refer to the letter No. Pm/Gen/Misc/2000/967 dt. 30/03/2000 of the Chairman of Panihati Municipality, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s Order dt. 16/02/2001 and National Human Right Commission’s letter dt. 24/02/2001 enclosed herewith and also please note that some persons without any permission from the Panihati Municipality illegally filling up the tank (part of Sonai River) with the earth drawn from tank-side land. We have lodged a complain in this regard to the Chairman of Panihati Municipality We request you to stop those miscreants from taking law in their hands by your appropriate intervention forthwith. Kindly treat this letter as First Information Report and provide us the relevant number. We shall be glad if you kindly inform us about action taken by you in this matter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully,
  • ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS RAJA ROAD, P.O. SODEPUR, DIST. - NORTH 24-PARGANAS, PIN - 743179  553 - 2140 APDR/OC-Ghola-PS 2001- 2001 The Officer-in-Charge Ghola Police Station Sukanta Pally Ghola Dist. – North 24-Parganas Sub : Illegal filling of Water Bodies – River Sonai comprising R.S. Dag Nos.2655, 2658, 2649 and 2651, Mouza Natagarh, P. S. Ghola, which are classified as tanks Dear Sir, Kindly refer to the letter No. Pm/Gen/Misc/2000/967 dt. 30/03/2000 of the Chairman of Panihati Municipality, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s Order dt. 16/02/2001 and National Human Right Commission’s letter dt. 24/02/2001 enclosed herewith and also please note that some persons without any permission from the Panihati Municipality illegally filling up the tank (part of Sonai River) with the earth drawn from tank-side land. We have lodged a complain in this regard to the Chairman of Panihati Municipality We request you to stop those miscreants from taking law in their hands by your appropriate intervention forthwith. Kindly treat this letter as First Information Report and provide us the relevant number. We shall be glad if you kindly inform us about action taken by you in this matter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, RABINDRA NATH GHOSH SECRETARY Encl : As above
  • BILKANDA JHIL IS NOTHING BUT A PERENNIAL WETLAND IN NORTH 24-PARGANAS OF WEST BENGAL WHICH IS BEING DESTROYED VERY SYSTEMATICALLY IN A PLANNED WAY DEFYING ALL ORDERS OF HON'BLE WBPCB APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND KOLKATA HIGH COURT AS DELINEATED HEREIN BEFORE. BELOW CITED WRITE-UP MAY BE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD : What are wetlands and why are they important to us? According to the Ramsar definition wetlands areas 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 metres. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs, ponds, reed beds and estuaries. Wetlands are highly productive ecosystems that provide resources that are of economic and social importance. They are the link between water and land. They provide significant benefits to humans in general because of the ecological functions they perform in the global ecosystem. People may benefit directly from wetlands products such as fish, rice, timber, fuel wood, reeds and medicine or indirectly from other functions such as flood control, nutrient cycling, erosion control, storm protection and ground water recharge. They act as filters, thereby protecting sources of drinking water. The loss or degradation of wetlands has many consequences, such as increased flooding or the decline of water quality. Wetlands hold rainwater and sediments and purify water. The most important resource from wetlands is water that is needed for the survival of all kinds of life. Thus the wetlands play a crucial role in sustaining biodiversity. They also contribute to climate stability. Wetlands can also be utilized for recreational activities such as game viewing, hunting and fishing or just to be appreciated for their mere existence and scenic beauty. A wide variety of wetlands like marshes, swamps, open water bodies, mangroves and tidal flats and salt marshes etc. exist in our country.
