29787271 Environmental Law in Malaysia

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWGMUL 5063

GROUP 4

Nor Nuha Mahfuz - 803766Rohida Abdul Wahab - 803770Norzaimah Mohd Dzin - 803768Salma Mohd Kasim - 806916

CONTENTS

Theory

• Environmental ethics• Evolution of Environmental pollution• Legal Framework – before 1974

Environmental Quality Act 1974• Regulations under EQA • Regulatory Framework• Penalty• Department of Environment

Environmental Impact Assessment• Requirement, scope, process• Penalty• Post EIA Compliance and Monitoring• Targets

Application

• Issues• Case Laws

Theory

Environmental Quality Act

Environmental Impact Assessment

Application

RELATIONSHIP

Earth

Human

Leopold’s Land Ethics –“if man wants to survive and to preserve other species he

has to change his own behaviour, get rid of the pretension to be the king of

nature and cultivate new habits that help to care for the natural environment”

THEORY

Ecological Ethics

People• Activities• Behavior

Nature• Impact• Responds

• Human interaction with nature and earth and the impact of his activities• Moral need to consider regulations with respect to nature• One’s right to live is the same as the other members of the Earth: soil, water,

plants and animals• Stresses the priority of human values: nature as unique and integral on a

planetary scale and the preservation of nature is a common task and care for all humankind

THEORIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Leopold

• It is not sufficient to consider only the interests of humankind and take no care of ecological equilibrium; rather a new and more balanced ethics must be built.

• Any behavior favorable to keeping the integrity and stability of flora and fauna is right and good, otherwise it is wrong and evil.

Kenneth E. Goodpaster - From Egoism to Environmentalism

• Environmental problem is a huge crisis for the 21st century.

• Emphasized that humankind must change its attitude from egoism and chauvinism towards nature and survive

Prof. Paul Taylor of Princeton University

• The natural world as an interdependent system in which humans are members of the earth’s life community.

• As every living entity as unique and cannot be replaced, therefore we must respect nature, respect life.

Schweizer •There should exist a moral standard between man and nature, without this elementary ethical principle no adequate ethics can be formed. •all life is the great creation of nature and should be respected with great care•The relation between man and nature should be a close and mutually appreciative as with an organism.

Ancient Chinese philosophy

• "Dao (Buddha) is present everywhere. Everywhere on earth, be it large or small, whether alike or lifeless, has a reason for existence. Therefore we should respect to life and nature and everything on earth should be treated equally”

THEORIES - TAKEAWAYSHuman, Earth and Nature make up an organic system of interdependence, or one world or commonwealth. Mankind is a member of the earth’s life of community, expressed as a global village. According to an old Chinese saying, the members of a community should cross a river in the same boat, meaning that people in the same community should help each other.

Man and nature should constitute a partnership in which each depends on the other, helps each other, not a relation of conqueror and conquered or master and slave

Natural things do not exist for man, but have their own internal objective. Humans must not substitute their own objectives for those of nature, but must respect nature, respect life.

It is necessary to overcome the idea of human egoism and to advocate that everything on earth is equal and in harmony.

EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

1950s Economic reconstruction

1970s Local impact

1980s Global Impact

1990s Heightened Awareness

Regulated practices towards sustainable development

Environmental pollution

Ecological Crisis

Globalised Impact

Rapid industrialisation in 1950s to 1970s


International symposium (on the environment)

1968 – Italian Academy

•First international symposium on the ecological crisis•Discussed the present environmental situation•Attended by 30 specialists from 10 countries of Asia and the West•Formed the Club of Rome joined by 100 scholars from over 40 countries to assess the environmental pollution impact onto the world


Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Human Environment,

Stockholm 1972•Recognised the need to adopt measures for the protection of environment•‘Environment’ includes the totality of nature and natural resources, including the cultural heritage and the man-made infrastructure to facilitate the development of socio-economic activities

GLOBAL REQUIREMENT

Theory



Application

LEGAL FRAMEWORK – Before 1974

•To control and prohibit disruption of rivers, so as not to interfere with the smooth flow of water•Restriction of discharges of specific substances into the river which might be detrimental to the beneficial use of the river waters throughout Peninsular Malaysia

