Back
2011 (5) Supreme 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action — Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Others — Respondents
IA No.36 and IA No.44
in
Writ Petition (C) No.967 of 1989
Decided on : 18-7-2011
Constitution of India,1950-Article 32-Water [Prevention and Control of Pollution] Act, 1974 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981- Interlocutory Applications in writ petition-Writ petiition by an environmentalist organisation relating to suffering of people of village Bichhri in Udaipur District of Rajasthan demonstrating how the conditions of a peaceful, nice and small village of Rajasthan were dramatically changed after respondent no. 4 Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited started producing certain chemicals like Oleum and Single Super Phosphate- Held applicants were trying to delay the payment of Rs.37.385 crores for carrying out remedial measures-Instantly even after final judgment of Apex court, review petition was also dismissed- Thereafter, even the curative petition had also been dismissed in instant case- It would hardly be proper to permit the parties to file application after application endlessly- In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment- Applicants had adequate opportunity and were heard by the court at length on number of occasions and only thereafter the writ petition was disposed off- The applicants have filed instant applications merely to avoid compliance of the order of court- The applicants have been successful in their endeavour and have not permitted the judgment delivered on 3.2.1996 to acquire finality till date- Applications being devoid of any merit held liable to be dismissed (Paras 156, 157)
Constitution of India,1950-Article 32- Judgments delivered by Apex Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution cannot be reopened in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution- In view of this legal position, how can a final judgment of Apex Court be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications where all possible legal remedies have been fully exhausted?- Apex Court delivered final judgment in this case way back in 1996- The said judgment had not been permitted to acquire finality because respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had filed multiple interlocutory applications and had ensured non-compliance of the judgment of this Court-Direction given that concerned applicant-industry must deposit the amount as directed by apex Court with compound interest- The applicant-industry had deliberately not complied with the orders of this court since 4.11.1997- Thousands of villagers had been adversely affected because no effective remedial steps had been taken so far- The applicant-industry had succeeded in their design in not complying with the court’s order by keeping the litigation alive-Interlocutory applications dismissed (219 to 227)
Finality of judgement-The maxim ‘interest Republicae ut sit finis litium’ says that it is for the public good that there be an end of litigation after a long hierarchy of appeals- At some stage, it is necessary to put a quietus- It is rare that in an adversarial system, despite the judges of the highest court doing their best, one or more parties may remain unsatisfied with the most correct decision- Opening door for a further appeal could be opening a flood gate which would cause more wrongs in the society at large at the cost of rights (Para 114)
Words and Phrases-Unjust enrichment- ‘Unjust enrichment’ has been defined by the court as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust- Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another (Para 171)
Restitution-Scope and concept of-In consonance with the principle of equity, justice and good conscience judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner- The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process- It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to abuse the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of the process of the court- One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the respondent or the defendant has in fact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings- The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused- No one should be permitted to use the judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust profits- The court must effectively discourage fraudulent, unscrupulous and dishonest litigation- The court’s constant endeavour must be to ensure that everyone gets just and fair treatment- The court while rendering justice must adopt a pragmatic approach and in appropriate cases realistic costs and compensation be ordered in order to discourage dishonest litigation- The object and true meaning of the concept of restitution cannot be achieved or accomplished unless the courts adopt a pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases (Paras 216, 217)
Facts of the Case :
A Writ petiition by was filed by an environmentalist organisation relating to suffering of people of village Bichhri in Udaipur District of Rajasthan Demonstrating how the conditions of a peaceful, nice and small village of Rajasthan were dramatically changed after respondent no. 4 Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited started producing certain chemicals like Oleum and Single Super Phosphate. Respondent numbers 4 to 8 were controlled by the same group and they were known as chemical industries. The entire chemical industrial complex was located within the limits of Bichhri village, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Even after decade and a half of the pronouncement of the judgment by Apex court based on the principle of ‘polluter pays’, till date the polluters had taken no steps to ecologically restore the entire village and its surrounding areas or complied with the directions of this court at all. The orders of this court were not implemented by keeping the litigation alive by filing interlocutory and interim applications even after dismissal of the writ petition, the review petition and curative petition by this court.
