2018 Supreme(UK) 226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rajiv Sharma, Lok Pal Singh, JJ.
Mahendra Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 112 of 2015
Decided On : 19-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sharma
For the State : Mr. S.S. Chauhan
For the Respondents: Mr. Anurag Bisaria
The 'polluter pays' principle and the need for strict enforcement of environmental laws to protect the environment and public health.
Headnote:
Industrial Pollution - Environment Protection Act, 1986, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - The judgment discusses the discharge of industrial effluents in a college playground, the impact on the environment and the failure of authorities to enforce environmental laws. The court holds the respondent liable for exemplary damages and directs various measures to restore the environment and control pollution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner highlighted discharge of industrial effluents by the respondent in a college playground, causing environmental damage. The court found that the authorities failed to enforce environmental laws, leading to large-scale industrial disasters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent liable for exemplary damages for causing air and water pollution, and directed measures to restore the environment and control pollution.
Issues: Discharge of industrial effluents, failure of authorities to enforce environmental laws, impact on environment and public health.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the 'polluter pays' principle and directed the respondent to pay exemplary damages. It also emphasized the need for strict enforcement of environmental laws and measures to restore the environment.
Final Decision: The court held the respondent liable for exemplary damages and directed various measures to restore the environment and control pollution.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
The petitioner has highlighted discharge of industrial effluents by the respondent no.4 in the playground of the college. The letting of untreated chemical/industrial waste/effluent has degraded the underground water. It has also caused air pollution. The hazardous waste has been dumped in the play fields without treatment.
2. The respondent no.3 issued notice to the respondent no. 4 from time to time. The respondent no.3 has also directed the concerned authorities to disconnect the power supply of the respondent no.4. The Industry was also ordered to be closed by the respondent no.3. Thereafter, respondent no.4 submitted an application. Respondent no.3 has issued NOC to the respondent no.4. According to respondent no.3, the plant is being run in accordance with the provisions of Environmental Law.
3. The Court’s attention has been drawn to the photographs placed on record. It shows tremendous damage caused to the environment and ecology of the area. The students play in the playgrounds. How the District Administration could permit this to happen is beyond our comprehension. The effluent water is spread over in the larger area in the playground as well as in the adjoining areas. Every citizen living around the factory has a fundamental right to have a pollution free environment. Every citizen has a fundamental right to have potable water under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. It is not, the respondent no.4 alone, which is letting off effluents in the water bodies and in the open land, the other industries are also letting off their chemical wastes/effluents without treatment in the areas. It is further affecting the quality of the underground water.
5. It is submitted at the bar that the colour of the water coming from the hand-pumps is brownish in colour loaded with chemicals. This water is consumed by children, parents and cattle. The underground water is also used for irrigation purposes. Once the crop is irrigated by this kind of untreated water, it makes the vegetable/crops poisonous prone to cancer. The State Authorities are absolutely remiss in discharge of their statutory duties. The State functionaries should ensure that not a drop of untreated effluent is discharged by the industries in every industrial area. The focus should be on the sustainable development. The industrialization cannot be at the cost of degradation of the environment and ecology.
6. Respondent no.4 though served, yet there is no representation on its behalf. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 has been filed and perused. The respondent no. 4 is playing hide and seek with the authorities by operating the Unit slyly.
7. The owner of the respondent No.4 was to prove that it has taken all precautionary measures and has not polluted the area. The respondent No.4 has failed to discharge this burden. Accordingly, it is a fit case where respondent no.4 is liable to pay exemplary damages to the inhabitants of the area for causing large scale air pollution and water pollution under ‘polluter pays’ principle.
8. There is sufficient material on record to establish that the health of the inhabitants of the area has been put to a great peril. The damages are to be paid by the respondent no.4 for improving the water quality and air quality of the area including hand-pumps. The S.D.M. concerned shall make out all efforts to restore the quality of the underground water.
9. The officers/officials of respondent No.3 have also miserably failed to enforce the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 resulting in large scale industrial disasters in the area.
10. The Officers/Officials of the respondent no.3 shall be personally responsible, in case, there is any letting off industrial effluent discharge or dumping of industrial waste in the open area without treatment.
11. It is also intriguing to no