Back
1991 Supreme(Pat) 16
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.B. Sanyal & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Singh – Petitioner
M/s. Shiv Shankar Chemical Industries Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Bihar & Others - Respondents (in both cases).
C.W.J.C. No. 6928 of 1989 With C.W.J.C. No. 9601 of 1989
Decided On : 10.1.1991
For the petitioners: M/s. Ganga Prasad Ray & Rash Bihari Thakur (in 6928/89); Y.V. Giri & Jyoti Sharan (in 9601 89).
For Respondent no. 2: Mr. Jawashar Prasad Karn (in both easel)
For Respondent no. 5.: M/s Y.V. Giri, Jyoti Sharan & M.N. Parbat (in 6928/89).
The court has the power to order an industry to restart its manufacturing process subject to certain conditions, even if the industry is in violation of environmental laws, if the court finds that shutting down the industry would cause significant economic hardship and that the industry has taken steps to reduce its pollution.
Headnote:
WATER POLLUTION - INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT - DISTILLERY - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - POLLUTION CONTROL - COURT'S SCHEME FOR RESTARTING MANUFACTURING PROCESS - CONDITIONS - INSTALLATION OF MODERN EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT - INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS - SAFEGUARDS FOR ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH OF LOCAL RESIDENTS.
Fact of the Case:
A distillery was discharging untreated effluents and sewage beyond its premises, contaminating water resources, polluting the environment, and affecting the health and well-being of nearby villagers. The petitioner, a social worker, filed a public interest litigation seeking the protection of the inhabitants' rights under Articles 14 and 21 read with Articles 47 and 48A of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the distillery's discharge of untreated effluent was in violation of the statutory provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and Environmental Protection Act, 1986. The court also found that the state authorities and the Bihar State Pollution Control Board had failed to take appropriate action to protect the inhabitants from the harmful effects of the distillery's effluent.
Issues: 1. Whether the distillery's discharge of untreated effluent violated the statutory provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and Environmental Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the state authorities and the Bihar State Pollution Control Board failed to take appropriate action to protect the inhabitants from the harmful effects of the distillery's effluent? 3. Whether the court could order the distillery to restart its manufacturing process subject to certain conditions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the distillery's discharge of untreated effluent was in violation of the statutory provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and Environmental Protection Act, 1986. The court noted that these statutes were enacted to protect the environment and the health of the people, and that the distillery's actions were causing significant harm to both. 2. The court held that the state authorities and the Bihar State Pollution Control Board had failed to take appropriate action to protect the inhabitants from the harmful effects of the distillery's effluent. The court noted that the Board had allowed the distillery to continue operating despite its failure to comply with the statutory requirements, and that the state authorities had not taken any steps to enforce the law. 3. The court held that it could order the distillery to restart its manufacturing process subject to certain conditions. The court noted that the distillery was an important source of employment in the area, and that shutting it down would cause significant economic hardship. However, the court also found that the distillery's operations were causing significant environmental and health problems, and that these problems needed to be addressed. The court therefore ordered the distillery to restart its manufacturing process only after it had installed a modern effluent treatment plant and taken other steps to reduce its pollution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the distillery to restart its manufacturing process subject to the following conditions: 1. The distillery must install a modern effluent treatment plant within 9 months from the date of the start of the manufacturing process. 2. The distillery must complete certain interim arrangements to contain pollution, such as setting up properly designed lagoons and providing two deep tube wells for the villagers. 3. The distillery must obtain the Board's consent under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 4. The order issued by the State Government under section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 directing the Company to close their operation is set aside subject to the aforesaid scheme.
Aftab Alam, J.
C.W.J. C. No. 6928/1989 : This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India based on a report published in a weekly Magazine named 'Raviwar' of 18th to 24th June 1989 has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be a social worker, in public interest. It brought to the notice of the Court that M/s. Shiv Shankar Chemical Industries Private Limited situated within Jagdishpur block at a distance of about 15 kilometres from Bhagalpur town and engaged in the manufacture and production of ethyl alcohal (rectified spirit) had been discharging, beyond its premises, untreated effluents. chemical wastes and sewage. This, in addition to the obnoxious fumes and odours emanating from the distillery was contaminating the water resources and polluting the environment and thereby seriously affecting not only crops and cattle but also the health and well-being of the people inhabiting the villages in its vicinity, particularly that of village Raipura which was only at a short distance from this distillery. It was said that such toxic discharge from the Chemical factory was in complete contravention of the statutory provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and the action of the different authorities under the State Government and the respondent Bihar State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter 'the Board' for the sake of brevity) in turning a blind eye to such statutory violations by the respondent Company and their failure to protect the inhabitants of the locality from the poisonous and highly injurious effects of the distillery's effluents and fumes amounted to an infringement of the inhabitants' right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 read with Articles 47 and 48A of the Constitution of India.
2. When this Court first took up this application on 13.9.1989, it directed the 5th respondent (the Chemical Company) to file its show cause in the matter. Notices were also accepted on behalf of the State and the Board by their respective counsels.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 13.9.1989 the respondent Chemical Company and the Board filed their show cause petitions. The Chemical Company in its show cause strenuously denied that any discharge from the distillery contaminated the water reservior of the Piparia Bandh, the main source of water in the area or any other sources of water. It also denied the allegation that the distillery was a health hazard for the local villagers or was causing damages to their cattle or crops. From the two show cause petitions, it also came to light that the Board had asked respondent no. 5 to instal a modern effluent treatment plant by September 30, 1989 and till then it was allowed the old conventional method of having earthen lagoons to contain and hold its wastes and effluents. From these lagoons the effluent allegedly overflowed into a nullah that led upto the Piparia Bandh. The Board in its petition made a complaint that respondent no. 5 had failed to keep the time schedule and there had been no material progress towards the installation of the modern effluent treatment plant. Respondent no. 5 in its petition on the other hand, appeared aggrieved with the Board for allowing it a much shorter time for the change over to the modern treatment plant as compared to some other similarly situated industries in Bihar. On a consideration of their show cause petitions, this Court by order dated 9.11.1989 ordered for an enquiry ‘as to the nature of the discharge of sewage or trade effluents by the Chemical Industry' so that it could be ascertained as to whether any further discharge of trade effluents or sewage by the distillery beyond its premises may not be so hazardous as to deserve to be altogether stopped. This Court accordingly directed the State of Bihar to constitute a Committee of experts and to submit a report to this Court on points specified in that orde
