2009 Supreme(Del) 1132

High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT PRAKASH SHAH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
Jaipur Golden Gas Victims Association – Appellant
Versus
UOI & Others - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6415 of 2006
Decided on : 23-10-2009

Headnote:

The court held that the storage of chemical pesticides was an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity and, therefore, the principle evolved by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1987 (1) SCC 395 would apply. The court also held that the MCD was remiss and negligent in discharging its statutory obligations and in ensuring that a citizen’s fundamental right to health and pollution-free environment was not infringed.

Fact of the Case:

A fire broke out in a godown of respondent no. 5 at Mitra Wali Gali, Roshnara Road, Delhi. The fire was caused due to the storage of a consignment of rodent killing pesticides which contained Aluminum Phosphate and Zinc Phosphate. As a consequence of the fire, about thirty-five persons living in the neighbourhood of respondent no. 5’s godown were taken unwell and were rushed to the hospital with symptoms of breathlessness, pain in chest, vomiting, diarrhea, nausea and stomach ache. While most of sick persons were admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital for a period of a few days, a 19 years old boy, namely, Akash died in the morning of 7th April, 2004. In the case of Babu Lal, Ms. Mehta referred to the discharge slip prepared by Hindu Rao Hospital wherein it was stated that he had been treated for irritant gas inhalation. She also referred to prescriptions issued by Chest Clinic, Gulabi Bagh to Babu Lal to show that he had been treated for respiratory distress on account of gas inhalation. An affidavit of widow of Babu Lal was also relied upon by Ms. Mehta. In the case of Ved Prakash @ Raju, Ms. Mehta referred to Hindu Rao Hospital’s medical record to show that he had been admitted in the said hospital on 7th April, 2004 on account of chemical smoke exposure. Though Ved Prakash @ Raju was discharged on the next day, his mother has filed an affidavit in the present proceedings stating that his pulmonary tuberculosis got aggravated to a great extent due to inhalation of gas and he ultimately expired on 14th April, 2007. In the case of deceased Poonam, Ms. Mehta once again referred to the medical record of Hindu Rao Hospital which showed that she had been admitted in the hospital on account of inhalation of phosphine gas. She also referred to an affidavit filed by deceased Poonam’s mother which stated that Poonam was not suffering from any ailment and it was only due to ill-effects of gas leak that she died on 3rd November, 2005. Poonam’s monthly income has also been mentioned in the said affidavit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the storage of chemical pesticides was an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity and, therefore, the principle evolved by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1987 (1) SCC 395 would apply. The court also found that the MCD was remiss and negligent in discharging its statutory obligations and in ensuring that a citizen’s fundamental right to health and pollution-free environment was not infringed.

Issues: 1. Whether the storage of chemical pesticides was an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity? 2. Whether the MCD was remiss and negligent in discharging its statutory obligations and in ensuring that a citizen’s fundamental right to health and pollution-free environment was not infringed?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the storage of chemical pesticides was an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity and, therefore, the principle evolved by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1987 (1) SCC 395 would apply. The court also held that the MCD was remiss and negligent in discharging its statutory obligations and in ensuring that a citizen’s fundamental right to health and pollution-free environment was not infringed. The court relied on the following principles: * The principle of strict liability evolved by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1987 (1) SCC 395. * The principle of precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as evolved by the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1996) 5 SCC 647.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed respondent no. 5 to pay 85% of the compensation and the MCD to pay 15% of the compensation to the victims or legal heirs of the victims as the case may be by Account Payee cheques in their names. The said cheques would be paid within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order. The court also directed respondent no. 5 to pay costs of Rupees one lac to the petitioner association.