  • DO YOU KNOW ‘RIGHT TO CLEAN ENVIRONMENT’ AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT The fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 were expanded to include environmental protection. In judicial review, Indian courts have set a blazing trail in the field of environmental litigation. By invoking the power under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to protect fundamental rights, the Supreme Court gave relief to both individuals and environmental organisations. Disregarding the traditional concepts of locus standi the court entertained a new genus of litigation, viz., public interest litigation (PIL) for protecting the fundamental rights of the people. Even a complaint written as a letter addressed to the court by the aggrieved persons or public-spirited persons is taken up as a new case. The Supreme Court in this crusade against environmental deterioration proceeded on the premise that a clean and wholesome environment is a prerequisite to enjoy the right to life enshrined in the Indian Constitution as a fundamental right. Originally, the Constitution of India did not contain a specific provision for the protection of the environment. However, in 1976, the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act was passed which expressly incorporated into the Constitution of India specific provisions for environmental protection and improvement in the form of Fundamental Duty and the Directive Principle of State Policy. The Forty Second Amendment Act was adopted in response to the Stockholm Declaration made by the International Conference on Human Development in 1972. Thus, India became one of the first countries, which provided for the protection and improvement of the environment in its Constitution These Constitutional provisions are implemented through the environment protection laws of the country. • Directive Principles of State Policy • Fundamental Duties • Fundamental Rights • Environment Legislation Directive Principles of State Policy The Forty Second Amendment added Article 48 A to the directive principles of state policy, which is an integral and significant element of our democratic set-up. It declares: "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard and forests and wildlife of the country" The Directive Principles are policy prescriptions that guide the government. Although unenforceable by law, the legal value of the Directive Principles has constantly grown. Though not directly enforceable by law, they possess the legal status of being complementary to Fundamental Rights and impose an obligation on the Government, including courts, to protect the environment. Fundamental Duties The Forty Second Amendment also incorporated Article 51A (g) in a new chapter entitled 'Fundamental Duties". It states that : " It shall be duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures". Imposing a social obligation, this article thus emphasizes that preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance intact is a task not only of the government but also of every citizen of the India must undertake. The provision of Fundamental Duty actually flows from the World Charter for Nature adopted by the General Assembly on 28th October 1982. The Charter recognizes the rights of individuals and non-governmental entities by providing that all persons shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation. The Charter also imposes a corresponding duty upon persons to ensure that objectives and requirements of the Charter are met. Fundamental Rights Encouraged by an atmosphere of freedom and articulation, the High courts and Supreme Court of India have read the right to wholesome environment as a part of the right to life guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 enunciates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Constitution thus embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gifts without which life cannot be enjoyed and it has been held in several cases that the slow poisoning by environmental pollution due to lack of safeguards amounts to a violation of Article 21. The most famous of these cases are the Dehradun Quarrying Case and more recently the Ganga Pollution (Tanneries) Case. In his final observations justifying the closure of tanneries in Kanpur that were polluting the river, the Judge said " We are conscious that closure of tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health and ecology have greater importance to the people"
  • Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution are also invoked for environmental protection. Article 14 states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law and protects a person against arbitrary or unreasonable state action. Article 19 (1) (g) provides that all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Accordingly in cases involving polluting industrial units, the courts face the task of balancing the environmental imperative with the right to carry on any occupation. Environment Legislation Article 253 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make laws implementing India's international obligations as well as any decision made at an international conference, association or other body. In view of the broad range of issues addressed by international conventions, conferences, treaties and agreements, Article 253 apparently gives the Parliament the power to enact laws on virtually any entry contained in the State List. Parliament has used its power under Article 253 to enact the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986. The preamble to both laws state that these Acts were enacted to implement the decisions reached at the United Nations Conference on the Human environment held at Stockholm in 1972. The broad language of Article 253 suggests that in the wake of the Stockholm Conference, Parliament has the power to legislate on all matters linked to the preservation of natural resources and the environment. Environmental law plays a critical role in promoting environmental protection through the sustainable use of natural resources pollution prevention; and the integration of environment and development. Environmental law also assists governments in building national capacities to address major global, regional and national environmental issues and problems in the context of sustainable development. Keeping with the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration, the Indian legislative machinery was equipped with a host of environmental legislations to effectively deal with various aspects related to the protection of the environment. Following is a brief summary of the key legal statutes categorized into three