ORDER
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ
1. Global maturity in recent years in regard to the concept of ecological imbalance cannot in any way be doubted -- but what does the expression 'ecology' means : Ecology in common acceptation mean and imply the study of home or the household of nature to be kept in order. George L Clarice in his Elements of Ecology has stated that every living thing is surrounded by materials and forces which constitute its environment and from which it must derive its needs and contact with the environment is inescapable. It is on this perspective, it is to be considered as to whether on the wake of Twenty First Century when there is such an awareness and maturity throughout the Globe in regard to maintenance of ecological equilibrium, Law Courts should be justified to lend a blind eye and deaf ear in regard to this concept of ecological imbalance if raised before it. Ecological imbalance, undoubtedly, is a social problem and in this context the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Youth Front and another v. State of West Bengal and another, 1986 (2) CLJ 26, seem to be rather apposite. In that decision, the Court held:
'An ecological problem in contrast is a special type of social problem. To speak of a phenomenon as a social problem is not to suggest merely, or perhaps at all, that we do not understand how it comes about: It is labelled a problem not because, like a scientific problem, it presents an obstacle to our understanding of the world but rather because - consider alcoholism, crime, deaths on the roads - we believe that our society would be better off without it.'
2. As noted above, there is no manner of doubt that this is a social problem and considering the impact of the problem on the society, in our view, Law Courts ought to rise up to the occasion to deal with the situation as it demands in the present-day context : Law Courts have a social duty since it is a part of the society and as such, must always function having due regard to the present-day problems which the society faces. It is now a well settled principle of law that socio-economic condition of the country cannot be ignored and social problems shall have to be dealt with in the way and in the manner called for, since benefit to the society ought to be the prime consideration of the Law Courts.
3. Turning attention on to the present writ petition, it appears mat the entire thrust of challenge in the writ petition is in regard to avoidance of ecological imbalance by reason of pollutant discharge on to Osman Sagar and Himayal Sagar lakes in the city of Hyderabad. The grievance of the petitioner relates to an exemption being granted to Surana Oils and Derivatives India Limited, being the 7th respondent herein, from the G.O. Ms. No.III, dated 8-3-1996.
4. Mr. Ashok Reddy, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, strenuously contended that G.O. Ms. No.1 11, dated 8-3-1996 was issued by the second respondent as a precautionary measure to protect and preserve the lakes and the attempt to exempt the Surana Oils and Derivatives India Limited will defeat the very purpose for which such a notification in March, 1996 was issued. Mr. Reddy contended that apart from Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar lakes, this city was proudly possessing Hussain Sagar lake, but by reason of indiscriminate grant of sanction to industries, the same has turned out to be a perpetual source of nuisance affecting the environment. Mr. Reddy submitted that at an earlier point of time, Hussain Sagar Lake was the main drinking water source for the people of this city of Hyderabad, but presently one dares not to touch the same, lest one would be under the grip of deadly diseases.
5. Admittedly, therefore, the totality of the situation depicts that the Government issued a notification prohibiting setting up of industries in the catchments areas of Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes. Subsequently, the Government has granted permission to Surana Oils and Derivatives India Limited to set up an industry within the, so to say, prohibited zone and issued a further Government Order exempting this particular industry from the purview of the earlier notification being G.O. Ms. No.111, dated 8-3-1996 and the writ petitioner being a society for preservation of environment and quality of life in Hyderabad moved this Court for an order of injunction so as not to endanger the environment.
6. The matter in issue, therefore, has to be viewed on two specific counts : on the first count, it has to be considered as to whether in a developing economy, the Law Courts would be, otherwise, justified in interfering with the setting up of industries on the ground of environmental disorder leading to a biodiversity crisis and secondly whether in fact setting up of such an industry would lead to any such bio-diversity crisis - whereas one is factual in nature, the other is a principle which should be considered in its proper perspective having due regard to the industrial policy of the country, as also the socio-economic conditions, on the wake of 21st Century.
