The Environment Protection Act provides for protection and improvement of environment

The Environment Protection Act provides for protection and improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith. The United Nations conference on human environment, held in Stockholm in June 1972, proclaimed that " Man is both creator and molder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has reached when through the rapid acceleration of science and technology man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man's environment, the natural and man made are essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights even the right to life itself. "Environment" includes water, air, and land and the interrelationship that exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property. "Environmental Pollutant" means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be injurious to environment. "Hazardous Substance" means any substance or preparation which, by reasons of its chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or environment. Environmental pollution means imbalance in environment. The materials or substances when after mixing in air, water or land alters their properties in such manner, that the very use of all or any of the air water and land by man and any other living organism becomes lethal and dangerous for health. POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT The Act does not curtail the powers of the Supreme Court. It has from time to time in various matters issued directions and orders to control pollution. DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO CONTROL VEHICULAR POLLUTION In Mehta v Union of India 1999 in order to control the chaotic traffic conditions and vehicular pollution, the Supreme Court issued the following directions. (a) All commercial/transport vehicles which are more than 20 years old should be phased out and not permitted to ply in Delhi after October 1998 (b) All such commercial /transport vehicles which are 17 to 19 years old (3200) shall not be permitted to ply in the National Capital Territory, Delhi after 1998; (c) Such of the commercial /transport vehicles which are 15 and 16 years old (4962) shall not be permitted to ply after December 31, 1998 The Supreme Court made this order applicable to all commercial/transport vehicles whether registered in the National Capital Territory of Delhi or outside (but ply in Delhi) which are of more than stipulated age and which do not have any authority to ply in Delhi. PROTECION OF COAST LINE OF INDIA In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India the Supreme Court in regard to the 600 kms long coast line emphasised that that it would be the duty and responsibility of the coastal states and Union Territories in which the stretch exists, to see that the notifications issued, declaring the coastal stretches should be properly and duly implemented. Further the various restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries, operation or process, etc. in the regulation Zone should be strictly enforced. In the same case the court enunciated the principle further that the polluter pays. Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. Under this principle it is not the role of the Government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident on the taxpayer. The responsibility of repairing the damage is that of the offending industry. In Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India & others the polluter principle as interpreted by the Supreme Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferer as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. In Goa Foundation v Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd the court observed that with a view to protect the ecological balance in the coastal areas, notifications having been issued by the Central Government, there ought not to be any violation and prohibited activities should not be allowed to come up within the area declared as CRZ notification. The court also emphasised that no activities which would ultimately lead to unscientific and unsustainable development and ecological destruction should be allowed. POWER OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE MEASURES TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE ENVIRONMENT