major categories according to their area of implementation. • Project Initiation • Pollution Control Norms • Health, Hazards & Safety The series of PIL cases instituted by a public spirited lawyer , Mr. M.C.Mehta, in the Supreme Court set a glorious precedent. One Mehta case (M.C.Mehta v. Union of India) concerned the closing down of a chlorine plant of Shriram Industries. The one known as the Oleum gas leak casewas decided by a 5 judges Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court. Granting locus standi to the petitioner the court held that the exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher like the natural use of the land are no longer applicable in India in cases of industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. In the next case M.C. Mehta v.Union of India, discharge of effluents by tanneries and chemical industries into the river Ganga the Supreme Court ordered the tanneries not having pre- treatment plants approved by the pollution control board to stop their discharge of trade effluents. In yet another of the Mehta series, the issue was whether the petitioner who was not a riparian owner could be granted standing to move for prevention of nuisance for pollution in river Ganga. The court held that it is reasonable to allow any person to take proceedings on behalf of the community at large. In the recent PIL, Indian Council for Enviro-legal action v. Union of India the Supreme Court focused attention on the woes of the people living in a village due to sludge, a lethal waste, left out by the closed down chemical industries, which caused heavy damage to the environment. Viewing the case as "social action litigation", the court ordered that remedial action be taken and compensation be given for the silent tragedies in line with the ‘Mehta absolute liability’ principle.
  • Attakoya Thangal v. Union of India, the Kerala High Court said: "Right to life is much more than the right to animal existence and its attributes are manifold, as life itself. A prioritisation of human needs and a new value system has been recognised in these areas. The right to sweet water and the right to free air are the attributes of the right to life. These are the basic elements which sustain life itself" The scenario of environmental litigation in India is very vibrant due to the recognition of locus standi of applicants approaching the court by way of PIL. The traditional rules of standing fade into thin air in the liberal judicial strategy employing the technique of giving constitutional underpinning to the requirement of a wholesome environment. Nevertheless, traditionalists may raise their eyebrow at the propriety of this new breed of litigation and the judicial activism in India. The Indian PIL’s are often relating to independent instances of public grievances. In such cases the orders passed by the Supreme Court may be useful only for that particular case. Therefore it may be seen by the critics that this ad hoc approach of the Indian Supreme court is not a useful remedy for the widespread environmental problems like trans-boundary air and water pollution.Thus there is a need for the “Right to Clean Environment” as fundamental right as the this is a basic element for the sustenance of life, whether its plant, human or animals. This right will automatically take into account all those fundamental rights such as wholesome environment, livelihood, etc.
  • India -- A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Appellate Authority Under Water Act. W.P. 33493/1998(2001.06.28)(Building Restrictions to Protect Drinking Water) 06/28/2001 In the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad The A.P. Pollution Control Board, v. The Appellate Authority Under Water (P&CP) Act and Air (P&CP) Act, HUDA complex, Maitrivanam, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad Writ Petition No. 33493 of 1998 28-06-2001 dd. Sri. Satyabrata Sinha C.J. Judgement: 1. This writ petition is filed by the of A.P. Pollution Control Board (for short 'the Board') questioning the orders dated 29-6-1998 and 26-10-1998, passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No. 3 of 1998 and IA No. 5 of 1998. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The Government wide orders issued in GO Ms. No. 192, MA, dated 31-3-1994 prohibited various developments within 10 Kms radius of Himayatsagar and Osman Sagar lakes, which are the main sources of drinking water supply for Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The Government, after considering the Expert Committees recommendation made in this behalf, in modification of the aforementioned GO issued further orders in GO Ms. No. 111, MA, dated 8-3-1996. The relevant portion whereof reads: (i) To prohibit polluting industries, major hotels, residential colonies or other establishments that generate pollution in the catchment of the lakes upto 10 Kms from full tank level of the lakes as per list in Annexure-I. 3. An application was filed by respondent No. 2 herein praying for grant of consent for establishing a Steel Re-rolling Mill. The said application was rejected by the petitioner-Board n the ground that the area in which respondent No. 2 seeks to establish the Mill, falls within the prohibited zone. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before respondent No.1-appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal stating: Clause 3(i) of GO Ms. No. 111, dt. 8-3-1998 on the basis of which consent for establishment is refused reads as follows: "The prohibition of polluting industries, major hotels, residential colonies or other establishments that generate pollution in the catchment area of the lakes up to 10 Kms from full tank level of the lakes as per the list in Annexure I". It clearly shows that the prohibition does not apply to all villagers that are situated within a radius of 10 Kms from full water level of tanks but only to such of villages as shown in the Annexure I. Sub-clause (i) reads as follows: "there shall be total prohibition of location of industries in the prohibited zone". Prohibited zone is not defined anywhere. So what is stated in Clause (i) must be deemed to be prohibited zone. I feel that it would not be proper to read something with is not intended by the GO. So, I find that it would not be proper to read something which is not intended by the GO. So, I find that the refusal for grant of consent for establishment of the industry within the limits of that particular village where the appellant proposes to establish the industry in pursuance of GO Ms. No. 111, dt. 08-03-96 cannot be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed and the order refusing consent for establishment is set aside.