Water Enactment 1920 (Act 418)

•Establishment of forest reserves and control in logging activities•Control in logging activities

Forest Enactment Act 1934 Cap 153

•Aimed at conserving hill land and the protection of soil from erosion and inroads of silt•Prohibits planting of short-term crops on any hill land

Land and Conservation Act 1960

• Controls discharges from mining activitiesMining Act

• Regulates use of Toxic substancesPoisons Ordinance

1952

• Governs marine pollution by vesselsMerchant Shipping

Ordinance

LEGAL FRAMEWORK – Before 1974 (con’t)

Issues

•Unable to curb soaring environmental problems due to rapid advancement of modern industries and technologies•Existing legislations was not to address environmental concerns but mainly on other specific activities•Largely sectoral in focusing specific areas and activities

LEGAL FRAMEWORK – Before 1974 (con’t)

Gezetted on 14 March 1974

•An Act relating to the prevention, abatement, control of pollution and enhancement of the environment, and for the purposes connected therewith

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974


POLICY FRAMEWORK

• The various national policies and international development impacts environmental management policies and regulations

• 2002 – National Policy on Environment to provide policy framework towards coordinated environmental management efforts

Environmental

policies

National Development

Plan

Vision 2020

Basel Convention (Movement

of Hazardous Waste &

Disposal)

Convention of Climate

Change and Biodiversity


•Part 1: Preliminary•Part II : Administration•Part III : Licenses•Part IV : Prohibition and Control of Pollution•Part IV A : Control of Scheduled Wastes•Part V : Appeal and Appeal Board•Part V A : Payment of Cess and Environmental Fund•Part VI : Miscellaneous

EQA 1974 (Act 127)

Governed by 35 regulations to regulate specific activities and impact

onto the environment

ELEMENTS COVERED UNDER EQA 1974

EQA1974

Air

Water NoiseIndustrial wastes

EXAMPLES OF REGULATIONS UNDER EQA 1974Environmental Quality (Licensing) Regulations 1977

Environmental Quality (Control of Emissions from Petrol Engines) Regulations 1996

Environmental Quality (Delegation of Powers) (Investigation of Open Burning) Order 2000

Environmental Quality (Declared Activities) (Open Burning) Order 2003

Environmental Quality (Appeal Board) Regulations 2003

REGULATIONS UNDER EQA1974 (related to EIA)Environmental Quality (Clean Air ) Regulations 1978

Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Effluents) Regulations 1979

Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Order 1987

Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) Regulations 1989

Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Scheduled Wastes Treatment and Disposal Facilities) Order 1989

Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Scheduled Wastes Treatment and Disposal Facilities) Regulations 1989

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

• Director General of DOE

• Ministry with advise from Environment Council



Grant, renew,

transfer, revoke

licenses

Regulate prescribed premises

Assessment of activities

Issuance of licenses with

conditions

PENALTY

Alterations of licensed equipment

Alterations of vehicles, ship or premise to become prescribed conveyances or premises

Contravention of monitoring conditions

Failure to comply with conditions of license

Failure to hold a license for prescribed premises

LICENSING REQUIREMENT

S.16(2) of EQA 1974

•Any holder of a license who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a period of not exceeding two years or to both, and to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day that the offence is continued after a notice by the Director General requiring him to comply with such term or condition specified therein has been served upon him

COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES

S.45 of EQA 1974

•(1)The Director General or any Deputy Director General, or any other public officer or any local authority to whom the Director General has delegated such power in writing, may compound any offence under this Act or the regulations made thereunder which is prescribed by the Minister to be a compoundable offence by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of having committed the offence a sum of money not exceeding two thousand ringgit•(2) The Minister may make rules to prescribe the method and procedure for compounding such offences

ENFORCEMENT CONCEPT

• Prevention is better than cure• Cradle to grave

Assessment

APPEAL

S.35 of EQA 1974

•(1)Any person who is aggrieved by:•a. Refusal to grant a license or transfer license•b. The imposition of any condition, limitation or restriction on his license•c. The revocation, suspension or variation of his license•d. The amount which he would be required to pay under section 47•e. Any decision of the Director General under subsection )3) or (4) of section 34 A, and•f. Any decision of the Director General or any officer under subsection (2) or (5) of section 48A•may within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, appeal to the Appeal Board

