IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S. Rangananthan, S.C. Agrawal N.D. Ojha, JJ.
Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group and another .... Petitioners.
Versus
Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd. others .... Respondents.
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1223 of 1991, decided on 19-3-1991.
Advocates appeared
Atul Setalvad, Gopal Subramaniam and G.S. Patel, for Petitioners.
Ashok Desai, for respondents.
Environment Protection Groups - Environmental Clearance for Thermal Power Plant - Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners objected to the clearance of a thermal power plant in Dahanu, Maharashtra by the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the decision, leading to the petitioners filing two petitions for leave to appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Government had considered all relevant aspects and had not overlooked any material considerations in arriving at its decision to clear the thermal power plant.
Issues: The principal objections included the suitability of the chosen site, the clearance in disregard of expert body findings, and non-compliance with environmental guidelines for thermal power plants.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the Government's decision should be based on a consideration of all relevant aspects and that the expert body findings were not conclusive or binding. It also highlighted the need to consider local conditions when applying general environmental guidelines.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the special leave petitions, agreeing with the decision of the High Court.
2. The limitations, or more appropriately, the self-imposed restrictions of a Court in considering such an issue as this have been set out by the Court in (Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.)1, 1987(1) S.C.R. 637 and (Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal others)2, 1987(2) S.C.C. 295. The observations in those decisions need not be reiterated here. It is sufficient to observe that it is primarily for the Governments concerned to consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people on the one hand and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balances, avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a just balance between these two conflicting objectives. The Court's role is restricted to examine whether the Government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored or overlooked any material considerations nor been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations in arriving at its final decision.
3. Having regard to the fact that the High Court, after giving a fresh opportunity to the objectors to have their objections considered, has gone into the matter in depth and found nothing wrong with the decision of the Government, the scope for any interference by this Court under Article 136 is indeed very narrow. However, as the project involved is a very vital one for the citizens of Bombay and its suburbs and the petitioners' claim that the decision of the Government was arrived at in disregard of certain guidelines prescribed and the recommendations of an expert Committee set up by the Union Government itself, we have looked into the matter in detail. Sri Atul Setalvad, Sri Gopal Subramaniam and Sri G.S. Patel who appeared for the objectors and Sri Ashok Desai who appeared for respondents have taken us through considerable portions of the several paper books filed by them. We have also heard the Standing Counsel for the State. We have come to the conclusion that there are no grounds to grant leave to appeal from the order passed by the High Court. We shall briefly deal with the contentions urged before us :
(1) The BSES undertook surveys some time in 1976 and selected about ten sites where its thermal power station could be located and Dahanu was not one of them. After consideration, a site at Bassein was cleared in 1985. But the State Government objected to this site later on the ground that Bassein was located within a distance of one
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.