on Civil No 577 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
SR Bhat and R Venkataramani for the Petitioner Dr BS Chauhan for the Respondents and Shobha Dikshit for he State of UP
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 741 SABYASACHI MUKHARJI CJ
A letter written to this Court was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
The letter written by Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti
Sarnath alleged environ mental pollution in the area
It was also alleged therein that the Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and a refinery plant are located in the green belt area touching three villages and the Sarnath temple of international fame
The smoke and dust emitted from the chimneys of the Mills and the effluents discharged from these plants were alleged to be causing environmental pollution in the thickly populated area and were proving a great health hazard
It was further stated that the people were finding it difficult to eat and sleep due to smoke and foul smell and the highly polluted water
It was further alleged that the lands in the area had become waste affecting crops and the orchards damages
Diseases like TB jaundice and other ailments were stated to be spreading in an epidemic form
The growth of children was affected
It was further alleged that the schools nursing homes leprosy homes and hospitals situated on the one kilometer long belt touching the oil Mills and the plant were adversely affected
It was stated that licences had been issued to one richman Dina Nath for these industrial units thereby risking the lives of thousands of people without enforcing any safety measure either to cure the effluents discharged from the plants or to check the smoke and the foul smell emitted from the chimneys
The whole area was expected to be ruined due to any explosion or gas leak age
In that background the petitioner prayed for necessary directions to check the pollution and also enclosed a printed leaflet alleging real practices and corruption on the part of the proprietor of these industrial units apart from polluting the atmosphere
As mentioned hereinbefore the complaint was made by the said Samiti stated to be a social organisation about envi ronmental pollution and ecological imbalance being caused by the two plants and thereby exposing the population to health hazards and life risk which was therefore considered to be a matter of great public importance
It is necessary to recognise the danger in order to strike a balance between the quality of life to be preserved and the economic devel opment to be encouraged
Dealing with this aspect in MC Mehta vs Union of India  Ors  it has been stated that whenever applications for licences to establish new industries are made in future such applica tions should be refused unless adequate provision has been made for the treatment of trade effluents flowing out of the factories
So this letter was treated as a writ petition and notice was issued 742 counter affidavits was filed on behalf of respondent No 3 being the proprietor of Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills
Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India  Ors  wherein this Court underlined the importance of satisfactory verifi cation of allegations
The Court was asked to be ever vigi lant against abuse of its process and there was need for appropriate verification
There is a statute for controlling pollution
It is wellsettled that if there is a statute prescribing a judicial procedure governing a particular case the court must follow such procedure
It is not open to the court to by pass the statute and evolve a different procedure at variance with it
It is further asserted on behalf of the respondents that between the petitioner Sita Ram Pandey and respondent No 3 there was a long rivalry
According to respondent No 3 the petitioner is an anti social element and his only aim was to extract money from the people like respondent No 3 as in the present case
It has further been stated that there has been criminal proceeding against the petitioner and several items have been marked in the affidavit in opposition
The particulars make out a rather disgraceful state of affairs
It has been alleged that Mr Sita Ram Pandey for the last so many years was blackmailing the people and a case us 500 of the IPC being Case No 12188 was filed
It has been further averred that respondent No 3 has complied with the provisions of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1981 and of the water Prevention  Control of Pollution Act 1974 and there is no complaint of any kind from any person body or authority
The correspondence in this connection has been set out
It further appears that as early as 1980 the petitioner had made various complaints to the ADM Supply Distt
Varanasi alleging that respondent No 3 was accused of smuggling of coal and diesel blackmailing
It was dismissed
It further appears that there was no complaint from anybody apart from the present petitioner by any authority as to the non compliance of any statute by respondent No 3
The orders passed by the Pollution Control Board which had been annexed also indicate that there are no instance of viola tion of the said Acts
Time was sought on behalf of respondents for filing a rejoinder which unfortunately has not been filed and no satisfactory explanation has been given therefore
Certain letters alleged to have been written on behalf of the peti tioners were sought to be placed before us in the Court today
743 Having considered the facts circumstances nature of the allegations and the long history of enemit and animosi ty we are of the opinion that prima facie the provisions of the relevant Act namely the Air Pollution Control Act have been complied with and there is no conduct which is at tributable to respondent No 3 herein leading to pollution of air or ecological imbalances calling for interference by this Court
Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preser vation of fundamental rights of the citizens
Every citizen has a fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Consti tution of India
Anything which endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to be taken recourse of Article 32 of the Constitu tion
But this can only be done by any person interested genuinely in the protection of the society on behalf of the society or community
This weapon as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of circum spection and caution
Where it appears that this is only a cloak to feed fact ancient grudge and enemity this should not only be refused but strongly discouraged
While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court
That would be an act or a conduct which will defeat the very purpose of preservation of fundamental rights
Having regard to the ugly rivalry here we have no doubt that between the contestants the Court was misled and we must therefore proceed with caution
There was no funda mental right violation or could be violative if the allega tions of the so called champions on behalf of the society are scrutinised
We must protect the society from the so called protectors 
This application is legally devoid of any merit or principles of public interest and public pro tection
This application certainly creates bottlenecks in courts which is an abuse of process of this Court
We have therefore no hesitation in dismissing this application with the observations made herein
GN Petition dis missed


Summary:
The No Objection Certificate granted to Respondent No 1 Corporation under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 1976 for running a petrol pump set up by it on a lease hold site was cancelled by respondent No 5 the District Magistrate under Rule 151 of the Rules
This order was upheld by the Commis sioner but was set aside by the High Court on appeal
Hence the special leave petition against the High Court s order
Dismissing the special leave petition this Court HELD The High Court was right in holding that the District Authority under Rule 151 of the Petroleum Rules 1976 can cancel the No Objection Certificate only when the licensee ceases to have any right to use the site for stor ing petrol
However certain subsequent observations made by the High Court in the judgment might lead to an inference that so long as the licensee continues to have leasehold rights on the site the No Objection Certificate  cannot be cancelled at all
That is not the correct position in law
738B C On a reading of sub rule 1 of the Rule 151 it is clear that a No Objection Certificate  granted under Rule 144 can be cancelled wherever the licensee ceases to have any right to use the site for storing petrol and that right could be lost by a licensee either by his tenancy or right to the use of the site coming to an end or for any other reason where by in law the right to use the site for storing petrol ceases
738C D