APPEAL BOARD

Regulation •Environmental Quality (Appeal Board) Regulations 2003

Members•Chairman•Deputy Chairman•Member

Power•To hear appellant in person or his representatives•Consider any additional evidence or documents•To award cost or make order in respect to the appeal

Duration •Notice to appeal - Within 30 days of date of decision communicated to appellant•Grounds of appeal – within 30 days after submission of notice

OTHER FEATURES OF EQA 1974

Director General of the DOE

Environmental Quality Council

Environmental Quality Audit

Cess and Environmental Fund

APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR GENERAL

S3(1) EQA 1974

• There shall be a Director General of Environmental Quality who shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst members of the public service and whose powers, duties and functions shall be - ….

This led to the formation of the Department of Environment as the

enforcement agency of EQA 1974

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

DOE as Enforcement

Agency•Institutionalised in 1975•Main role is to prevent, control and abate pollution through the enforcement of the EQA,1974 and its 34 subsidiary legislations made thereunder•The principal agency entrusted to administer the EQA 1974 and its subsidiary legislations


• Established in 1975, EQA 1974• 15 state offices, 26 branch offices• Ministry of Science, Technology and

Environment (now know as Green Technology and Water)

Appointment

• Mission - To ensure sustainable development in the process of nation building

• Air, Noise, Water, Marine, Hazardous substances

• Cradle to grave concept – source generator has to ensure the source does not have adverse impact onto the environment throughout its life

Scope

• Prevention, control and abatement of pollution through the enforcement of the Environmental Quality Act of 1974 and its subsidiary legislations

Roles and Responsibilities


•Established on 12 April 1977 under Section 4(1)of the Environmental Quality Act, 1974•Advise the Ministry on matters pertaining to the Act•Provides policy guidance to the DOE the formulation of policies and strategies towards a more holistic approach to environmental management

Environmental Quality Council

•Assist in raising the level of public awareness on the importance of environmental conservation efforts•Trainings for Policies, Tools and development•Provides certification for competent Environment practitioner•Provides training for certification

Environment Institute

of Malaysia (EiMAS)

Theory

Environment Quality Act


Application

LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF EIA

S.34A(2) of EQA (Amendment) Act 1985

Gazettement of Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities,

EIA) Order 1987 •Any person intending to carry out any of the prescribed activity shall, before any approval for the carrying out of such activity is granted by the relevant approving authority, submit a report to the Director General. The report shall contain an assessment of the impact of such activity will have or is likely to have on the environment and the proposed measures that shall be undertaken to prevent, reduce or control the adverse impact on the environment

EIA COVERAGE


• Prescribed Activities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Order, 1987

Prescribed Activities

• 19 as listed in the Schedule

Exceptions• First Schedule of the Conservation of Environment (Prescribed Activities) Order 1999 published under the Second Supplementary of the Sabah Government Gazette on the 30 August 1999

• First Schedule of the Natural Resources and Environment (Prescribed Activities) Order 1994 published under Part II of the Sarawak Government Gazette on the 18 August 1999

Preliminary or Detailed EIA

• Extent of Project – significance of impact

PRESCRIBED ACTIVITIES

Ports

Fisheries

Land reclamationPrescribedActivities

Railways

Transportation

Water Supply Housing

Mining

Drainage & Irrigation

Power Generation & Transmission

Quarries

Infrastructure

Waste Treatment & Disposal

Petroleum

Airport

Agriculture

Forestry

Industry

Resort & Recreational Development

PENALTY

S.34A(8) of EQA Act 1974

•Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five years or both and to a further fine one thousand ringgit for every day that the offence is continued after a notice by the Director General requiring him to comply with the act specified therein has been served upon him

CONTENTS OF EIAProject information – background, initiator, statement of need

Project description – process flow description, design basis, sources of effluent, air and noise emissions, treatment