  • 4. The Environmental Engineer of the Board by letter dated 16-7-1998 requested the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, to inform the Board as to why the name of the village in which respondent No. 2 intends to establish the industry was omitted in Annexure I, appended to GO Ms. No. 111, dated 8-3-1996. The Mandal Revenue Officer after conducting an enquiry, by letter dated 17-7-1998, informed the Environmental Engineer of the Board stating: 5. It is informed that the Kavvaguda village is not a revenue village and it is a hamlet of Narkoda Revenue village, Sy. No. 423 is recorded in Revenue Records of Shamshabad village and this Sy. No. is nearer to Kavvaguda h/o Narkoda village. The petitioner, thereafter filed an interlocutory application, being IA No. 5 of 1998 before respondent No.1, praying to review the matter. The said IA was dismissed stating: On the other hand it was contended that the GO is applicable to all the villages within the radius of 10 Kms and as the village is situated within that prohibited zone, the appellant cannot be permitted to establish an industrial unit in the said survey number. Thus it clearly shows that it was not the mistake apparent on the face of the record. Further, this application is filed under Section 28 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. These provisions are in respect of appeals only. There are no specific provisions under which an application for review could be entertained by this appellate authority. However, review petition is based not on the material that was available at the time of hearing of the appeal but on some fresh material produced in support of fact that Kavvaguda village is only hamlet of Narkoda village. So, under the circumstances specified above, the application for review is not maintainable and is therefore dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since a genuine mistake was committed by the petitioner in not bringing the above fact to notice of respondent No.1 while hearing the appeal, respondent No.1 ought to have reviewed its order. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in a case of this nature, though respondent No.1 was not required to exercise the power of substantive review, but when a mistake was pointed out, respondent No. 1 should have rectified such mistake in exercise of the power of procedural review.
  • 7. Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 on the other contended that the judgement of the Supreme Court in A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD II v. PROF. M.V. NAYUDU1 is not applicable to the case on hand inasmuch as the industry which respondent No. 2 seeks to establish is not a polluting industry, and in support of this contention, he drew our attention to the fact that the petitioner had not rejected the application of respondent No. 2 for grant of consent on the ground that it is polluting industry. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner must be held to have failed to apply its mind properly while rejecting the application of respondent No.2 for grant of consent. 8. It is not in dispute that the aforementioned GO Ms. No. 111, dated 8-3-1996 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD II v. M.V. NAYUDU. In A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD v. PROF. M.V. NAYUDU2, the Supreme Court issued certain directions directing the authorities therein to submit a report to the Court. The reports, as directed, having been submitted, the matter again came up before the Supreme Court in A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD II v. M.V. NAYUDU3. The Supreme Court, having regard to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended by Act 53 of 1988 held "that no industry can be allowed to be established nor any steps can be permitted to be taken for establishing an industry without taking permission of the State Pollution Control Board". 9. In the aforementioned context, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the industry sought to be set up by respondent No. 2 is a polluting industry, and whether the said industry, having regard to the promise made by the State, should be allowed to come up. The said questions, essentially being questions of fact, in our opinion, cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are however, of the opinion that respondent No. 1 committed a manifest error in proceeding to determine as to whether Kavvaguda, which is said to be a hamlet Narkoda Revenue village fell within the purview of GO Ms. No. 111, dated 8-3-1996. 