7. Before so doing, however, it would be convenient to note that modem technological development poses a great threat to the very existence of living and non-living organisms. This is not confined to a particular region, but it has crossed trans-national frontiers. As a matter of feet, the Stockholm Conference, 1972 being one of the first of the global discussions as regards the preservation and maintenance of environment and subsequent meets at Vancouver in 1976; Argentina in 1977 and at Reo in 1994 elaborately dealt with the issue of preservation of environment and there is, in fact, an unanimity of opinion that technological development is one of the major factors for environmental degradation.
8. It is true that nature will not tolerate. us after a certain degree of its destruction and it will have its toll, though may not be felt in present, but at a future point of time, but can the present day society afford to have such a state of affairs and allow the nature to have its toll in future - the answer cannot but be in the negative : the present day society has a responsibility towards the future generations so as to allow the posterity to breathe normally and live in a cleaner environment and consequently have a fuller development: But does that mean and imply stoppage of all developmental activities in order to preserve and maintain the environment and this is inspite of the feet that technological developments have been ascribed to be one of the major factors for environmental disorder - In our view, it is neither feasible nor practicable to have a negative approach to the development process of the country or of the society, since in a developing economy technological advancement ought not to be described at all, though, however, the same does not mean without any consideration for the environment. There shall have to be a proper balance between development and environment so that both can co-exist without affecting the other. The society shall have to prosper but not at the cost of the environment and in the similar vein the environment shall have to be protected but not at the cost of the development of the society. There shall have to be both development and proper environment and administrative actions ought to proceed in accordance therewith and not de hors the same. The observations as above obtain support from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Peoples United for Better Living in Calcutta v. the Stale of West Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal. 335.
9. We do feel it expedient to record that Law Courts should rise up to the occasion to deal with the situation as it demands in the present day context: it has a social duty since it is a part of the society and as such must always exercise its jurisdiction and deal with the issues in a manner and in consonance with the present day requirement of the society -the socio-economic condition of the country ought not to be ignored by a Court of Law and problems of the nature as the present one,sliall have to be dealt with in the way and in the manner called for since conferment of benefit to the society ought to be the prime consideration of the Law Courts, as noted above, and it is on this perspective that this matter needs to be dealt with.
10. Records depict that presently there is a definite attempt on the part of the State Government to accelerate industrial growth and consequent rapid economic development. It is on this perspective, however, that the matter is to be considered, provided, of course, there is no affectation of the environment which may lead to a catastrophis disaster. In this context an extract from a brochure issued by the Industries Department of the State Government seems to be very apposite. The brochure reads:
'A prosperous agricultural State, Andhra Pradesh is fast transforming itself into a pulsating modern and dynamic industrial economy. With the ongoing process of economic reforms in India and its gradual integration with the global economy the world is beginning to look at India as a growing market and a potential Asian economic power. And when India is thought of as and investment destination Andhra Pradesh State is an attractive choice.'
11. Adverting now on to the contextual facts, it appears that the Government in its initiative to maintain bio-diversity and ecological equilibrium passed a Government Order being G.O. Ms. No.111, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department, dated 8-3-1996, to the effect that the catchment areas of the two water reservoirs viz., Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes would be beyond the reach of industries, but at a stage subsequent, it is the self same Government which has exonerated or exempted this particular industry from the applicability of the above noted Government Order - It is therefore not very difficult to appreciate the concern of the Government in the matter of maintenance of environmental equilibrium but the self same Government for developmentalpurposes thought it fit to grant an exemption. As a matter of fact the Industries Department sent a letter of request to the Pollution Control Board that necessary suggestions should be had to maintain proper equilibrium and biodiversity and pursuant thereto the technical Committee of the A.P, Pollution Control Board, as a matter of fact, did meet on 16-7-1997 and formulated some safe-guards. In the mean time, however, the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 and obtained an order of stay.
12. Be that as it may. Let us now, however, analyse the factual aspect of the matter in a slightly more greater detail as is available from the records. The industry, said to be a polluting industry, is to be set up for production of castor oil derivatives. The factory is located in Pedda Shapur Village, Sbamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The industry in question is an export-oriented industry, the principal products being Hydrogenated Castor Oil and 12 Hydroxy Stearic Acid and dc-hydrated castor oil which are supposed to be of very great demand in USA, Europe and Japan for manufacture of very sophisticated chemicals required in space technology. Dr. Sidhu, formerly the Secretary to the Government of India who acted as Director-General, Council for Scientific and Industrial research and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the 7th respondent herein, in his counter-affidavit submitted that there are, as a matter of fact, two other industries in the State viz., Nagarjuna Agro Tech Limited and Rayalasecma Alkalies who manufacture Hydrogenated Castor Oil and 12 Hydroxy Stearic Acid and are exporting the same since about last two to three years. It is to be placed on record that there is no dispute that dehydrated Castor Oil is manufactured by several industries in the country for over two decades.
