Waterbody cannot be converted for industrial use: HC

Allowing petitions that challenged the proposed establishment of an industrial estate on a waterbody in Kothayam village in Oddanchatram taluk in Dindigul district, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that a waterbody cannot be converted for industrial use.

The court was hearing petitions representing the villagers who had challenged the proposed establishment of the industrial estate. The villagers said that a waterbody known as Aralikuthukulam was situated in the survey numbers.

A Division Bench of Justices G. R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi observed that the claim of the petitioners was well founded and there was a waterbody in the survey numbers known as Aralikuthukulam.

It was now well settled that the government as well as the citizens have a constitutional obligation to protect the environment and the ecology (Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution). The doctrine of intergenerational equity adumbrated that the environment was not only for the benefit of the present but also for the future generations, the court observed.

Mountains, forests, hills, hillocks and waterbodies are nature’s gifts and it was the duty of the government and the administration to ensure that they were preserved for future generations. “When we speak of the right to the environment it means that one has the right to retain the advantages and the benefits conferred naturally on the environment. Right to retention of natural landmarks particularly waterbodies is a right embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution”, the court observed.

“We have already reached a tipping point. We have destroyed hundreds of waterbodies in the name of development. The time has come to put a full stop”, the court observed. Taking into account that the authorities denied the very existence of the waterbody, the court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an inspection. The report confirmed the existence of the waterbody.

To satisfy judicial conscience, Justice Swaminathan also undertook a spot inspection along with the officials. It was ascertained that it was a waterbody. The court expressed its displeasure over the manner in which the Dindigul Collector filed the counter affidavit as well as objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report. The authorities are expected to assist the court to find out the truth, the court observed.

The court observed that it had refrained from passing strictures only because it felt that the Collector was possibly misled by the subordinates. The court directed that in future whenever officers file counter affidavits, they should specify which paragraphs are based on knowledge, which are based on information and which are based on records. If status reports had been called for they should further clarify if they made any personal inspection. All affidavits of the authorities must conform to this requirement, the court directed.