Condition of existing environment – physical and biological systems

Potential Impacts and Mitigating Measures during Construction, Commissioning, Operations

Environmental Management System

Simulation model on potential impact of activities to the existing environment

SCOPE OF EIA

EIA Assessment

Environment

Socio EconomicCommuni

ty

EIA PROCESS

• Project proposal• Nature of project

Application

POST EIA COMPLIANCE

Monthly progress reports

• Analysis results of Effluent (Water), Air, Noise parameters• Compliance to EIA Approval Conditions and Guidelines by the DOE• Remedial actions for non-compliances

Checks / Visits by DOE Officers

• Scheduled and unscheduled

Liason officer

• Appointed company representative for liason with the DOE• Ensure all requirement under EIA approval conditions and EQA

1974 are strictly adhered to

EIA CYCLE

Assessment

Identification of impact

Corrective and

mitigating actions

Monitoring

Sustaining

Theory



Application

Issues

•Absence of any provision for coordination between organisation and individuals for enforcement•Fragmented and disjointed nature of legal framework – state often address issues on an ad-hoc nature rather than on long-term approach•Colonial influence of maximising exploitation of natural resources. Inhibits concerted environmental policy developments at the federal and state level

APPLICATION ISSUES (1)

Issues

•Overlapping functions between Environmental and Planning agencies – The DOE is responsible for industrial pollution control, however other natural resources are under the jurisdiction of other ministries or regulating bodies with separate sets of regulations. Each ministry promotes development within their own ministry without proper coordination with environmental management•DOE recommendation to permit or refuse a development can be ignored by the State Planning Committee•State Planning Committee may disregard the recommendation for purposes of Economic development

APPLICATION ISSUES (2)

CASE LAW EIA : FEDERAL VS STATE LAW

Kajing Tubek & Ors vs Ekran Bhd & Ors (1996) 2 M.L.J. 388

•Tahu Lujah, 70, Saran Emu, 48, and Kajing Tubek, 39, had wanted EIA reports to be made available to them for their views•Dispute whether the Bakun Hydroelectric Dam (Bakun Dam) is to be considered under the EQA 1974 which is a Federal environmental legislation or to be governed by the Sarawak State Law, Natural Resources Ordinance 1974•The Minister of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE) excluded the application of the Federal EIA requirements in relation to the construction of dams in the State of Sarawak (1995 Amendment Order)



•Decision : The EQA was enacted to be applicable to the entire nation. Subsidiary legislation was permitted to give full effect to the EQA. Under the guidelines prescribed by the project proponent … it cannot be made without some form of public participation … For this is a right vested with the plaintiffs …… •The High Court's judgment invalidated the Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Amendment Order of 1995 and ordered the project developer to comply with the Environmental Quality Act of 1974 before proceeding with the construction of the dam. •The 1995 amendment order was deemed invalid because of its retroactive application which removed rights that had already accrued to the plaintiffs under the Environmental Quality Act of 1974, namely the right to public participation in the environmental impact assessment process of the dam.



•Note: •The Bakun EIA was approved amidst much controversy in 1995 when it was discovered that the Federal Environmental Quality Act 1974 (EQA) was retrospectively amended to allow the authority of the EIA approval for certain projects in Sarawak to be transferred to the Natural Resources and Environment Board (NREB) which is subject to the Sarawak Natural Resources and Environment Ordinance 1994 (SNREO).

Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar v Kajing Tubek [1997] 3

MLJ 23 •Appeal to challenge High Court’s decision•Decision : 17 February 1997 the Court of Appeal, ruled to allow their appeal•1. The Sarawak Ordinance co-exists with the EQA, each operating within its own sphere based on the constitutional authority of the State of Sarawak to regulate by legislation those components of the environment that fall within its domain. The Judge concluded that ‘[in] my judgment, Parliament, when it passed the EQA, did not intend, and could not have intended, to regulate so much of the environment as falls within the legislative jurisdiction of Sarawak.’ (Court of Appeal Judgment). He agreed with the submission of the Senior Counsel that the Amendment Order was made ‘not for the purpose of cutting the ground from under the feet of the respondents as suggested by their Counsel, but for the purpose of making it abundantly clear to all concerned that the 1987 order was not, for constitutional reasons, meant to apply to Sarawak.