11. Having regard to the fact that the Government has already issued orders in GO Ms. No.192, MA, dated 31-3-1994 prohibiting various developments within 10 Kms radius of Himayatsagar and Osman Sagar lakes, which are the main sources of drinking water supply for Hyderabad and Secunderabad, and further orders in modification of the aforementioned GO in GO Ms. No. 111, MA, dated 8-3-1996, we are of the opinion that the question that would fall for consideration by the petitioner is as to whether the industry, sought to be set up by the petitioner is a polluting industry or not. The said question, in our opinion, cannot be gone into by this Court for the first time in exercise of power under Article 226 Constitution of India having regard to the decision of the apex Court in STATE OF W.B. v. NURUDDIN MALLICK4. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, we allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 29-6-1998 and 26-10-1998, passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 3 of 1998 and IA No. 5 of 1998 and remit the matter to the petitioner for consideration afresh. The petitioner, having regard to the judgements of the apex Court, referred supra, and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, shall consider the question of grant of consent to the respondent No. 2 for setting up of industry, and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity of hearing, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Last modified 5/23/03 9:17:11 AM Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW) U.S. Office: 1877 Garden Avenue, Eugene, OR 97403 USA Phone: 541.687.8454 Fax: 541.687.0535 elawus@elaw.org Copyright 2003 Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide | User agreement and acceptable use policy
  • This is clear water tank which was aimed by the land brokers to fill up in the past but it was foiled by the local people with the help of KMDA AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT of Government of West Bengal. Now the fact is that fishing activities is stopped for the last one year and it is now filled with water hyacinth. WE appeal the the KMDA and Environment Department to come out and take up preventive action to stop such calculated and planned destruction of wetland i.e. CHANDITALA PUKUR WHICH IS EXISTING FOR THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS OR SO.
  • LEGAL AND ACCEPTABLE PROPOSITION ON CHANDITALA PUKUR IS CITED BELOW: Supreme Court Almanac General Index 2001 (4) Scale Hinch Lal Tiwari … Appellant VS Kamala Devi & Ors … Respondents Coram: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S. N. Phukan, JJ. Dt. 25/7/2001 Citation “13. It is important to note that 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 enable people to enjoy a quality life, which is essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The government, including revenue authorities, i.e. respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, restore the order of the Additional Collector dated February 25, 1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on March 12, 1999. Consequently, respondents 1 to 10 shall vacate the land, which was allotted, to them within six months from today. They will, however be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. If respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period the official respondents i.e. respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. THE STATE INCLUDING RESPONDENTS 11 TO 13 SHALL RESTORE THE POND, DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THE SAME AS A RECREATIONAL SPOT, WHICH WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE VILLAGERS. FURTHER IT WILL ALSO HELP IN MAINTAINING ECOLOGICAL BALANCE AND PROTECTING ENVIRONMENT IN REGARD TO WHICH THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED ITS CONCERN. SUCH MEASURES MUST BEGIN AT THE GRASS-ROOT LEVEL IF THEY WERE TO BECOME THE NATION’S PRIDE.”
