Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble ANIL DEV SINGH, CJ. Honble M.R. CALLA, J.
Vijay Singh Punia - Appellant
Versus
Raj. State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2075 of 1994
Decided On : March 07, 2003
In view of the aforesaid legal position, we can straightway, direct closure of the industry, but, we would like to give a chance to the industry, the State and its concerned instrumentalities, to prevent the degradation of environment and ecology. The industry, the State and its agencies, including RIICO, must set up CETPs, so that effluents are not discharged into the canals, streams and on the ground. Since the printing and dyeing industry is scattered, it may not be feasible for one CETP, to cater to the require- ment, therefore, it may be necessary to set up two or three, or more CETPs, at various places, depending upon the location of the industry. As the industry has been polluting the water-channels, by discharging the effluents, they must pay pollution-fine, so that the money, collected thus, is pooled for the purposes of setting up of the CETPs. (Para 47)
Each of the printing and/or dyeing units shall pay the pollution-fine, as per below:-
Each of the units, within one month, shall deposit minimum pollution-fine of Rs. 20,000/- with RIICO. The balance amount, depending upon the turnover, shall be paid to RIICO, within two months. In case, pollution fine is not paid within time, the defaulting unit shall be sealed by the respondents. (Para 48)
``(i) that by a suitable writ, order or direction the non- petitioner No.3 be directed to take immediate steps against these unauthorised factories and restrain them from discharging toxic wastes and effluents into the canal and land;
(ii) that non-petitioner No. 5 further be directed to check the raising of unauthorised construction of factories without compliance of the statutory provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1975 and impose penalties on the factories found violating the statutory provision;
(iii) any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner;
(iv) that cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner.
(2). The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, since they allegedly failed to implement the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short, ``the Act) and they were not able to check the construc- tion and growth of the unauthorized factories, responsible for discharging toxic wastes and effluents into the canal and on land, and it is pointed out in the petition that several unauthorised industries/factories have been set up in large numbers at Sanganer, in Villages, Gujron-ki-Talai, Hazyawala, Kesyawala and Muhana. These factories/industries, which have been set up in these areas, are situated along the canal from Sanganer Anicut to Newata Dam. According to the petitioner, the factories/industries have been set up and some are in the process of being set up on agricultural land, without prior permission. The factories are carrying on business of dyeing and printing of cloth. The prints, created by them are called Sanganere Prints and are famous world over. While they bring glory to the country, at the same time, the factories/industries discharge toxic substances, namely, acids, chemicals, colours bleaching powders etc., in the aforesaid canal. Bulk of the factories have not installed any pollution- control devices, with the result that the canal-water is being polluted. The canal, carrying poisonous effluents, leads to Newata Dam. This dam was constructed for utilizing its water for irrigation as well as drinking purposes. According to the petitioner, the effluents, reaching the dam, through canal, are causing serious health hazards and are also causing irreparable injury to the environment, man and animals etc.
(3). Pursuant to the notice issued in the writ petition, replies have been filed by respondents Nos. 3, 5 and 8. Respondent No.3, the Rajasthan State Board for the Prevention and Control of Pollution (for short, ``the Pollution Control Board) in its reply dated 10.2.95, has stated to the effect that it is tackling enormous task of controlling discharge from all-over Rajasthan. It has been pointed out that Pali was a problematic area and the Board concentrated its efforts for curbing water pollution in that area. In the reply, it is also asserted that due to untiring efforts of the Board a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (for short, ``CETP) was constructed, which was to take care of treatment of ten million gallons of effluent from various textile units of Pali. In so far as the problem of discharge of effluent in the aforesaid canal, by the printing units, is concerned, the Board alludes to the fact that a survey was conducted in September, 1991. According to the survey, 240 dyeing and printing units were found to be working in Sanganer. The Pollution Control Board, after conducting the survey, came to the following conclusion :-
(i) Half of the effluent is contributed by discharge of domestic as well as industrial effluents from Wards Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of Sanganer, into Amani Shah Nalah, which leads to Gular Dam. The water of Gular Dam is used for irrigation purposes. The remaining half of the efflu
1. A.P. Pollution Control Board II vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and others (2001 (2) SCC 62)
2. A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayaudu (Retd.) and others (1999 (2) SCC 718)
3. M.S. Mehta vs. Union of India and others
4. Vellore Citizens Welfare forum vs. Union of India (1996 (5) SCC 647)
5. M.S. Mehta vs. Union of India (1997 (3) SCC 715)
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.