Findings of the Court :
Held instant application had been filed to avoid liability to pay the amount for remediation and costs imposed by the Court on the settled legal principle that polluter pays principle. Applicant through this application was seriously making an effort to avoid compliance of the order/judgment of this Court delivered fifteen years ago. Held that applicant could not be permitted to avoid compliance of final order of this court by abusing the legal process and keep the litigation alive. In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of. judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment- Applicants had adequate opportunity and were heard by the court at length on number of occasions and only thereafter the writ petition was disposed of. The applicants have filed instant applications merely to avoid compliance of the order of court. The applicants have been successful in their endeavour and have not permitted the judgment delivered on 3.2.1996 to acquire finality till date. Applications being devoid of any merit held liable to to be dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J. —
1. This is a very unusual and extraordinary litigation where even after fifteen years of the final judgment of this court (date of judgment 13th February, 1996) the litigation has been deliberately kept alive by filing one interlocutory application or the other in order to avoid compliance of the judgment. The said judgment of this Court has not been permitted to acquire finality till date. This is a classic example how by abuse of the process of law even the final judgment of the apex court can be circumvented for more than a decade and a half. This is indeed a very serious matter concerning the sanctity and credibility of the judicial system in general and of the apex court in particular.
2. An environmentalist organisation brought to light the sufferings and woes of people living in the vicinity of chemical industrial plants in India. This petition relates to the suffering of people of village Bichhri in Udaipur District of Rajasthan. In the Writ Petition No.967 of 1989, it was demonstrated how the conditions of a peaceful, nice and small village of Rajasthan were dramatically changed after respondent no. 4 Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited started producing certain chemicals like Oleum (concentrated form of sulphuric acid) and Single Super Phosphate. Respondent numbers 4 to 8 are controlled by the same group and they were known as chemical industries. The entire chemical industrial complex is located within the limits of Bichhri village, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Pursuit of profit of entrepreneurs has absolutely drained them of any feeling for fellow human beings living in that village.
3. The basic facts of this case are taken from the judgment delivered in the Writ Petition No.967 of 1989. In the beginning of the judgment of this court delivered on February 13, 1996, it is observed as under:
“It highlights the disregard, nay, contempt for law and lawful authorities on the part of some among the emerging breed of entrepreneurs, taking advantage, as they do, of the country’s need for industrialisation and export earnings. Pursuit of profit has absolutely drained them of any feeling for fellow human beings - for that matter, for anything else. And the law seems to have been helpless. Systemic defects? It is such instances which have led many people in this country to believe that disregard of law pays and that the consequences of such disregard will never be visited upon them -particularly, if they are men with means. Strong words indeed - but nothing less would reflect the deep sense of hurt, the hearing of this case has instilled in us.”
4. It seems that the court was prophetic when it made observation that at times men with means are successful in avoiding compliance of the orders of this court. This case is a classic illustration where even after decade and a half of the pronouncement of the judgment by this court based on the principle of ‘polluter pays’, till date the polluters (concerned industries in this case) have taken no steps to ecologically restore the entire village and its surrounding areas or complied with the directions of this court at all. The orders of this court were not implemented by keeping the litigation alive by filing interlocutory and interim applications even after dismissal of the writ petition, the review petition and the curative petition by this court.
5. In the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that because of the pernicious wastes emerging from the production of ‘H’ acid, its manufacture is stated to have been banned in the western countries. But the need of ‘H’ acid continues in the West and that need is catered to by the industries like the Silver Chemicals and Jyoti Chemicals in this part of the world.
6. In the impugned judgment, it is also mentioned that since the toxic untreated waste waters were allowed to flow out freely and because the untreated toxic sludge was thrown in the open in and around the complex, the toxic substances have percolated deep into
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
