1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IA NO.36 AND IA NO.44

IN

WRIT PETITION (C) No.967 OF 1989

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action

… Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Others

… Respondents

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 13^th 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

2

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

3

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

4

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 hav