Judgment :- PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation filed by the Shozhanganallur Phase I and Phase II Tamil Nadu Housing Board affected Residents Welfare Association. The third respondent promoted a satellite township at Shozhanganallur with developed housing plan in three places. According to the petitioner, while doing so, they encroached upon several water bodies, which resulted in the deprivation of water sources like ponds, lakes, reservoirs etc. The unplanned development of plots would lead to reduced ground water table and salination of the existing good quality. They sent a representation to the Member Secretary, C.M.D.A., and others. They also participated in the public meeting conducted by the Kancheepuram District Shozhanganallur Panchayat Union on 6.09.2007 and prayed for protection of water bodies. According to them, the water bodies were permitted by Shozhanganallur Town Panchayat Union to be taken over by the Tamil Nadu Hosuing Board for development of housing plots, vide resolution No.150 dated 30.05.2007. According to them, the resolution does not relate to water bodies and declaring them as empty lands is false. Therefore, they prayed for mandamus to protect the water bodies at Shozhanganallur bearing survey Nos.290, 292, 393, 605/1 and 315. According to them, already some water bodies have been filled up by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and sold as plots. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as on date, possession has not been given and since they are residents in the nearby area, they know that the entire place becomes waterlogged in rainy season and it is neither in public interest nor in the interest of the residents, to allow the scheme to be implemented. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Housing Board, where it was stated that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board did not utilise the water bodies like ponds, reservoirs etc., and that the Government lands, which are lying vacant, have been utilised for this scheme. This counter affidavit was filed on 04.03.2008. Therefore, we directed the third respondent, Managing Director of TNHB to file an affidavit, since the earlier counter was filed only by the Chief Revenue Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. We made it clear that the third respondent should address himself on the specific allegation regarding acquisition of water bodies. This counter affidavit was filed on 04.03.2008. Therefore, we directed the third respondent, Managing Director of TNHB to file an affidavit, since the earlier counter was filed only by the Chief Revenue Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. We made it clear that the third respondent should address himself on the specific allegation regarding acquisition of water bodies. In this counter, the third respondent had stated that out of the five survey numbers, for which the relief is sought for, only survey No.290, 292 and 315 are covered by the Shozhanganallur Phase II Scheme and survey No.393 is covered by Shozhanganallur Phase III Scheme. According to him, for the Shozhanganallur Phase II Scheme, various patta lands have been acquired after passing of award and the lands vest with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and that the waterlogging is seen only here and there during the rainy season and therefore, the allegation that the entire area may get waterlogged may not be correct. According to the third respondent survey Nos.290, 292 and 315, which have been classified as Kulam, Kulam and Kuttai respectively are essentially required by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, keeping in mind the demand for housing for the public. As regards survey No.393 which is in an extent of 72 cents only, it was stated that the scheme has already been implemented by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the right over the said land is now vested with the allottees. 4. On 24.11.2009, the Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board submitted that no requisition has been made by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with regard to survey No.35 4. We looked at the map and we requested the Housing Board to examine whether, since survey No.354 is not required, survey Nos.362/1 and 370 will be needed, as they are admittedly small in extent. We requested the Housing Board to consider the issue from all angles not only on the question of need for formation of scheme, but also for saving the water bodies. On 08.12.2009, we recorded the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Tambaram. The Tahsildar had also reported the existence of other water course poramboke in S.F.No.248, which was admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader as waterbody. On 08.12.2009, we recorded the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Tambaram. The Tahsildar had also reported the existence of other water course poramboke in S.F.No.248, which was admitted by the learned Special Government Pleader as waterbody. We requested the third respondent to explore the possibility to opt for an alternative, keeping in mind the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007. We also directed respondents 1 and 2 to take steps in accordance with law wherever the encroachments are there in the waterbodies. On 23.12.2009, it was admitted by the Housing Board that survey No.605/1 is not falling under any of the schemes and as regards survey No.393 is concerned, the plots have been allotted to the public and sale deeds have been executed. It is true the Tahsildar had given a report that even survey No.393 gets waterlogged. But we cannot pass orders with regard to this survey number, since the allottees would be affected, and we cannot pass orders in their absence and without hearing them. 5. In 2010 WLR 113 (T.S. Senthil Kumar Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu), the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act was challenged. There this Court has dealt with the importance of conservation of water courses. In AIR 2005 Madras 311 (L. Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), this Court has held that this State must take definite measures to restore the water storage tanks, ponds and lakes and that it is imperative that such natural resources must be maintained by the State Government. When that is so, it is all the more the duty of the State and the authorities like the Housing Board not to be parties to destruction of such natural resources. 6. In AIR 2001 SC 2315(Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and Ors.) the Supreme Court has held that the State must maintain the natural resources keeping the ecological balance intact, referring to Article 21, 47, 48 and 51A(G) of the Constitution, and that every citizen must protect and improve the natural environment. Therefore, the Housing Board cannot in the guise of implementing a scheme destroy the water courses. 