2000 Supreme(SC) 397

2000(1) Supreme 605
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad, R.C. Lahoti & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Ramji Patel & Ors. etc. -Petitioners
versus
Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2926 of 1997
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2927 of 1997
Decided on 17-2-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : C.S. Vaidyanathan, R.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, Gopal Subramaniam, Sobhagmal Jain, Gulab C. Gupta, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, N.N. Goswami, Anoop G. Choudhary, G.L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocates, Prakash Shrivastava, Shiv Sagar Tiwari Rajesh Srivastava Ms. Madhu Dalani, Satish K. Agnihotri, Ranjan Mukherjee, Vijay Panjwani, M. Verrappa, K.H. Nobin Singh, Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Sushma Suri, H.K. Puri, B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. Yogmaya, S.S. Tiwari, Ashok Kumar Singh, Rajeev Sharma, Prakash U. Upadhyay, Ujjwal Banerjee, Romy Chacko, P. Parameswaran, Prakash K. Shrivastava, A.P. Dhamija, D.K. Chopra, Sudhanshu Atreya, Advocates.

Headnote:Pollution Control Law-Water Pollution-Dairy-owners storing cow/buffalow dung and dairy waste near water supply pipe line in village Lalpur-Public interest litigation alleging possible contamination of drinking water supplied to Jabalpur city-High Court s direction to remove dairy from Lalpur to Gwarighat-Earlier dairy owners shifted dairy to Lalpur and Gwarighat pursuant to implementation of M.P. Cattle Control Act, 1978 by Municipal Corporation-Lalpur and Gwarighat exempted from Cattle Control Act-Dairy owners SLP before Supreme Court against High Court s order-Supreme Court s direction to Central Water Pollution Control Board to findout ways and means to avert water pollution-Project devised by Central Pollution Control Board to prevent water pollution-Dairy owners constructing Gobar Gas Plant in addition to agreeing to implement project suggested by Pollution Control Board-While SLP was pending Municipal Corporation issuing notification taking out Lalpur an Gwarighat from exempted list and directing dairy owner to shift out of those villages-Held : inview of notification dairy owner could not be permitted to continue their activities in those villages-Validity of notification cannot be adjudicated in SLP-Petitioners remedy is to challenge notification in appropriate proceedings.

       Held : Supply of pure drinking water is the statutory duty of the Municipal Corporation and the supply of such water has to be ensured to every citizen. In a situation, where the interest of the community is involved, the individual interest must yield to the interest of the community or the general public. Since the Cattle (Control) Act, 1978 is already in force within the Municipal limits of Jabalpur city, the dairies cannot be established and cattle cannot be kept so as to cause public nuisance in contravention of the statutory provisions. But the Court cannot also overlook the fact that the petitioners, who had already been uprooted from one place, and that too, at the dictate of the judiciary, had established dairies at a place at which such activity was not prohibited. In the list of villages appended to the Notification issued under the Cattle (Control) Act, 1978, Lalpur and Gwarighat were the villages, besides other villages, where such activity could be legally carried on. These villages were taken out of that list during the pendency of the present proceedings by virtue of a Resolution adopted by the Municipal Corporation on 21.10.1997. The petitioners have already invested huge sums in setting up a Gobar Gas Plant at an expense of more than Rupees Five lakhs and have also incurred an expense of Rs. 93,000/- towards Inspection Fee of the Central Pollution Control Board in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. (Para 18)

       The validity of the Resolution dated 21.10.1997 as reflected in the Gazette Notification dated 19.3.1999 cannot be legally adjudicated upon in these proceedings on the oral submissions made by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel, who also pointed out that although the Resolution was adopted only in respect of Lalpur village, the Notification published in the Gazette mentions Gwarighat village also. If the Notification is intended to be challenged by the petitioners, they have to initiate appropriate proceedings in which they have to set out the foundation for such challenge so that the State Govt. or, for that matter, the Municipal Corporation may have adequate opportunity of submitting their reply, particularly as they have also to explain whom only these two villages were taken out of the list of "excepted villages" set out in the Notification of 1978 and why the activity of establishing dairies in other villages was not prohibited, although those other villages were also within the Municipal limits of Jabalpur city. (Para 19)

       Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we dispose of these Special Leave Petitions by providing as under:

        (a) In view of the Notification published in the Govt. Gazette on 19.3.1999, milk dairies and the keeping of cattle at the place in question, or for that matter, in villages Lalpur and Gwarighat, cannot be permitted to continue nor can anyone be permitted to establish it in those villages specially in the proximity of the main pipeline through which drinking water is supplied to the city of Jabalpur.

        (b) Whether the Notification published in the Govt. Gazette dated 19.3.1999 is valid or not cannot be decided in the present proceedings as there are no pleadings in that regard. It will be open to the petitioners to challenge the Notification by instituting appropriate proceedings questioning its validity on all the grounds which have been orally urged before us, including the ground that the Notification reflected a colourable exercise of power in the hands of the Municipal Corporation, or that it intended to interfere with the proceedings pending in this Court, but such proceedings shall have to be instituted by the petitioners within three months from the date of this judgment. The interim orders passed by this Court in these petitions shall continue for another period of three months and two weeks thereafter, to enable the petitioners to approach the High Court and make appropriate application for interim relief.

        (c) Since the Notification dated 19.3.1999 was issued by the Municipal Corporation during the pendency of these proceedings at a stage when this Court had already allowed the petitioner to set up the Bio Gas Plant and the petitioner in SLP (C) No. 2927/97 has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 5,86,000/-, the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, shall, after deducting the amount of subsidy as may have already been paid by the Government, pay that amount to the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2927 of 1997 at the time of their shifting to the new locations pursuant to the Notification dated 19.3.1999 and in the event of their challenge to the said Notification being turned down by the High Court. He and petitioner No. 1 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2926 of 1997 will also be entitled to all the benefits indicated by the High Court in the impugned judgment while dealing with the individual cases of the petitioners. (Para 20)