  • FLY ASH DUMPING IS BANNED IN WETLAND AREA W.P. 7428 (W) of 2001 Mr. Pradip Kumar Das - For Petitioners 01/03/2002 Mr. Asim Kr. Halder - For S. P. Mr. Aninda Mitra - For CESC Mr. A. Chowdhury Mr. M. C. Das - For W.B.P.C.B. Mr. S. Banerjee Supplementary affidavit filed by the CESC Limited today be kept with the records of this case. The learned Counsel, for the petitioners, wants to give reply to the supplementary affidavit. He may do so within two weeks from today. The S. P. will see that the wetland/water bodies are not filled up with fly ash by CESC Limited or any other Company in or around that area. Report filed by the P.C.B. be kept with the records of this case. Let this matter stand adjourned till 22.03.2002. Let xerox plain copies of this order, duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the learned Counsels, for the respective parties. Sd/- ( Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.) Sd/- ( Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J)
  • M.K.Balakrishnan &Amp; Others vs Union Of India &Amp; Others on 28 April, 2009 Cites 3 docs Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949 State Of Orissa vs Government Of India &Amp; Anr on 6 February, 2009 Supreme Court of India IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(C) NO.230 OF 2001 M.K.Balakrishnan & Others Petitioners versus Union of India & Others Respondents ORDER On 26th March, 2009 we had passed a detailed order relating to the problem of water shortage in our country and we had issued notice to the Secretary,Ministry of Science & Technology asking him to file a counter affidavit within four weeks stating what measures have been taken to solve the water problem in the country and for implementing the recommendations given by one of us (Hon'ble Mr.Justice Markandey Katju) in the decision in State of Orissa vs. Government of India & another JT 2009(2) SC 233. Despite having immense reservoirs of water in the form of the Himalayas in the North and the Arabian sea, Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal in the West,South and East of India, there are water shortages everywhere often leading to riots,road blocks and other disturbances and disputes for getting water. In many cities,in many colonies people get water for half an hour in a day, and sometimes not even that e.g. in Delhi, South India, Rajasthan, U.P., Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Northeast, etc.. In large parts of rural areas there is shortage of water for irrigation and drinking purpose. Rivers in India are drying up, ground water is being rapidly depleted, and canals are polluted. The Yamuna in Delhi looks like a black drain. Several perennial rivers like the Ganga and Brahamputra are rapidly becoming seasonal. Rivers are dying or declining, and aquifers are getting over-pumped. Industries, hotels, etc. are pumping out groundwater at an alarming rate, causing sharp decline in the groundwater levels. 2 Farmers are having a hard time finding ground water for their crops e.g. in Punjab. In many places there are serpentine queues of exhausted housewives waiting for hours to fill their buckets of water. In this connection John Briscoe has authored a detailed World Bank report, in which he has mentioned that despite this alarming situation there is widespread complacency on the part of the authorities in India. In our opinion it is science alone which can solve this problem (as well as the other gigantic problems facing the country). India has a strong heritage of science. With the aid of science we had built mighty civilizations thousands of years ago when most people in Europe (except in Greece and Rome) were living in forests. We had made outstanding scientific discoveries and inventions in the past see Will Durants' `The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage). However, we subsequently took to the unscientific path of superstitions and empty rituals, which has led us to disaster. The way out therefore for our nation is to once again turn to the scientific path shown by our ancestors - the path of Aryabhatta and Brahmagupta, Sushrut and Charak, Ramanujan and Raman. It is indeed sad that a country like India which scientifically solved the problem of town planning 6000 years ago in the Indus Valley Civilization and which discovered the decimal system in Mathematics and Plastic Surgery in Medicine in ancient times, and is largely managing Silicon Valley in U.S.A. today has been unable to solve the problem of water shortage till now. In our opinion there is no dearth of eminent scientists in the field who can solve this problem, but they have not been organized and brought together and not been requested by the Central and State Governments to do their patriotic and sacred duty to solve this problem, nor given the facilities for this. In our opinion the right to get water is a part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In this connection, it has been observed by the Court in Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking and Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 1996(2) SCC 572 : "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"..........
