2009 Supreme(SC) 1621

2009(6) Supreme 774
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan CJI and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association — Appellant
versus
Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6776 of 2009
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6963 of 2007
Decided on : 06-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
It is the duty of the State to protect and preserve the ecology, as Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and personal liberty and every person has a right to pollution free atmosphere.
2. The right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health is also a right which flows from Article 21.
3. The principles of “polluters-pay” and “precautionary principle” have to be read with the doctrine of “sustainable development.

Headnote:Public Interest Litigation – Public Interest Litigation filed by Respondent 1,Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association, a registered Association for seeking directions for preservation of ecology and for keeping the Noyyal river in Tamil Nadu free from pollution-Grievance of said Association, that a large number of industries, had indulged in dyeing and bleaching works at Tirupur area and discharging the industrial effluents into Noyyal river which created water pollution to the extent, that water of the river was neither fit for irrigation nor potable – High Court as an interim measure directed concerned CETPs to pay a fine on pro rata basis at the rate of six paise per litre from Ist January, 2007 to 31st March, 2007; at the rate of eight paise per litre from Ist April, 2007 to 31st May, 2007; and at the rate of ten paise per litre from 1st June, 2007 to 31st July, 2007-Direction was given that fine amount payable by the respective CETPs shall be arrived at by multiplying the fine amount i.e. six, eight or ten paise, as the case may be, by the total quantity of discharge of each Member Units of CETP as per consent certificate or as the quantity found in application for consent and also by the total number of working days in a month – Review Petition – Dismissed – Appeals there against –Undoubtedly, there had been unabated pollution by members of the appellant Association- They could not escape responsibility to meet out the expenses of reversing the ecology-They were bound to meet the expenses of removing the sludge of the river and also for cleaning the dam – Held it became responsibility of the members of the appellant Association that they carry out their industrial activities without polluting the water – This Court only stayed the operation of direction of the High Court to the extent that the units of members of the appellant Association would be closed on 31st July, 2007 – The said interim order had been extended from time to time – None of the other directions had been interfered with – A period of more than two and a half year had been passed-Many steps were taken but the Association has to ensure the compliance of the orders passed by the High Court fully and in order to do, it is desirable that the Association be giving three months time to ensure compliance of directions to make the CETPs functional and pay the balance amount for cleaning dam and river and meet the compensation to the adversely affected persons within a period of three months from today – Appeals disposed of. (Paras 20 to 28)

       Facts of the Case :

        Public Interest Litigation was filed by respondent 1,Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association, a registered Association herein in the instant case for seeking directions for preservation of ecology and for keeping the Noyyal river in Tamil Nadu free from pollution. Grievance of said Association, that a large number of industries, had indulged in dyeing and bleaching works at Tirupur area and discharging the industrial effluents into Noyyal river which created water pollution to the extent, that water of the river was neither fit for irrigation nor potable.

        2. High Court as an interim measure directed concerned CETPs to pay a fine on pro rata basis at the rate of six paise per litre from 1st January, 2007 to 31st March, 2007; at the rate of eight paise per litre from Ist April, 2007 to 31st May, 2007; and at the rate of ten paise per litre from 1st June, 2007 to 31st July, 2007.Direction was given that fine amount payable by the respective CETPs shall be arrived at by multiplying the fine amount i.e. six, eight or ten paise, as the case may be, by the total quantity of discharge of each Member Units of CETP as per consent certificate or as the quantity found in the application for consent and also by the total number of working days in a month .Review Petition thereagainst was Dismissed.

        3. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Undoubtedly, there had been unabated pollution by members of the appellant Association- They could not escape responsibility to meet out the expenses of reversing the ecology. They were bound to meet the expenses of removing the sludge of the river and also for cleaning the dam. The principles of “polluters-pay” and “precautionary principle” have to be read with the doctrine of “sustainable development”. Held it became responsibility of the members of the appellant Association that they carry out their industrial activities without polluting the water. This Court only stayed the operation of the direction of the High Court to the extent that the units of the members of the appellant Association would be closed on 31st July, 2007. The said interim order had been extended from time to time- None of the other directions had been interfered with. A period of more than two and a half year had been passed- Many steps were taken but the Association has to ensure the compliance of the orders passed by the High Court fully and in order to do, it is desirable that the Association be giving three months time to ensure compliance of directions to make the CETPs functional and pay the balance amount for cleaning dam and river and meet the compensation to the adversely affected persons within a period of three months.

       Result : Appeals disposed of