Air and Water Pollution by Industries CASES

Abdul Hamid v. The Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. and others.[1989] Cri. L.J 2013

The petitioner laid information for action under s.133 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sub. Divisional Magistrate on the basis that the Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co., I. B. Parikh and 18 others connected with the Grasim, the chemical factories and the hospital run by the Janseva Trust are responsible for polluting the air as also the water of river Chambal near Birlagram. And this has led to the death of children, animals and the water creatures. It was also stated that the pollution causes various disease among the people and crops are also damaged.

On the other hand it was contended that the by the other side that the in respect of the acts constituting offenses under the Water Act,1974 and Air Act,1981, previous written sanction of the State Boards constituted thereunder is necessary. These Acts deal with pollution by trade or industry. The SDM upheld the contention of the non-applicants and rejected the petitioners' prayer. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid the petitioner has come to this Court in revision.

Taking into account of the various provisions of law [Ss. 24, 49 &60 of Water Act; and Ss. 43 & 52 of Air Act] it was pointed out by the Court that the express legislative mandate regarding previous sanctions cannot be permitted to be whittled down by labelling the act complained of as an offence, not under the special Act but under Indian Penal Code . prosecution for an act which is an offence under the special Act, by any agency other that the competent Board, on the ground that it is also an offence under the Indian Penal Code can be characterized as colourable because the offences under the special acts are graver ones and labelling the Act as an Indian Penal Code offences is just to evade the requirement of previous sanction under the special Acts.

Finally it was held by the Court that in view of the special acts the learned SDM was right in holding that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter which is in relation to acts which constitute offences under the Water and Air Acts. Hence, the revision petition was dismissed.

Hygienic eaters and hotel and health hazards: Role of the legal system in controlling the spread on epidemic diseases.

M/s. Ganesh Bhavan v. Health Officer, Corporation of Madras, AIR 1994 Mad. 119 Bakthavatsalam, J.

A petition was filed for issuance of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from ordering closure of the eating houses of the petitioners. A no. of writ petitions on the same point were clubbed together. Petitioners alleged that on a surprise inspection of the various eating establishments, was carried on by the Direction of public health, water samples were not collected in conformity of the procedure laid down under the prevention of food adulteration Act, 1954 (Sec. 11-B), Subsequently, they received a notice that the water had been found to be poor quality and this raised possibility of transmission of diseases. This order was challenged as being arbitrary, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and of principles of natural justice. It was also challenged as being ultra vires the prevention of food adulteration Act as Sec. 113 did not authorise the officer to shut down the restaurants.

The respondents contended that they had a duty to protect the interests of the public. They submitted that a committee had been set up to inspect restaurants and prior notice was given to all concerned. Further, under Sec. 112A and 113 (2) of the Act, the officer has the power to pass the order.

The court considered the various provisions of the Act and concluded Health Officer has power do order closure of an establishment till the danger of out break has passed. On the facts, court concluded Health Officer had not applied his mind and such as order should not have been passed. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing respondents to not to enforce the order.

Slaughter houses and their functioning to environmental safety standard.

Buffalo Traders Association v. Maneka Gandhi 66 (1997) Delhi Law Times 439 (SC)

Applications relate to Idgah slaughter House which had been ordered to stop functioning as it was a "hazardous or noxious industry" Idgah Slaughter house was the biggest slaughter house in Asia, wherein nearly 1200 to 1500 animals were slaughter every day. Which discharged untreated blood to the amount of 13,000 litres into the Municipal sewer. The slaughter house was also alleged to have unhygienic conditions for slaughter and sale and the animals brought into the slaughter house were inspected on bare eye for their health and standard condition.

The slaughter house was permitted to function provided it complied with certain conditions laid down by the Court. A certain limit was placed on the number of animals that could be slaughtered. Also buffaloes, cows, and bulls were prohibited from being slaughtered. The slaughter houses had to comply with certain environmental standards. MCD was also directed to stop illegal slaughtering and construct modern slaughter houses.

In this case the court gave certain important directions, which help in reducing the pollution in environment to a great extent.

The Court held that -

1) the slaughter house will be permitted to function on the following conditions:

i) Only goats and sheep numbering 200 per day shall be permitted to be slaughtered in the premises, no other animals shall be slaughtered.

ii) Buffaloes, cows, bulls shall not be permitted to be slaughtered as their slaughter generates more pollution.

iii) The slaughter house shall be kept environmentally clean.

2) the Central Pollution Control Board shall visit the slaughter house every 2 months, and file report to the court indicating the environmental states.

3) the animal market shall not be permitted to function near the slaughter house. Holding the animals market in the Gowded part of the city is environmentally hazardous and cannot be permitted.

4) The Deputy Commissioner of police of the area shall stop the holding o f the market in the vicinity of the slaughter house in an environmentally clean manner and take the meat back the similar way. No market should be permitted in the area.

5) The commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Delhi shall take necessary to stop illegal slaughtering in all parts of Delhi.

6) Further heavy pollution fine shall be imposed by the court on polluters indulging in illegal slaughtering even the MCD shall be liable to pollution fine if the slaughter house is not kept environmentally clean. The staff in charge of the slaughter house may personally be liable to pay the fine.

7) Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall take steps on war footing to construct the modern slaughter house on the alternative land already acquired by the corporation.

Mining limestones in ecological sensitive areas: Concerns of environmental groups

General Public of Saproon Valley v. State of H. P. AIR 1993 HP 52

The petitioners alleged by way of Public Interest Litigation that the mining of limestone in the Saproon Valley caused great damage to environment and ecological imbalance. A committee was constituted by the Court to look into the problem. The committee classified the mines into two categories and said that mining in the second category of mines should be stopped. The lessees pleaded that stoppage of mining was not called for irrespective of the recommendations of the expert committee.

The court can make out its own modalities for ascertaining the essential facts to make up its mind about the nature of directions which it should make. The Expert Committee considered the best way of ascertaining essential facts. It consists of responsible people and therefore the recommendations should be given effect to. The court also direct the continued supervision of mines of the first category as per recommendations of the committee.

The Court observed Arts. 48A, 51A (g) and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and also constituted committee of experts. The court held that where a petition (P.I.L.) is filed alleging that there is a damage to environment, vegetation etc., strict proof about the fact is not necessary.

Further the Court held that since the proceedings under Art. 226 of the constitution are basically summary in character, the court makes out its own modalities for ascertaining the essential facts to make up its mind about the nature of directions which it should make.

The court held that in the present case, High Court appointment of an expert committee was considered to be the best way for ascertaining necessary facts. It was further held that committee consisted of responsible people who bona fides could neither be mpr has been assailed, therefore, the recommendations made by the Committee.

Further, the Court gave certain valuable directions. It was held that the committee would visit the area where category A: mines are located within a month to enquire whether the continuance of these mines have been met or not at the spot. In addition it will also enquire whether the pattern contemplated for the working of these mines in the mining plans is being adhered to or not.