  • 3 Similarly in Chameli Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1996(2) SCC 549 this Court observed : "..........Right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights."........... We, therefore, direct the Central government to forthwith constitute a Committee to address the problems referred to in our order dated 26th March, 2009 which shall do scientific research on a war footing for solving the water shortage in most parts of our country because of which our people are suffering terribly. Without water there can be no life, as the Hindi poet Rahim wrote, and Article 21 of our Constitution guarantees the right to life to all persons living in India. The Central Government is, therefore, directed to form this Committee to address the water shortage problem at the earliest, latest within two months from today. This Committee shall have the Secretary, Union Ministry of Science & Technology as its Chairman. Amongst the members of the Committee will be the Secretary, Union Ministry of Water Management. The other members of the Committee will be scientists specialized in the field of solving water shortage problems nominated by the Chairman of the Committee and they are requested to take help from foreign scientists specialized in this field. The members of the Committee should regard this work as a patriotic duty, and the entire people of India including N.R.Is. settled abroad should help this Committee. The Committee is directed to do scientific research on a war footing to solve the water shortage in the country. In particular the Committee shall do the following: (a) Scientific research on a war footing to find out inexpensive methods of converting saline water into fresh water. This will be very useful in the coastal states because the sea has almost an infinite amount of water reserves and the only problem is to find out an inexpensive methods to convert it into fresh water. The present methods like distillation, reverse osmosis etc. are very expensive methods and cannot be afforded by a poor country like India. Hence we have to find out inexpensive methods and this is only possible by scientific research. 4 (b) Scientific research to find out methods of harnessing and managing monsoon rain water and also to manage the flood waters and also to do research in rain water harvesting, and treatment of waste water so that it may be recycled and available as potable water. ) Any other methods or suggestions including for matters for protection and preservation of wet lands and matters connected thereto. This Committee should be given all the financial, technical and administrative help by the Central and State Governments for this purpose. The Committee is requested to do patriotic duty to the nation in this connection, and by scientific research to find out the ways of solving the water shortage problem in the country. The help and advice of foreign scientific experts and/or Indian scientists settled abroad who are specialized in this field may also be taken, since the solution to the problem will not only help India but also foreign countries which are facing the same problem, some of which may already have progressed significantly in this area. In our opinion, this is absolutely essential now because the whole country is reeling under acute shortage of water as referred to in our order dated 26 th March,2009, some details of which have been given in the said order. We propose to monitor this case from time to time. For this purpose this matter will be listed on the second Tuesday possibly of every alternative month. List again on the 11th August, 2009, on which date a progress report will be submitted before us by the Chairman of the Committee who is requested to be personally present before us. Thereafter the case will be listed on the 20th October, 2009 and so on. The Registry of this Court shall send a copy of this order to the members of the Committee mentioned above. ........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU] New Delhi; ........................J. April 28, 2009. [H.L. DATTU]
  • Why are Wetlands Important? Often called “nature’s kidneys,” wetlands help protect the quality and quantity of water. They collect excess water during floods, release water during droughts and filter water into groundwater systems.
  • I am in Pittsburgh on 5th Dec. 2011. Very glad to see the information on wikipedia concerning our small village of Chanditala wetland.
  • DESPITE THE FOLLOWING DECLARATION WETLANDS OF PANIHATI MUNICITY IS UNSAFE AND UNPROTECTED Programmes » Environment Plan Environment Plan Major Development Objectives Achieving and maintaining good quality drinking water for safe and hygienic living conditions. To ensure proper hygiene, safe, clean and sustainable environment of slums. Preventing pollution of natural water resources and maintaining quality of water with accordance with the WBPCB. Protection of wetlands from pollution and encroachments. Increase in the percentage of opens spaces and green cover. Prevention and cutting of trees and branches as per guidelines of WBPCB. To evolve necessary standards from guidelines and other related survey and practical situations. Increase peoples awareness about community participation in environment risk management. Conservation and restoration of historic and heritage buildings. Disaster preparedness to deal with unforeseen calamities and avoid dangerous consequences of a disaster.
  • India’s landscape, across rural and urban areas, is dotted with water bodies that include natural lakes, ponds, and man made tanks. While several natural water bodies find a mention in mythology, many man made ponds, lakes and reservoirs boast of a royal origin as they were built by kings from different eras. As diverse as the country’s heritage, these water bodies integrate culture with traditional wisdom to harvest rainwater and replenish water tables. With time, the expanding concrete jungles and a disregard for ecology reduced many of the water bodies to mere shadows of their original glory. Today, environmental groups and urban city planners are taking steps to revive the water bodies. But is it a case of too little, too late?