13. The contextual facts depict that since the industry requires a licence under the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, a licence was applied for and the Government of India after taking into account of the views of the A.P. State Government and having due regard to the location of the industry, did grant an industrial licence on 9-1-1996. The records depict that the requisite raw materials for the industry are crude castor oil, bleaching earth, activated Carbon, Nickel Catalyst, Methanol, Caustic Soda and Sulphuric Acid or Hydro-chloric Acid and the end manufactured products are Hydrogenated Castor Oil (HCO), 12 Hydroxy Stcaric Acid (12-HSA), Methylated 12-Hydroxy Stearic Acid (ME 12-HSA), Dehydrated Castor Oil (DCO) and Glycerine. Other less important products are BSS Grade Oil. DCO Fatty Acids (DCO FA), Residues of nickel catalyst, bleaching earth activated carbon and sodium sulphate; whereas Dr. Sidhu in his affidavit stated that all the manufactured items including the less important products have a very good market and would be directly exported to other countries and question of there being any leakage or having effluent discharge does not and cannot arise Mr. Reddy, on the other hand, contended that the residue of nickel catalyst and sodium sulphate are bound to escape from out of the factory limits and since it is in the catchment area would affect the water and reservoirs, being the only source of drinking water for the twin cities, would stand polluted resulting in added acuteness in the already scarce commodity. Dr. Sidhu in his counter-affidavit dealt with the issue in the manner as below:
'There is no question of any such material being left undisposed of on the earth or escaping during the industrial process or from storage. The technology being adopted precludes any such possibility. It is most modern and eco-friendly. Further, when these products are marketable, no manufacturer will be foolish enough to waste such income yielding products.'
14. Dr. Sidhu contradicted the general statement of the petitioner that the industry is a polluting one and contended in the counter-affidavit further that question of there being any apprehension does not and cannot arise and the apprehension that the material storedmay escape and enter the soil is unmeaning. The material, Dr. Sidhu states, is first put into polythene bags and then into steel bins and then stored on a cement concrete floor of an average thickness of 9 inches. There is absolutely no chance of any leak or seepage into the earth. While according to Dr. Sidhu, the industry to come forward is a non-polluting one, but the Pollution Control Board itself, however, records something differently. The Technical Committee that met on 21-6-1997 has recorded its opinion in the manner following:
'(i) This industry falls in the category of polluting industry. In support of this, we would like to quote reference of classification of industries adopted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests while categorising the industries that can be located in the sensitive areas such as Doon Valley, Dahanu Taluk in Maharashtra and in any other sensitive regions including the catchment areas.
(ii) Vanaspathi, Hydrogenated vegetables oils for industrial purposes is mentioned at Sl.No.11 under the red category of industry and also chemical derivatives of oil such as Methyl 12-Hydroxy Stearic Acid, Castor Methyl Easter and De-hydrated Castrol and Glycerine.
(iii) In view of the above, the industry is to be classified as polluting industry. It would not be desirable to locate such industry in the catchment area in view of the G.O. mentioned above.
Subsequently, the issue was placed before the CFE. Clearance Committee meeting held on 25-6-1997. The Committee reviewed the recommendations of the Technical Committee and observed that there is no need to go into the details of the case and rejected the CFE application on the following grounds :
(a) As the Technical Committee recommended that this unit is a polluting industry and falls under the red category of polluting industry under S.No.11 of the classification of industries adopted by MOE&F.; GOI and opined that it would not be desirable to locate such industry in the catchment area of Himayat Sagar in view of the G.O. Ms. No.111, MA, dated 8-3-1996.
