Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 5th August 2020
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (ROAD DEVELOPMENT) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs. AAM AADMI LOKMANCH
FACTS:
Ms. Vishakha Wadekar, was driving her car with her young daughter, Sanskruti Wadekar she had no inkling that danger lurked round the corner of the highway; over-mining near the hill that resulted in the destruction of a small hill by the side of the national highway. The resultant debris and a part of the hill collapsed and slid down to the road, claiming the lives of Ms. Vishakha and her daughter. This was as the result of illegal mining and activites along the national highway. After this incident, on an application by Aam Aadmi Lok Manch the Pune bench of National Green Tribunal issued several directions in this regard. The Lokmanch president approached the court seeking mandatory injunction to restore natural contours at the foot base of the hill that had been destroyed.
ISSUE:
General relief sought to issue directions to other Respondent Authorities to take necessary action for protection of hills from destruction and maintain foot based design of the hills in the natural survey, and surveying the powers of the National Green Tribunal.
LEGAL PROVISION:
Section 14(1) read with Section 16 and Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
PETITIONER CONTENTION:
Aam Aadmi Lokmanch reported that there were large number of newspaper reports, which showed destruction of hills around city of Pune for the purpose of land grabbing and illegal construction of buildings. They contended that it is important to protect the hills because if it is left unchecked and there is rampant soil-cutting and land grabbing then it will lead to erosion and it may lead to landslides and this is exactly what happened to Ms Vishakha Wadekar and her daughter and they were victims of the National highway authority of India’s negligence to allow illegal construction of buildings near the hills and not preventing the land grabbing.
Respondent contention:
The NHAI contended that there was no material on record to establish that they were in any way culpable or had failed to perform a public duty or neglected to avert a foreseeable calamity and therefore, the finding of NGT that they pertained to the neglect or alleged omission were contrary to law.
COURT OBSERVATION:
Taking note of provisions of the National Green Tribunal, The bench comprising of Justice RF Nariman, S.Ravindra Bhatt, and V.Ramasubramaniam observed that the NGT’s jurisdiction is not restitutionary but a remedial one. It said its powers can also be preventive. NGT is an expert regulatory body and its personnel include technically qualified and experienced members. The bench observed that the earlier judgement passed by NGT that developments and constructions should not be carried out within 100 feet of the lowest slope of any hill within its territorial limits as well as hill-tops was without any rationale and scientific evidence.
JUDGEMENT:
The court passed the judgement that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has correctly assumed jurisdiction, keeping in view the nature and accident in the facts of the case. The court held NHAI liable to compensate accident and death which was caused by failure to prevent illegal mining along the National Highway, and directed the NHAI to pay Rs.15 lakhs as compensation to the legal representative of the deceased mother and daughter. The court further added that the NGT has power to issue general directions for future guidance to prevent harm and injury to the environment.
Leave a Reply