COMPENDIUM OF SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN ENVIRONMENT RELATED CASES

SRI LANKA

Sri Lanka - Class Action, Constitutional Rights, Mining Operations, Public Nuisance

S. C. AMARASINGHE and three others v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and three others

S. C. (SPL.) NO. 6/92 SUPREME COURT OF SRI LANKA

Introduction

The Petitioner sought to quash an Order of the President of Sri Lanka dated 21.10.1992 made under Section 2 of the Urban Development Projects (Special Provisions) Act No. 2 of 1980 declaring that upon the recommendation of the Minister in charge of urban development he was of opinion that the lands described in the schedule to the Order were urgently required for an urban development project. The Attorney-General and, the Road Development Authority were made respondents. It was common ground that the lands in question were to be acquired in connection with the construction of an expressway from Colombo to Katunayake. The Petitioners contended in the Supreme Court that there had been a failure of natural justice as there had been no hearing prior to making the order, despite the fact that under Section 2 of the Act the urban development project had to be one "which would meet the just requirements of the general welfare of the people".

Legislative Framework

Urban Development Project (Special Provisions) Act No. 2 of 1980 Sections 2,3 & 7.
National Environmental Act No. 47 of 1980 amended by Act No. 56 of 1988 of the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act. Sections 23 AA & 23 BB.

The Petitioners cited Sections 23AA and 23BB of the National Environmental Act No. 47 of 1980 as amended by Act No. 56 of 1988 which require that approval for all prescribed projects should be obtained from the appropriate project approving agency, which is first required to call for an environmental impact assessment report (EIA). They contended that the Presidential Order under Section 2 of the Urban Development Projects (Special Provisions) Act could not be made until the EIA had been prepared.

Held

(1) As the Order under Section 2 of the Urban Development Projects (Special Provisions) Act has of itself no adverse impact on a citizen's property, liberty or livelihood and does not deprive him of or affect title to or possession of property, a public hearing was not required at that stage.

(2) The available material did not indicate that the decision to build the expressway was unreasonable and therefore the Court would not interfere.

(3) Section 3 of the Urban Development Projects (Special Provisions) Act did not take away the powers of the superior courts which were enshrined in the Constitution.

(4) Section 7 of that Act did not empower the State to take over privately owned land under the State Lands (Recovery of Possession) Act without first acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act.

(5) The provisions of Sections 23AA and 23BB of the National Environmental Act as amended were not applicable, as no orders had yet been made listing any "prescribed projects". However, the Central Environmental Authority had power to call for an EIA in respect of any new project under Section 1 0(h) of the Act and the Court took note that the Respondents had given an undertaking that an EIA would be prepared and made available for public scrutiny for 30 days, which would be the appropriate stage at which to consider public representations on environmental factors.

Cases Cited

Hirdaramani v. Rathnavale 75 N.L.R.67
Visuvalingam v. Liyanage (1984) 2 Sri L.R.123
Wickremabandu v. Herath (1990) 2 Sri L.R.348
Weeraratne v. Colin Thome (1988) 2 Sri L.R.151
Fernandopulle v. Minister of Lands and Agriculture 79(2) N.L.R.115