(b) Proposal to set up this unit was rejected at the pre-scmtiny level during the meeting of CDCC/DIPC held on 24-5-1996 in view of the State Government Order No.III, dated 8-3-1996.
15. It is significant, however, to note at this juncture that the A.P. Pollution Control Board at the Technical Committee meeting recorded the above findings but shortly before the same, it is this Board which has suggested some recommendatory findings for the purpose of having the concerned industry being declared a non-polluting industry. Why this dual standard We need not go into the same, except, however, recording that it does not bespeak of high degree of professionalism. The Board is a creature of statute and is expected to act in a manner which cannot but be ascribed to be fair - can the maintenance of dual standard be said to be fair - we are afraid, that the answer cannot be in the affirmative.
16. The contextual facts depict that there was in fact an appeal from the order and the Appellate Authority, relying inter alia on the report of one Dr. M. Santappa, a former Vice-Chancellor of University of Madras and currently the Scientific Adviser to the Pollution Control Board, Chennai, did set aside the order of the Board. Dr. Santappa recorded in his report that the Company has adopted most stringent precautions for handling, storage and transport of the spent Catalyst and Sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen emission arc very minimal and in any event, a scrubber is being procured and arrangements have been made to divert scrubber waste for treatment along with the waste water and domestic waste water treatment. Dr. Santappa has recorded that question of there being any spillage of castor oil does not and cannot arise. Dr. Santappa in his report concluded :
'When there are (a) no acidification materials to pollute the waters of the lakes and (b) no solid waste likely to percolate or leach to a distance of 81/2 K.M. to the lakes and (c) in fact no effluent at all to pollute air, soil or water (as also vouchsafed by IICT), the factory deserves to be categorised into 'Green' category. To classify the factory in 'Red' category is not only not correct but unscientific. All the bye-products arc properly processed and sold out. Nothing is left in the factory which can be described as effluent, liquid, gas or solid. .....The technology isbenign and Eco-Friendly. I have noted that the technical Committee of APPCB have stipulated certain conditions for giving consent to operate. My observations on the compliance of these stipulations are as follows:
(a) Handling of Spent Catalyst : The most stringent precautions have been adopted by the Company for handling, storage, and transport of the spent Catalyst as elaborated by me in para (iii) of this note.
(b) Rim-off from the plant area : This is already being handled as suggested by the technical Committee.
(c) Process waste water and domestic waste water: Civil works to treat these as per stipulation are in progress.
(d) Sulphur dioxide and oxides of Nitrogen Emission : These arc very minimal. However, a scrubber is being procured and arrangements made to divert scrubber waste for treatment alongwith (c) as above.
(e) Castor oil storage area : It already has special pavement and all recovery pits, though I do not foresee any spillage of oil.
Hydrogen Peroxide and Caustic Soda Storage : Company does not use any Hydrogen Peroxides. Perhaps APPCB means Hydro-chloric Acid. The storage for HCI and caustic soda are excellent. Spillages, if any will be collected in Acid Proof Pits.
Hydrogen gas storage : It should be noted that the Company does not store Hydrogen but stores a mixture of Nitrogen and Hydrogen in the ratio of 1:3. This is much less hazardous than pure Hydrogen but I am glad to note that all precautions have been taken as if the Company stores pure hydrogen. The Company has also obtained a Risk Analysis Report by a Competent person.
This industry is full of benefits to our Nation not to speak of benefits in the social angle - providing employment opportunities to hundrcs of people.
17. It appears from the records that the technology employed in erection of the plant was obtained from the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, and the latter has issued a certificate that this industry does not discharge any acidic effluents and the solid wastes which are byproducts are saleable and in any event, they are collected in M.S. drums mechanically and preserved for sale.