  • THE HINDU MADURAI, December 31, 2011 “Evict encroachments along water channels” Special Correspondent Collector U. Sagayam has given an ultimatum to the departments of Public Works (PWD) and Revenue to evict all encroachments along the water bodies by March-end. At a monthly review meeting, he said that Chief Minister Jayalalithaa had directed that encroachments that were blocking water channels be removed in the larger interest of farmers. The PWD authorities, in coordination with the revenue officials, should carry out the exercise without any delay. The engineers said that 1,212 encroachments had been identified along the Periyar-Vaigai channel and 602 were evicted. Along Periyar Main canal, 308 encroachments were evicted out of the 679 identified and along the Gundar river, 79 were cleared out of 135 identified. The Collector wanted the officials to avail police assistance if needed and set a deadline and work accordingly. Following representations from public at the weekly grievance redress meeting, Mr. Sagayam asked the revenue authorities to identify IMFL retail outlets situated near educational institutions and places of worship and shift them with the help of police.
  • ===Responsible for Environmental Damage=== Kamal Nath was embroiled in controversy in March 2002 when the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]], applying the polluter pays principle, imposed a fine of Rs 10,00,000 (US$ 25,000) on Kamal Nath for damaging the environment by building a motel on the bank of [[Beas River|Beas]] river near Kulu-Manali in the state of [[Himachal Pradesh]]. This irresponsible act changed the course of the river and thus caused ecological imbalance in that area. The Supreme Court Bench held that Kamal Nath was liable to pay a fine of Rs 10 lakh for causing damage to the sensitive ecology of the area by building Span Motel.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=8370 |title = Damage to ecology: Kamal Nath fined by SC |author = Press Trust of India |publisher = Indian Express |date = 2002-03-15 |accessdate = 2008-10-30
  • HC wants a wetland policy soon. Asia Africa Intelligence Wire| August 27, 2005 | COPYRIGHT 2003 Financial Times Ltd. (Hide copyright information)Copyright (From The Statesman (India)) Our legal correspondent KOLKATA, Aug. 26 Calcutta High Court today directed the West Bengal government to declare the states policy with regard to preservation of wetland and creation of industrial zones in wetland areas within four weeks. The Division Bench of the Chief Justice, Mr VS Sirpurkar and Mr Justice Asok Ganguly, passed this order during the hearing of a writ petition and seven other applications about filling of two large water bodies in the Ghola area in North 24-Parganas. A writ petition had been filed by Mr Santi Roy alleging that two water bodies were going to be filled with fly-ash by the CESC through its agent. He also alleged that some factories and residential houses had been built on a part of the said wetland, changing the nature and character of that wetland measuring about 21 acres. One water body is about 14 acres and the other 7 acres. The applications had been filed by some factories challenging the order of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board which had directed the factory owners to shift the factories. The PCB had also directed the CESC not to fill the water bodies with fly-ash. Against that order of the PCB the industries had preferred an appeal to the appellate authority of the PCB. The appellate authority had confirmed the order of the PCB. Against the order of the appellate authority, dated 26 September, 2003, the industries and the CESC had moved the High Court. Today the High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo till the matter came up for hearing after the Puja vacation. Mr Manick Das with Mr Subrata Banerjee appeared for the PCB. Mr Anindya Mitra appeared for the CESC. Mr Surajit Samanta appeared for the industries. Mr Rabilal Maitra, Government Pleader and Mr Soumitra Dasgupta appeared for the state.
  • Where there is a water body in India , they are soft targets for real estate business. Their environmental necessity is of last concern to the official administration. The environmental laws etc are mere paper-scraps to be used by the fools like us known as 'environment activists'. Dhiraj.
  • Right now one consortium has been formed consisting of people in high places of course of ruling parties to fill up this Chandorkar Pikur. The consortium has progressed much in this matter.
  • Show all comments
  •  18 km
  •  114 km
  •  128 km
  •  158 km
  •  242 km
  •  243 km
  •  272 km
  •  336 km
  •  456 km
  •  477 km
This article was last modified 17 years ago