The Sri Lanka Government wanted to conclude an agreement with a company for the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer using local deposits of apatite. The applicants petitioned the court to stop the proposed agreement claiming that their lands would be destroyed if the project was implemented and about 2,600 families were likely to be permanently displaced from their homes and lands. The respondents countered that this apprehension was unjustified because the signing of the agreement would only lead to exploration and feasibility studies and the approval of the secretary would have to be obtained before the company could proceed with the construction and mining phases of the project. The court held that mining might have more devastating consequences than exploration. However, the definition of “exploration” in the proposed agreement included the search for certain minerals, and their location, nature and grade, inter alia by making “boreholes, test pits, trenches, surface or underground headings, drifts or tunnels. Exploration was therefore not so harmless as to cause the appellants no apprehension of imminent harm to their homes and lands. The court also examined the proposed project under the aspects of sustainable development and intergenerational equity expressed in the Rio Declaration and the Stockholm Declaration. It emphasized that “Admittedly, the principles set out in the Stockholm and Rio De Janeiro Declarations are not legally binding in the way in which and Act of our Parliament would be. It may be regarded merely as ‘soft law’. Nevertheless, as a Member of the United Nations, they could hardly be ignored by Sri Lanka. Moreover, they would, in my view, be binding if they have been either expressly enacted or become a part of the domestic law by adoption by the superior courts of record and by the supreme Court in particular, in their decisions. The reliability of the proposed project had been considered in deciding whether there was an imminent infringement of the appellants’ rights. The court found nothing in the agreement to show that the signing would only result in exploration and a feasibility study and the applicants were entitled to be apprehensive. The court ordered the respondents to desist from entering into the proposed agreement pending a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment Study.