18. The appeal, as referred to above, was allowed and the order of the Pollution Control Board in the matter of rejection of the project was directed to be set aside and the Pollution Control Board was directed to give its consent for establishment of the factory on such conditions as it deemed fit as directed in G.O. Ms. No.153, dated 3-7-1997 as amended by G.O. Ms. No.181, dated 7-8-1997. The relevant extract from the order of the Appellate Authority is set out herein below for correct appreciation of the factual aspect of the matter, The extract of the order reads :
'The Indian Institute of Chemical Technology has issued a certificate that this industry docs not discharge any acidic effluents and the solid wastes which are by products are saleable and they are collected in M.S. drums mechanically and reservedfor sale. The report of Dr. Santappa also shows that none of the products or byproducts fall on the ground within the factory premises. He has also stated that all the conditions which were proposed to be imposed by Technical Committee on the appellant at its meeting held on 16-7-1997 have been complied with. Thus these reports clearly suggest that it is not a polluting industry. The consent for Establishment Clearance Committee would appear to have come to the conclusion that the industry is a polluting one on the basis of a notification issued by the Ministry of Forests & Environment, Government of India in respect of Doon Valley relied on by the Technical Committee. That notification is not made applicable to the catchment area. The Technical Committee of A.P. Pollution Control Board in its deliberations of 21-6-1997 have regarded that 'this industry falls in the category of polluting industry. In support of this, we would like to mention the reference of notifications of industries that can be located in sensitive areas such as Doon Valley, Dahanu taluq of Maharashtra and in any other sensitive regions including the catchment area. Vanaspathi, Hydrogenated vegetable oils for industrial purposes is mentioned at Serial No.11 under red category of industries and also chemical derivatives of_pil _such_as Methyl, 2 Hydroxy Stearic Acid. Dehydrated Castrol OiL hydrogenated castor oil and glycerin.' This portion which is underlined by me above is not found in the notifications cited, where from the Technical Committee got it is not known. When the notification says that it is applicable to a particular locality by no means it can be extended to any other area. No order of Government was placed before this authority showing that sensitive regions including the catchment area are attracted by the provisions of the said notification. So I find that the application of the said notification to the instant case is erroneous to say the least. All necessary precautions are taken by the industry to preventthe pollution as per the report of Dr. Shantappa, who inspected the plant. He also stated in his report that most of the conditions proposed to be imposed on the appellant by the Technical Committee are complied with. It is certified by the IICT that the process does not generate any liquid or gaseous effluents or acidic fumes which are causes for pollution. The original communication from the Board to the Government expressed vague apprehension of possibility of some of the stored material escaping from the storage and causing pollution to the water in the reservoirs. There are no liquid effluents or acidic fumes as certified by IICT. The nearest water spread from the factory premises is 8.5 Kms. There is no possibility of seepage on leaching of solid material and contaminating the water.
The Pollution Control Board had refused permission solely on the ground that it is attracted by the notification issued by the Central Government in respect of Doon Valley. When it has no application, the orders refusing consent for establishment cannot be sustained more particularly in view of the reports of IICT and the report of Dr. Shantappa filed before this Appellate Authority.'
19. The contention of the applicant as regards the environmental disorder through pollutant discharge does find the support from the stand of the Pollution Control Board but the same, however, as a matter of fact stands negatived by the Appellate Authority, as noted above. The principal submission of the Pollution Control Board, however, is that the concerned industry is a red category industry and it discharges hazardous waste, as such ought to be banned. On the factual score, the report of Dr. Santhappaand the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineering runs counter to such an observation of the Pollution Control Board. As regards the Appellate Authority the same also does not find any support in the order of the Appellate Authority as detailed more fully above. In any event, however, hazardous wastecannot by itself be termed to be a banned item since several provisions have been engrafted in the statute book to combat discharge of hazardous waste and to meet the situation. Scientific developments and technological advancements have also given us necessary relief from this hazardous waste and there is existing a statutory recognition to that effect: The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules of 1989 notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 details out eighteen categories of hazardous waste alongwith the regulatory methods. Various safeguards have been incorporated in the rules for handling and transportation of hazardous waste and in any event Rule 5 requires an authorisation to the generator of hazardous waste to handle hazardous waste and Rule 6 of the Rules provides an authority on to the State Pollution Control Board to suspend and cancel such authorisation.' Rule II of the Rules of 1989 further casts an obligation and responsibility on to the State Pollution Control Board to examine the cases as regards hazardous wastes and grant or refuse permission after examining each case on merits. The Rules of 1989 in no uncertain terms provide for controlled handling and disposal of hazardous wastes. The other Rule to Wit, Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989 also permit industrial activity even containing high toxic chemical values, fiamable gases and explosives, provided, however, the safeguards as enumerated therein arc obtained. The Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996 compliments the MSIHC Rules on accident preparedness and envisages a 4-tier crisis management system in the country. On perusal of these statutory provisions it is apparent that it is not that the industries having hazardous pollutant discharge is directed to be shut down but to comply with certain safeguards as envisaged under the law.
