Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

the Criminal Procedure Code

t was noted that American Courts have also accepted the public trust doctrine and applied it in their case law and, the Supreme Court observed, it has now become a part of our environmental jurisprudence also.

In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. V. Radhey Shyam Sahu, Lucknow nagar Mahapalika permitted M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant herein) to construct an underground shopping complex beneath the Jhandewala Park. The major part of the work was completed. The High Court quashed the relevant resolutions that permitted the construction. When it set aside the agreement, the High Court had noticed certain facts. The park was of historical importance, which the Mahapalika did not deny. Preservation or maintenance of the park was necessary from the environment angle. The only reason advanced by the Mahapalika for construction of the underground commercial complex was to ease the congestion in the area. The High Court said that construction of the underground shopping complex would only complicate the situation and the present scheme would further congest the area. The builders appealed. The Supreme Court went on to say that Mahapalika is the trustee for the proper management of the park. When true nature of the park, as it existed, is destroyed it would be violative of the doctrine of public trust as expounded by this court, the court quotes that the idea of public trusteeship rests upon three principles. Firstly, Certain interests like the air and the sea have such importance to the citizenry that it would be unwise to make them the subject of private ownership. Secondly, They should be made freely available to the entire citizenry without regard to economic status. Thirdly, It is principle purpose of government to promote the general public rather than to redistribute public goods from broad public use to restrict private benefit.