O. Fernandes -Vs- Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Union of India, Tuticorin Port Trust and others

This petition was filed for a direction to declare public hearings conducted in connection with the Sethu Samudram Shipping Canal Project on several dates to be ineffective and not in compliance with the requirements of law. The petitioner stated that such public hearings would become meaningful only after a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment Report on the canal project was made ready. The shipping canal project visualized making a canal for passage of ships through the Palk Strait. The Government of India was proposing to dredge this canal with a width of 300 Metres and a total length of about 260 Kms. The aim was to reduce the distance for ships, which until then went around Sri Lanka after berthing in Colombo to reach the Bay of Bengal. After the canal would be built ships could avoid going around Sri Lanka. The petitioner gave details about the alleged damage to the environment which would be caused by the said project. He also alleged that the present public hearing was not meaningful and did not give effective participation to the citizens and the present panelists did not have the necessary qualification or experience. In the opinion of the court, this writ petition was premature, and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The public hearings were going on when this writ petition was filed, and no adverse orders had yet been passed against anyone nor action taken against anyone as yet. A cause of action arose only when an adverse order had been passed or some action adversely affecting someone’s rights was taken. The writ petition could not be entertained at this stage. Besides that, it was evident that the Ship Canal Project would be of great benefit to the country. By dredging a Ship Canal in the Palk Strait huge amount of expense and a lot of time would be saved. The distance, time and money on fuel, which would be saved by the shipping industry, could certainly augment business and traffic in the coastal areas. Furthermore, the court emphasized that people should not obstruct the scientific and technical progress of the country in the name of environment protection. The environment had to be protected, but at the same time, one never had to overlook the basic aim, which was to make India a powerful and modern industrial state. People were entitled to pure air and water, forests had to be protected for ensuring regular rainfall and preventing soil erosion, wildlife had to be protected for maintaining ecological balance, etc. But, what was overlooked was that protection of the environment was incidental to industrialization. In other words, if India industrialized it would be compelled to protect the environment and there was no conflict between industrialization and environment protection. Thus, industrialization itself ensured a good environment. Industrialization not only created the wealth necessary for preserving and protecting the environment, it also created the modern mind in which protecting the environment was instilled since childhood. The main aim had to be to rapidly industrialise, and protection of environment had to be regarded as only incidental to this main aim, and not itself the main aim.