20. As noted above, both Dr. Sidhu and Dr. Sonthappa and Indian Institute of Chemical Technology ascribed the industry as a non-polluting one by reason of the safeguards adopted. As a matter of fact, the Pollution Control Board themselves have suggested certain safeguards. On the wake of such safeguards, can the industry be said to be so polluting in nature that it requires interference of the Writ Court for public safety to close it down --In our view, the answer cannot, however, be in the affirmative.
21. Sri T. Ananta Babu, the learned senior Advocate appearing for the 7th respondent apart from questioning the locus standi of the petitioner to move the Court, submitted that the Pollution Control Board had refused permission solely on the ground that it is attracted by the notification issued by the State Government and there was otherwise no justifiable reason for rejection of application for sanction in the matter of setting up of an industry. Sri Ananta Babu contended that as a matter of fact, necessary rectifications in the design have been suggested, but subsequently for reasons unknown, there has been a total departure from the earlier stand and the proposal stands rejected. In any event, Sri Ananta Babu submitted that by reason of the order of the appellate authority, question of there being any interference by the Writ Court does not and cannot arise. Sri Ananta Babu contended that even assuming but not admitting that the writ petition is otherwise maintainable as a public interest litigation, but the fact remains that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued by a Court in a matter like this, since a technical matter ought to be allowed to rest in terms of the provisions of the statute rather than interference from the Writ Court. It has been contended that the Writ Court cannot, as a matter of fact, sit in appeal over the appellate authority's judgment which, in any event, cannot be termed to be suffering from any perversity and in the absence of the same, question of interference would not arise, more so having due regard to the factual aspect of the matter.
22. The issue of locus standi in a litigation of the nature as the present one is of some significance and as such needs some attention and in that view of the matter, we shall deal with the same shortly hereinafter. As regards the other contentions as raised by Sri Ananta Babu, we do find some substance and we record our concurrence in regard thereto. The Appellate Authority has delved into the matter in great detail on the factual score and the Writ Court would not be justified otherwise to deal with the same any further since the Writ Court cannot sit in appeal over the Appellate Authority's findings unless the same amounts to utter perversity.
23. The law is well settled on this score since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radha Krishna, AIR 1964 SC 477. It is true that Article 226 of the Constitution has undoubtedly conferred very wide powers on the High Court but that does not mean and imply that the Law Court shall have to usurp the functions of the inferior Tribunal or other authorities. Intervention is called for only in the event of administrative action being unreasonable and unfair in nature since reasonableness ought to be the criteria for sustaining any Governmental or administrative action and the law is well settled on this score and we need not dilate much on that. The Appellate Authority has dealt with the issue in a manner which cannot but be in accordance with law.
24. Before considering the issue of locus standi as raised by Sri Ananta Babu, we deem it expedient to note that Sri Reddy in course of his arguments did place very strong reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court, the first being the case of Dr. B.L. Wadhra v. Union of India, : [1996]3SCR80 and the second being the oft cited decision in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1991) 1 SCC 388. We, however, do not see any relevance of these two decisions by reason of clear factual differences and as such we need not detain ourselves on that score.
