In R. L. and E. Kendra Dehradun v. State of U.P.

the facts were that certain lime stone quarries

were closed on basis of judicial decision. The Court considered the issue of the workers who
were rendered unemployed on account of closure of the lime stone quarries and the hardship of
the lessees. Considering these matters the Court observed "this would undoubtedly cause
hardship to them, but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of
the people to live in healthy environment with minimum disturbance of ecological balance and
without avoidable hazards to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue
affectation of air, water and environment". For mitigating the hardship, the Court directed the
State of U.P. to give priority to the claims of displaced lessees in other parts of the State thrown
open for the quarrying of lime stone. It was further held by the Court that the workers may be
rehabilitated in programme of afforestation and soil conservation to be undertaken in the
reclamation of the area by the Eco-Task Force of the Department of Environment.2
In M.C. Mehta Union of India a public interest litigation petition was filed to protect Delhi from
the environmental pollution caused by hazardous/heavy/large/industries which were in operation
in Delhi. Deciding the petition, the Court held that such industries are liable to be
shifted/relocated to other towns of National Capital Region (NCR) as laid down under the
Master Plan for Delhi Perspective-2001. The Court issued directions to 168 industries, which
were identified as such to stop functioning/operating in the city of Delhi and they could shift or
relocate themselves to any other industrial estate in NCR. For mitigating the hardship of such
employees who were affected by the judicial order, the Court specified the rights and benefits to
which workmen employed in the 168 industries were entitled on relocation/shifting of such
industries. Later on, the Supreme Court also issued the package of compensation for workmen
in industries which were not relocating/ shifting or closing down according to the earlier direction
of the Court.4 This case shows how the Supreme Court protected the right to livelihood of the
workmen and sought to balance the industrial development and environmental protection.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is another case where the guiding principle of sustainable
development has been followed. In this case, the Supreme Court directed that the industries
which were in operation in Taj Trapezium zone using Coke/Coal as industrial fuel must stop
functioning and that they could relocate to the alternate site provided under the Agra Master
Plan. While directing so, the Supreme Court specified the rights and benefits to which the
workmen of such industries were entitled. In this way the right to livelihood of the workmen who
were going to be affected was protected. Thus, from the various decisions of the Supreme Court
it follows that development is not antithetical to environment. Development requires otherwise it
may cause avoidable harm to the thoughtful consideration environment and it can deprive the
people of their right to livelihood
(iv) Fundamental freedom to carry on Trade or Article 19(1) (g) provides all citizens shall have
the right any profession, or to carry on any trade. Accordingly, in involving closure orders to the
polluting industrial unit, the Courts face the task of balancing environmental imperative with the
fundamental right to on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Article 19 the
Constitution. However, their right is not absolute. It is subject to Article 19 i6) under which
reasonable restrictions' can be imposed upon this right in the interest of the general public. In
this way environmental interests can be protected from the hazards of any trade or business. In
Abhilash Textile v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation notice was issued by the Municipal
Commissioner to the petitioners to prevent discharge of dirty water on public road and in
drainage within certain time. It was also stated in the notice that in case of failure to comply with
notice, the factories would be closed. The Court held that one cannot carry on trade or business
in the manner by which the business activity becomes health hazard to the entire society. By
discharge of effluent water on public road and/or in public drainage system the entire
environment of the locality gets polluted. The Court further said that in a complex society in

which we live today, no one can claim absolute freedom without incurring any obligation
whatsoever for the general well being.
In M.C. Mehta v Union of India the fact situation was that the tanning industries located on the
banks of Ganga were alleged to be polluting the river The Court issued directions to them to set
up within six months from the date of the It was that failure to do closure of business. As the
tanning industries failed to establish primary treatment plant, it was therefore held that order to
stop of the industries should be passed. Accordingly, the Court passed the following order: We
are, therefore, issuing the directions for the closure of those which have failed to take minimum
steps required for the primary treatment of industrial effluent. We are conscious that closure of
tanneries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue but life, health and ecology have great
importance to the people. It is , thus, clear that the Court has considered the protection of
environment as a matter of general public interest and employed this tool in imposing
reasonable restrictions on the citizen's right to carry on trade or business. Similar was the
decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. union of India2 where directions were issued by
the Court to certain industries to be closed as they were not showing any progress regarding
installation of air pollution control system in compliance with earlier judicial order issued by it. In
this case the Court did not make any reference to Article 19 (1) (g), however it is implicit that
while issuing order under Article 32 (g) of the Constitution, it had in its mind Article 19 (1) (g)
read with Articles 19 (6) and 21 of the Constitution.
In Sushila Saw Mills v. State of Orissa the fact situation was that total ban was imposed upon
saw mills business or sawing operation within the prohibited area of reserved or protected
forest. The Supreme Court held that the ban was not violative inter alia of Articles 19 (1) (g) and
301 of the Constitution. It is settled principle that in public interest restriction under Article 19 (6)
may amount to prohibition. In this case public interest litigation petition was filed for the
protection of forest wealth and maintenance of ecology.

In state of HP. v. Ganesh Wood Products the uestion before the Court was whether a a industry
in the state of Himachal Pradesh could be established having adverse effect upon the
environment and ecology of the State. Katha industry is a forest based industry. The Supreme
Court held That the obligation of sustainable development requires that a proper assessment
should be made of the forest wealth and the establishment of industries based on forest
produce should not only be restricted accordingly but their working should also be monitored
closely to ensure that the required balance is not disturbed In course of the Court said that it is
meaningless to prescribe that judgement merely the Government need not supply the raw
material and that the industrial units have their Trees/raw material from private ill to get and
forests. No distinction can be made between government forests of private forests in the matter
of forest wealth of the nation and in the matter environment and ecology. It is just not possible or
permissible
In S.Jagamohan v. union of India,s the Supreme Court held sea and sea coast are gift of nature
and activity which pollutes it cannot be permitted. Extensice, semi-intensive and intensive and
aqua culture were pointed out to be adversely affecting the physical and social environment of
coastal zones. The SC directed such aqua culture farms to be dismantaled.