7. In 2006 (3) SCC 549 (Intellectuals Forum Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh), the Supreme Court has referred to the Principle of Sustainable Development and the Stockholm Convention, 1972 to which India is a Party. Therefore, the Housing Board cannot in the guise of implementing a scheme destroy the water courses. 7. In 2006 (3) SCC 549 (Intellectuals Forum Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh), the Supreme Court has referred to the Principle of Sustainable Development and the Stockholm Convention, 1972 to which India is a Party. The Supreme Court held that the Government has a responsibility to protect and preserve tanks. The Supreme Court referred to the Brundtland Report which defined the concept of "sustainable development". The Supreme Court in the above case also referred to the Doctrine of Public Trust which holds the State as a Trustee of the natural resources holding them as such on behalf of the people. 8. In T.S. Senthil Kumar case, this Court had also referred to Ramsar Convention which requires the conservation and wise use of wet lands. Sustainable development is that kind of a development "which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Persistent developmental activities ignoring the protection of natural resources cause irreparable damage. Section 12 of the Water Encroachment Act prohibits alienation of tank poramboke lands otherwise than in public interest and in Paragraph No.20 (c) and (d) of T.S. Senthil Kumar's case cited supra, it was held thus: "(c) As already stated, the State will ensure that alienation of tank poramboke lands, citing public interest, shall not be made under Section 12 of the Act. The meaning and weight of the words "public interest" shall be implicitly borne in mind. (d) The State holds all the water bodies in public trust for the welfare of this generation and all the succeeding generations and, therefore, protecting water bodies must be given as much weightage, if not more as allowing house-sites or other buildings to come up on such tanks or tank poramboke lands, and water charged lands." 9. We also examined the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961. Section 39 of the Act deals with "Matters to be Provided by Housing or Improvement Schemes". Sub-clause (k) of Section 39 states that the scheme may provide for "the provision of sanitary arrangements requirement for area comprised in the scheme, including the conservation and prevention of injury or contamination to rivers or other sources and means of water supply". Section 39 of the Act deals with "Matters to be Provided by Housing or Improvement Schemes". Sub-clause (k) of Section 39 states that the scheme may provide for "the provision of sanitary arrangements requirement for area comprised in the scheme, including the conservation and prevention of injury or contamination to rivers or other sources and means of water supply". Therefore, this Act itself provides for conservation of the water sources and means of water supply. Though the Act uses the word "may", we will mould the relief asked for in this public interest litigation by directing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to bear in mind that no Scheme of theirs shall cause injury or contamination or destruction of rivers, other water sources and means of water supply. 10. In 2009 (8) MLJ 1041 (A. Rajendran Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board), a Division Bench of this Court in a public interest litigation against lifting of ground water observed that by G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 11-02-2004, it is evident that the Government had directed that no scheme should be formulated in over-exploited and critical blocks and that only in semi critical and safe blocks., all schemes should be formulated in consultation with the State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre or Water Resources Organisation in Public Works Department. This reference to blocks was in relation to ground water resources and categorization of Panchayat Union Blocks into different categories. The Division Bench also referred to the Chennai Metropolitan Area Ground Water (Regulation) Act, 1987 and the Tamil Nadu Ground Water (Development and Management) Act, 2003 and they also observed that in the present situation of acute water scarcity, the Government may consider that there shall be no acquisition scheme for Housing Board or for any other purpose without consultation with the State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre or Water Resources Organization in Public Works Department. 11. Though Section 39(k) of the Housing Board Act uses only the word "may", we can justifiably invoke our power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue these directions and we are reinforced in our decision by the fact that the State has enacted the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks Act and the fact that our country has signed the Stockholm Convention and the RIO Declaration. Therefore, the State is bound by the principles contained therein. Therefore, the State is bound by the principles contained therein. We must read the domestic law so as to give effect to what we have bound ourselves to, when we sign an International Convention, so long as the International Convention is not directly in conflict with the domestic law. The Supreme Court has time and again held that an international convention which affirms and reiterates the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be relied on by our Courts and are enforceable as such, as for instance in the Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1997 SC 3011 ). We also direct that the third respondent may ensure that all the Housing Board schemes will not destroy or block water sources. This direction will apply to all schemes which have not yet been implemented and to all schemes in future. 12. The Housing Board shall bear in mind Section 39(k) while framing a scheme and exclude as far as possible any construction on water bodies and water courses. The third respondent may frame the Rules and Regulations/guidelines in this regard so that no Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme in future covers water courses. 13. From the report, it is clear that survey Nos.290, 292 and 315 are "kulam", "kulam" and "kuttai", and the Housing Board also agrees that they will not proceed with the acquisition in respect of survey numbers 290, 292, 605/1 and 315. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is restrained from proceeding with the Scheme in respect of the survey numbers mentioned in the writ petition except for Survey No.393. Section 39(k) of the Act shall be understood to mean that the Scheme shall ensure conservation and prevention of injury with regard to rivers or other sources and means of water supply. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.