JUDGMENT

Hansaria, J.-Industrial growth, yes; but by exposing a large segment of society to the risk of losing lives, no. This apprehension is not imaginary. Bhopal disaster brought to the knowledge of all what a tragedy can be caused by chemical industries. In the wake of what happened there more than a decade ago, industrialists engaged in production of chemicals started thinking of taking precautionary and protective measures to see that if worst were to befall, how could their financial liability be taken care of.

2. The aforesaid mental make-up led some leading chemical manufacturers in the country , like Bayer India Limited, one of the respondents herein, to approach the Bombay High Court in pending writ petition filed by some builders seeking certain orders of the High Court. In one of the writ petitions taken by the High Court for hearing, which was numbered as 4497/90, the Court required the Municipal Corporation to re-examine the building plans and to pass appropriate orders keeping in view, inter alia, the provisions of Section 46 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The matter was brought to this Court by the respondents contending, inter alia, that in the sanctioned plan the area had been shown reserved for industrial user. This Court permitted the respondents to file a review petition before the High Court. On being so approached, the High Court dismissed the intervention application of the respondents and directed the Municipal Corporation to permit construction. This order led the respondents to approach this Court again by filing Interlocutory Application in the disposed of SLP. This Court, by an order passed on 24.2.1993, directed the High Court to dispose of the review application and further directed to maintain status quo, which prevented the appellants to carry on construction activity within one k.m. radius from the factory premises. The High Court disposed of the review application on 26.9.1994 by giving the following directions :

"(i) No additions or modifications shall be permitted in respect of buildings that have been completed or those were under construction as on the date of stay order passed by this Hon ble Court on 8.1.1991.

(ii) In respect of schemes where permission may have been granted but no actual construction has been commenced as on the date of this Court s order dated 8.1.1991, prohibition in respect of a total ban on further construction within 1 km. radius from the chemical units shall apply.

(iii) Save and except in the aforesaid cases, the stay order passed by this Court on 8.1.1991 shall continue to the extent that there shall be a prohibition in respect of any further permissions or for that matter construction within 1 k.m. radius from the chemical factories.

(iv) The stay order shall stand vacated only in those of the cases as indicated where construction has been commenced and was required to be stopped by virtue of the stay of this Hon ble Court."

These appeals question the aforesaid directions of the High Court.

3. The appeals were heard on a number of occasions and being of the prima facie view that by giving aforesaid immunity to the industrialists injustice has been caused to the residents of the locality inasmuch as prohibition of constructions within 1 k.m. radius in a crowded place like Thane did adversely affect the right to reside in the locality, leaving at the same time the large number of inhabitants already residing exposed to the risk mentioned above, it was thought by us that if the industrialists wanted to safeguard their interest in the event of some accident happening in their factories, it was for them either to obtain the ownership of the area in question or to shift their factories to such places where the residential area could be kept wide apart from the factory premises. But then, the response of the respondents to the first proposal being negative because of the huge financ