Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.
Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
Writ Petition(C) No. 375 of 2012
Decided On : 22-2-2017
(B) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Protection of environment – Issue of industrial effluents – Mere directions are inconsequential unless a rigid implementation mechanism is laid down – Directions pertaining to continuation of industrial activity only when there is in place a functional primary effluent treatment plants and setting up of functional common effluent treatment plants within time lines, shall be of Member Secretaries of concerned Pollution Control Boards – Secretary of Department of Environment of concerned State Government and concerned Union Territory, shall be answerable in case of default – Concerned Secretaries to Government shall be responsible of monitoring progress and issuing necessary directions to concerned Pollution Control Board as may be required – To supervise complaints of non-implementation of instant directions, concerned Benches of National Green Tribunal will maintain running and numbered case files by dividing jurisdictional area into units – Liberty granted to private individuals and organizations to approach concerned Bench of jurisdictional National Green Tribunal for appropriate orders by pointing out deficiencies in implementation of directions. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of Case:
Petitioners have approached this Court, seeking a writ in nature of mandamus, for a direction to respondents, (which includes Union Government, all State Governments and Union Territories) to ensure that no industry which requires "consent to operate" from concerned Pollution Control Board, is permitted to function, unless it has a functional effluent treatment plant which is capable to meet prescribed norms for removing pollutants from effluent, before it is discharged.
Findings of Court:
It would be in interest of implementation of the objective sought to be achieved, to also require each concerned State(and each, concerned Union Territory) to make provision for "online, real time, continuous monitoring system" to display emission levels, in the public domain, on the portal of the concerned State Pollution Control Board. At least three State Governments have already adopted such measures. Such measures shall be put in place by all concerned State Governments( including concerned Union Territories), within six months from today.
Result – Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.
The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, for a direction to the respondents, (which includes the Union Government, all the State Governments and the Union Territories) to ensure, that no industry which requires "consent to operate" from the concerned Pollution Control Board, is permitted to function, unless it has a functional effluent treatment plant, which is capable to meet the prescribed norms for removing the pollutants from the effluent, before it is discharged.
2. The Union of India, and the State Governments (including the Union Territories) have filed counter affidavits, expressing their individual positions. During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing the respondents, also made some suggestions, which could be highly beneficial, in carrying forward the process of removing pollutants, from the discharged effluent, in a systematic and co-ordinated manner.
3. During the course of hearing, it was not disputed between the rival parties, that the initiation of the process has to be at the individual level of the industry itself. It was suggested that each industry which requires "consent to operate" from the concerned Pollution Control Board, should be mandated to set up a functional primary effluent treatment plant. We are informed, that only when such an effluent treatment plant has been set up, the concerned Pollution Control Board grants a "no objection" to the industry, and accordingly "consent to operate", so as to allow the industry to become functional. It is therefore apparent, that all running industrial units, which require "consent to operate" from the concerned Pollution Control Board, have a functional primary effluent treatment plant, in place.
4. The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the same is maintained in good order, after the industry itself has become functional. The industry requiring "consent to operate", can be permitted to run, only if its primary effluent treatment plant, is functional. We therefore consider it just and appropriate, to direct the concerned State Pollution Control Boards, to issue notices to all industrial units, which require "consent to operate", by way of a common advertisement, requiring them to make their primary effluent treatment plants fully operational, within three months from today. On the expiry of the notice period of three months, the concerned State Pollution Control Board(s) are mandated to carry out inspections, to verify, whether or not, each industrial unit requiring "consent to operate", has a functional primary effluent treatment plant. Such of the industrial units, which have not been able to make their primary effluent treatment plant fully operational, within the notice period, shall be restrained from any further industrial activity. This direction may be implemented by requiring the concerned electricity supply and distribution agency, to disconnect the electricity connection of the defaulting industry. We therefore hereby further direct, that in case the concerned State Pollution Control Boards make a recommendation to the concerned electrical supply and distribution agency/company, to disconnect electricity supply to an industry, for the reason that its primary effluent treatment plant is not functional, it shall honour such recommendation, and shall disconnect the electricity supply to such defaulting industrial concern, forthwith.
5. Such an industrial concern, which has been disabled from carrying on its industrial activities, as has been indicated in the foregoing paragraph, is granted liberty to make its primary effluent treatment plant functional to the required capacity, and thereupon, seek a fresh "consent to operate" from the concerned Pollution Control Board. Only after the receipt of such fresh "consent to operate", the industrial activities of the disabled industry, can be permitted to be resumed. In carrying out the above exercise,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