25. Turning on to the issue of locus standi, it has been contended by the private respondent that the petitioner cannot but betermed to be a busybody and the law Court ought not to pay any heed to the submissions. It is against this contention, Mr. Reddy placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products, : AIR1996SC149 . In the last noted decision, the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms observed that the organisations may be big or small, may be well established ones or recently started ones, but that would be immaterial insofar as the doctrine of locus is concerned ...... once it is found that he wasnot acting at the instance of or at the behest of or for protecting the interests of an individual Company, there was no reason to hold that he was not acting bonafide in approaching the Court to preserve the forest wealth of the State in the interest of environment and ecology. Incidentally, the Supreme Court was dealing with a matter in which one Sri Yogendra Chandra filed a writ petition before the High Court being No. 1155 of 1993, but by reason of the order of dismissal, the said Yogendra Chandra also filed a Special Leave Petition No.11082 of 1995 before the Supreme Court and in that perspective, the Supreme Court recorded:
' 'We must say that in the light of the above considerations, the High Court was not right in observing that Shri Yogendra Chandra cannot be accepted as a public-spirited citizen approaching the Court to protect public interest - more so, when it has recorded a simultaneous finding that there is no evidence of collision between him and Shankar Trading Company (Mahesh Udyog). The credentials of Shri Yogendra Chandra appear to be impeccable. He is not only a member of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly but also the Convenor of the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage. He is also the President of the Himalayan Wild Life and Environment Preservation Society. The said organisations may be big or small, may be well-established ones or recently started ones - that is immaterial. Once it is found that he was not acting at the instance of or at the behest of or for protecting theinterests of Shankar Trading Company, there was no reason to hold that he was not acting bonafide in approaching the Court to preserve the forest wealth of the State in the interest of environment and ecology. His inability to produce material in support of his allegation of illicit felling in the State does not tell upon his bonafides.'
26. Turning on to the contextual facts as regards the present petitioner and the issue of locus we find that the petitioner is a society for Preservation of Environment and Quality of Life located at Himayatnagar and is being represented by its Convenor Sri P. Janardhan Reddy. The Society was formed with a main objective of creating public awareness among the citizens to protect, preserve, maintain and harness natural environment in a sustainable manner. The principal grievance of the petitioner as made out very elaborately is that since the Hyderabad City enjoys the status of 5th largest city in the country having a population of 4.7 millions for Hyderabad Urban Area and is expected to reach 65 lakhs by 2002 and since there are 125 lakes in and around the urban area of Hyderabad and 23 of these lakes are perennial in nature and since the water quality of these water bodies witnessed considerable deterioration due to inflow of untreated domestic and industrial effluents and since the degradation of these water bodies have many adverse impacts on the environment and health of citizens all over the city, the petitioner could not help but move this Court under Article 226 of me Constitution with a grievance that further setting up of an industry in the catchment area which was once declared to be a prohibited area may lead to disastrous effect on the society which should always be avoided by the Court of Law. The intention of the petitioner cannot, in our view, be said to be lacking in bona fides at all. In this context the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gvpta and others v. Union of India, : [1982]2SCR365 , ought to be noted. The Supreme Court observed :
'But we must hasten to make it clear that the individual who moves the Court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the Court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshold, whether it be in the form of a regular writ petition filed in Court. We may also point out that as a matter of prudence and not as a rule of law, the Court may confine this strategic exercise of jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a determinate class or group of persons or the constitutional or legal right of such determinate class or group of persons is violated and as far as possible, not entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of a third party, where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases....... The strict rulef standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busy-body or a meddlesome interloper but who has sufficient interest in the proceeding. There can be no doubt that the risk of legal action against the State or a public authority by any citizen will induce the state or such public authority to act with greater responsibility and care thereby improving the administration of justice.''
27. As noted above, question of there being any private gain or motive in the contextual facts docs not and cannot arise. The petitioner moved the Court being apprehensive of further deterioration of the water bodies in the Hyderabad City. No motive can be attributed, neither there is any other extraneous consideration available on records so as to warrant rejection of the petition at the threshold without being considered on merits. In that view of the matter, the preliminary objection of Sri Ananiha Babu as regards the petitioner being a mere busy-bodyp[and the petition ought to be dismissed on that ground only cannot thus be sustained.
28. It is no doubt true that rapid industrialisation process may lead to an increasing threat to maintenance of ecological balance and the Law Courts being the guardians of peoples' rights as enshrined in the Constitution ought to make sure that the enforcement agencies - be it State or any other authority, take effective steps for implementation of the law and not act de hors the same. On the wake of 21st Century, a narrow pedantic approach on the part of the Law Courts in the matter of industrial growth on the ground of environment ought not to be had and there should be a balance between both development and environment so that both can co-exist together without affecting the other.
29. In the view of the matter as above we do not see any merit in the writ petitions and as such the same foil and are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.