1. Construction permissions within radius of chemical factories — risk to life — conflict between industrial safety and residential rights — Environment Protection Act, 1986. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1411
1996(7) Supreme 133
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
F.B. Taraporawala and Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
Bayer India Ltd. & Ors. Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7086 of 1994
with
C.A. Nos. 11887, 11888 and 11886 of 1996)
S.L.P. (C) Nos. 28, 796 and 1159 of 1995
Decided on 9-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : H.N. Salve, Arun Jaitley, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advocates, P. Samdani, Vinod L. Desai, K.J. John, D.N. Mishra, S.V. Deshpande, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.M. Nargolkar, N.H. Seervai, P.H. Parekh E.R. Kumar, M.C. Mehta, Ms. Seema Midha, K.R.R. Pillai, Ms. Suchitra A. Chitale, Advocates.
Important Points
The Court prioritized the right to life under Article 21 over industrial interests, emphasizing 'sustainable development.' It directed the Central Government to constitute an Authority under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, to evaluate the relocation of chemical factories to mitigate risks to nearby residential populations.
Subject
Environmental Law - Industrial Pollution
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India-Article 21-Chemical manufacturing factory -Order prohibiting construction activity within one k.m. radius from the factory premises-Prima facie such immunity to the industrialist was injustice to residents of the locality in a crowded place-Question of relocation of factory-Central Government to constitute an Authority as visualised by Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act which shall submit report to the Government within three months-Municipal Corporation to re-examine the question of grant of sanction on basis of existing rules and bye-laws. (Paras 3 to 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Industrialists seek construction bans near factories to limit liability; residents contend such bans infringe upon the right to reside in the locality. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Balancing industrial growth with the right to life under Article 21 requires sustainable development and expert evaluation of relocation feasibility to mitigate catastrophic risks. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. The right to life under Article 21 necessitates a balance between industrial growth and public safety, requiring expert assessment for relocation of hazardous industries. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Constitution of an Authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 to evaluate relocation, with building plan sanctions pending the Authority's report. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
6. How does the concept of sustainable development apply to hazardous industries?
Sustainable development requires maintaining a balance between industrial development and its future sustenance, ensuring that growth does not expose a large segment of society to unacceptable risks of loss of life. (Para 4 )
7. What is the relationship between industrial safety and the right to life under Article 21?
The right to life under Article 21 is jeopardized when inhabitants live in close proximity to hazardous factories where accidents could cause large-scale annihilation, necessitating precautionary measures or relocation to ensure safety. (Para 5 )
8. Under what circumstances can the court delegate the decision on industrial relocation to an external authority?
When the court lacks the technical expertise and specific information required to determine the logistical and financial feasibility of relocating hazardous industries, it may direct the government to constitute an expert authority. (Para 4 , 6 )
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
