## Facts

- Godawari Marble Industries operated in the Godawari area under a government-issued license.
- Godawari is a forested and culturally significant area near Phulchowki Hill in Lalitpur District, within the Kathmandu Valley.
- Local residents raised concerns that quarrying/industrial activity was degrading the environment in and around Godawari.
- Suray (Surya) Prasad Sharma Dhungel, a lawyer and environmental advocate (associated with an environmental research organization), filed a writ petition under Nepal’s Constitution.
- Dhungel asked the Supreme Court to cancel the license on the ground that granting it was not in the public interest.
- He also sought regulatory and remedial steps to stop or reduce environmental damage, alleging pollution from dust, minerals, smoke, and sand affecting air, land, and water and threatening health and property.
- The petition was treated as a public-interest constitutional matter and ultimately heard by a Full Bench.

## Issues

1. Does the constitutional right to life include a right to a clean and healthy environment?
2. Do public-spirited individuals and organizations have standing to bring a public-interest environmental writ without showing direct personal injury?
3. When the petitioner does not identify a specific breached legal duty, may the Court deny mandamus yet still issue directive orders to government bodies regarding environmental protection and legislation?

## Decision

- The Court held that the constitutional right to life includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment.
- The Court accepted that environmental harm is a public matter and recognized standing for public-interest petitioners (including individuals and organizations working on environmental protection).
- The Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus because the petition did not clearly point to a specific legal provision imposing a definite, fixed duty that had been disobeyed.
- Even without granting mandamus, the Court issued directive orders to the respondents and the Government to:
  - enforce existing legal controls relevant to mining/industry (including the Minerals Act 1985);
  - take effective steps to protect the environment of the Godawari area; and
  - enact needed laws addressing protection of air, water, sound, and the environment.

## Legal Principles

- The right to life is not limited to protection against physical deprivation; it includes protection against environmental conditions that threaten human life and health.
- Environmental protection claims may be brought in public interest; standing is not limited to those who can prove individualized, direct injury where the alleged harm affects the community at large.
- Mandamus requires a clearly identified, definite legal duty capable of judicial enforcement; general allegations of wrongful licensing or environmental harm, without pinpointing a specific unmet duty, may be insufficient for that writ.
- In constitutional writ jurisdiction, the Court may issue directive orders to public authorities to implement existing law and address regulatory gaps where fundamental rights and constitutional state obligations relating to environmental conservation are at stake.
- Economic development through industry may proceed, but it must be balanced with environmental protection through meaningful regulation and enforcement.

## Conclusion

In *Dhungel v. Godawari Marble Industries*, the Supreme Court of Nepal treated a clean and healthy environment as part of the constitutional right to life, allowed public-interest standing for environmental claims, refused mandamus for lack of a specifically identified enforceable duty, and nonetheless issued directives requiring stronger enforcement of existing mining controls and action— including legislation—aimed at protecting the Godawari environment.


Dhungel v. Godawari Marble Industries, WP 35/1992 (1995)