( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus (i) to call for the records pertaining to the cause of leakage of Chlorine Gas from the premises of the third respondent, including the report from the second respondent; (ii) to take necessary action against the third respondent on the report submitted by the second respondent for violating the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ( air Act for brevity) and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ( environment Act for brevity); (iii) to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the petitioners for their sufferings and health problems for leakage of Chlorine by third respondent to be payable by respondents 3 to 5; (iv) to direct the third respondent to shift the Chlorine Gas Storage Cylinders/containers from the premises of third respondent to any other area other than the residential area; and to declare that action of the third respondent is in violation of Articles 21 and 51 (A) of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are residents of Bharatrathna Defence Laboratory Employees Co-opertaive Housing Society. They state that due to negligence on the part of the third respondent Chlorine Gas - which is a hazardous substance as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Environment Act - was leaked on 2. 11. 1996 at about 8. 30. p. m. , from third respondent s premises, by reason of which they were affected resulting in breathing problems, irritation to the eyes, throat and burning sensation. They were admitted in different hospitals for treatment and hence they sought the reliefs as referred to above.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 it is stated mat none of the petitioners were affected seriously due to leakage of Chlorine Gas and treatment was provided in Government and Private Hospitals free of cost. It is further alleged that the pump house was constructed in 1965 and the store-yard where standby Chlorine cylinders are kept was constructed in 1985 whereas the residential colonies of the petitioners were constructed later knowing fully well about the existence of the pump house and the store yard.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 8 it is averred that the leakage accident does not come under the definition of major accident and hence Section 5 of Manufacture, Storage, import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules, 1989 notified under the Environment Act does not apply to this accident. Rules 7 to 15 of MSIHC Rules do not apply to this installation/ cylinder, as the quantity of Chlorine stored is only 65 Kgs against threshold quantity of 10 tonnes of Chlorine. If the quantity is less than 10 tonnes, it does not fall under the purview of this Act.

( 5 ) IN the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners is stated that the respondents have constructed their office and decided to store the Chlorine Gas knowingly fully well a residential colony would be coming up abutting their compound wall close to which the Chlorine Gas was stored and the terrain in the area is slopping down towards the petitioners colony, that the third respondent neither at the time of construction of their office nor subsequently informed the petitioners society regarding usage of their yard for storage of Chlorine Gas. The third respondent is trying to shield himself by quoting the regulations applicable to liquid petroleum gas, which is not relevant. The Chlorine Gas that was leaked from the possession of the third respondent is beyond the standards prescribed by the Statute. The petitioners denied the contention of respondents that they were accorded treatment free of cost and no one was seriously affected.

( 6 ) THIS Court, by order dated 9. 2. 2000 appointed a Committee consisting of three environmental activists including specialist in chest diseases to be nominated by the Superintendent of T. B. and Chest Diseases. The said Committee has submitted a report. The petitioners have