1. Special Leave Petition challenging High Court directions requiring industries to contribute a percentage of gross turnover despite findings that they did not pollute specific water sources. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 23
1996(1) Supreme (Cr.) 294
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Textile Processors Association -Petitioner
versus
The Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat & Ors. -Respondents
SLP (C) No. 617 of 1995
Decided on 4-1-1996
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The averments in SLP are to be gone into not by SC but by the High Court. So exercise of jurisdiction u/A. 136 is declined.
The averments in SLP are to be gone into not by SC but by the High Court. So exercise of jurisdiction u/A. 136 is declined.
Subject
Environmental Law - Pollution Control
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India-Art. 136-Leave to appeal against order of High Court-High Court directing textile Processors to contribute 1% of the gross turnover to purify water pollutted by discharge of their effluents in canal-In fact no such pollution, as effluents are treated in treatment plant-Contribution is eating capital as units running in losses-Whether a fit case u/A. 136 ? (No)-Proper course-To apply for review to High Court & seek appropriate direction. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that turnover-based payments are unsustainable for loss-making units and that the order effectively halts operations despite a lack of pollution. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The court observed that the factual and financial grievances regarding the High Court's directions are matters to be addressed by the High Court. (Para 3 )
4. Jurisdiction under Article 136 may be declined when the issues are factual matters better suited for determination or review by the High Court. (Para 3 )
5. Special Leave Petition disposed of with liberty granted to the parties to file review applications before the High Court. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court decline jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution?
The Supreme Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 when the grievances raised are factual matters that are more appropriately addressed or reviewed by the High Court. (Para 3 )
7. What remedy is available to a party when the Supreme Court refuses to interfere with a High Court order under Article 136?
The party may approach the High Court to file a review application to present necessary facts and seek appropriate directions. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. This Special Leave Petition filed by the Association seeks leave to file the appeal. The main grievance sought to be brought to our notice by Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel is that some industries of the petitioner-Association are outside the Zone and effluents discharged from these industries are not directly leading to Kharicut Canal affecting the water in 11 villages identified by the High Court. Though the High Court had given positive finding in favour of the industries, nonetheless the High Court had directed them to contribute 1 per cent of the gross turnover. Many an industries which the petitioner-Association is representing, are running in losses. Consequently, each industry is required to pay the amount as directed by the High Court from their corpus and not from the profits.
3. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel further points out that the units are already having temporary treatment plan and secondary treatment plan and they accumulate the effluents so that discharge would not arise. Unless the industries start working, it would be difficult to generate income by these industries, to comply with the directions issued by the High Court. Therefore, by virtue of the order passed by the High Court practically all the industries, as found by the High Court, though were not discharging the effluents polluting the water leading to the 11 villages, were prevented to run the operations. Consequently, they are put to great loss. In view of these averments, we think it is a matter to be gone into not by us but by the High Court. We are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution for the reason they are matters for the High Court to be looked into. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the application for review and in fitness of things, it would be open to each industry affected by the order to approach the High Court and place necessary facts before it and seek appropriate direction, if deemed necessary. Liberty is given to them to file the application as expeditiously as possible. It would be open to the High Court to dispose of the same according to exigency.
4. The S.L.P. is accordingly disposed of.
Order accordingly.
*******