CASE LAW EIA : LOCUS STANDI

Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar v Kajing Tubek [1997] 3 MLJ 23

•2. “In particular he (the Judge of High Court) did not have sufficient regard for public interest. Additionally he did not consider the interests of justice from the point of view of both the appellants and respondents”•The Court of Appeal, in a stunning reversal of the High Court, held that the Defendants had no locus standi because they had suffered no special injury over and above the injury common to others. •Note : Locus standi – ‘place of standing’ that is a place to stand in court or a right to appear in a court of justice on a given question

CASE LAW EIA : LOCUS STANDI

Lam Eng Rubber Factory (M) Sdn Bhd vs Director of Environment, Kedah & Perlis [2005] 2 All Malaysian Report (AMR) 471

•The appellant operates a rubber factory in Sungai Petani, Kedah. The factory has been in operation since 1940. Each year the appellant applied for and obtained a license from the local authority. In 1974, the Environmental Quality Act ("the EQA") came into force. Appellant had to obtain a license from the Department of the Environment, Kedah, which the appellant did so. However, appellants’ application for 1994 license was not approved. •Appellant appealed to the Appeal Board S (35) but was not heard. The DOE refused to issue the license•Appellant went to the High Court to quash the decision of the DOE’s refusal to issue the license•25 February1995 – appellant lost since the appellant had no license for the year 1994, but yet they had carried on their factory illegally and had no legitimate expectation to have a license for 1995.

CASE LAW EIA : CONTRAVENTION LICENSE

Lam Eng Rubber Factory (M) Sdn Bhd vs Director of Environment, Kedah & Perlis [2005] 2 AMR 471

•Brought the case to Appeal Board for:•1st respondent to consider to grant the license•2nd respondent to hear the case of appeal for the license•Appellant – Lam Eng Rubber•First Respondent – Director General of the DOE•Second Respondent – Appeal Board• Decision – Appeal granted


Lam Eng Rubber Factory (M) Sdn Bhd vs Director of Environment, Kedah & Perlis [2005] 2 AMR 471

•Judgement• “The first respondent, as I have said, had no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with the appellant's appeal. His act was ultra vires (in violation) the EQA. We therefore allowed the appeal with costs here and below and remitted the appeal to the Appeal Board appointed under s 36 of the EQA to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The orders of the High Court were set aside. The deposit was ordered to be refunded to the appellant.”•In the event, other matters that had been submitted on in the appeal before us, which turned on the question whether it is correct that, as the learned judge held, the appellants had no legitimate expectation to a renewal of license because the appellants had not been issued a license for the previous period of April 1, 1994 to March 1995 and therefore there was no license to renew and also because in that period they had been operating illegally since they had no license, and which included the question of who was at fault in the appellants' not being able to obtain a license for that period, ….


CASE LAW : HAZARDOUS WASTE (1)

Woon Tan Kan (Deceased) & 7 Ors. vs

Asian Rare Earth Sdn Bhd [1992] 4 CLJ 2207

•Storing of Hazardous material at Bukit Merah. Asian Rare Earth (ARE) was formed to extract (an element in earth) from monazit. The main shareholders are Mitsubishi Chemical Industries Ltd (35%), Beh Minerals (35%), Lembaga Urusan dan Tabung Haji (20%) and some local Bumiputera (10%). The company shall produce radioactive waste through the monazit processing. The waste shall belong to the Perak State as it is a potential source of nuclear energy source. •Plant was in operations beginning 11 July 1982 to 1994•Perak State located the waste storage at the Papan, 16 km from Ipoh. Struggle of 10 years (from 1984 to 1994)•09 December 1984 – Detected radiation level at more than 800 times permitted


Woon Tan Kan (Deceased) & 7 Ors. vs

Asian Rare Earth Sdn Bhd [1992] 4 CLJ 2207

•The Papan community protested and brought the case to Ipoh High Court•1 February 1985: 8 residents filed summons to stop ARE from producing, storing or pile radioactive waste within the vicinity of the area in line with the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984. •Court proceedings in 32 months. Involved internal and external atomic energy experts •11 July 1992 : Community wins case against ARE. High Court directs ARE operations to stop in 14 days.


Woon Tan Kan (Deceased) & 7 Ors. vs Asian Rare Earth Sdn Bhd [1992] 4 CLJ 2207 – Follow-ups

•23 July 1992 : ARE raised Appeal at the Supreme Court. •24 July 1992 : Following ex-parte application by ARE, Supreme Court Judge held Ipoh High Court’s decision to stop ARE’s operations. 5 August 1992 : Supreme Court allowed ARE’s application to reject High Courts ruling on the appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that the closure will bring difficulty to the company and the 183 personnel. •19 January 1994 : ARE stopped operations

THANK YOU

1. The Place of Ecological Ethics in Culture – Celovas Kalenda

2. Earthdance : Living System in Evolution – Elisabeth Sahtouris

3. Environmental Problems and ecological Ethics – Wang Miaoyang

4. Environmental Quality Act 1974

5. Challenges in Implementing and Enforcing Environmental Protection

Measures in Malaysia – Ainul Jaria Maidin

6. Protecting Indigenous Communities in Malaysia – Sahabat Alam

Malaysia

7. Preliminary Assessment of Malaysia’s Environmental Law – Alan KJ,

Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore

8. Environmental Impact Assessment – Propane Dehydrogenation Project,

MTBE Malaysia Sdn Bhd

REFERENCES

CASE LAW : LOCUS STANDI

Abdul Razak bin Ahmad vs Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor. (1994) MLJ 297

• Locus standi – ‘place of standing’ that is a place to stand in court or a right to appear in a court of justice on a given question

• Plaintif (a resident of Johor) challenged to plan to build a floating city at Selat Tebrau. Plaintif requests that the court declare the project as invalid as it is against Town Planning Act 1976.

• Decision: High Court judged that although the project may go against the Act, there is locus standi to show that the non-compliance will has or will cause him grievance unless he can show evidence to the court that he will incur grievance because of the non-compliance.

• Being a tax payer does not give sufficient evidence that he has sufficient interest that needs to be protected by the law in the context of the project development. Court judged that if plaintiff want to bring this for further judicial review, the court’s permission is required while the Local Planning municipality will be required to attend.

3 MLJ 640; Abdul Razak Ahmad v Ketua Pengarah

Kementerian Sains, Teknologi dan Alam Sekitar [1994] 2

Current Law Journal (CLJ 363);•Application to access the EIA report of the proposed ‘floating city’ in Johor Bahru. •Decision : the High Court of Johor Bahru ruled that as a citizen of Malaysia and a resident of Johor Bahru, the applicant was entitled to a copy of the EIA as respects the development of the proposed ‘floating city’ in Johor Bahru. Supra, n 3. However, the applicant had succeeded in this case mainly because the Federal Counsel representing the Director General of Environment did not object that the EIA was a public document.]

LOCUS STANDI - COMPARISON

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/administrative_law/the_role_of_public_interest_litigation_in_promoting_good_governance_in_malaysia_and_singapore.html

The New South Wales Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act•Provides for open standing and for class actions to enforce environmental law within the state. Under S123, any person may bring proceedings in the Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of this Act, whether or not any right of that person has been or may be infringed by or as a consequence of that breach. A person may bring proceedings on behalf of himself and others with their consent


Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v

Commonwealth [1980] 146 CLR 493.

•An environmental group attempting to stop a proposed building development with regard to the validity of purported compliance with certain environmental laws


MC Metha v Union of India [1987] 4 SCC 463;

MC Mehta v Union of India [1987] 1 SCC 395;

MC Metha v Union of India & Ors [1996] 4 SCC 351

•Provides for open standing and for class actions to enforce environmental law within the state. Under S123, any person may bring proceedings in the Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of this Act, whether or not any right of that person has been or may be infringed by or as a consequence of that breach. A person may bring proceedings on behalf of himself and others with their consent.


Documents

29787271 Environmental Law in Malaysia