VakilAI

Research Results Based on the Query

ACT

ARG

SCJ

HCJ

Query: A manufacturing company specializing in automobile parts, is facing a lawsuit filed by a group of environmental activists alleging environmental pollution and negligence in waste management practices. The activists claim that the company has been releasing harmful chemicals into nearby water bodies, leading to environmental degradation and posing health risks to the local community. They argue that the company has failed to comply with environmental regulations and has been disregarding the well-being of residents living in the vicinity of its facilities. The manufacturing company maintains that it has adhered to all environmental guidelines and regulations and has implemented robust waste management measures to minimize its ecological footprint. The company denies any wrongdoing and asserts that it is committed to environmental sustainability. The activists are seeking compensation for environmental damage, health monitoring for affected individuals, and stricter enforcement of environmental regulations. My client is environmental activists.

Likely Arguments

Analysis of Potential Arguments by Opposing Counsel

1. Allegation of Environmental Pollution
- Argument: The activists may argue that the manufacturing company has been releasing harmful chemicals into water bodies, violating the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
- Relevant Law: Section 24 of the Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into water bodies.
- Counterargument: The company can present evidence of compliance with discharge standards set by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and demonstrate that any emissions are within permissible limits.
- Relevant Law: Section 25 of the Water Act allows for the issuance of consent to operate, which the company can show it has obtained.

2. Negligence in Waste Management Practices
- Argument: The activists may claim that the company has been negligent in its waste management practices, leading to environmental degradation.
- Relevant Law: The Environment Protection Act, 1986, mandates that every industry must take necessary measures to prevent environmental harm.
- Counterargument: The company can argue that it has implemented comprehensive waste management systems, including recycling and safe disposal methods, in compliance with the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008.
- Relevant Law: Rule 3 of the Hazardous Waste Rules outlines the responsibilities of generators of hazardous waste.

3. Failure to Comply with Environmental Regulations
- Argument: The activists may assert that the company has failed to comply with various environmental regulations, leading to health risks for the local community.
- Relevant Law: The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, provides for the establishment of standards for the quality of the environment.
- Counterargument: The company can present documentation of regular audits and inspections by environmental authorities, demonstrating compliance with all relevant regulations.
- Relevant Law: Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act allows for the establishment of standards and the company can argue that it has adhered to these standards.

4. Health Risks to the Local Community
- Argument: The activists may claim that the pollution has led to health issues in the community, seeking compensation for damages.
- Relevant Law: The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, provides for compensation in case of accidents arising from hazardous substances.
- Counterargument: The company can argue that there is no direct causal link between its operations and the alleged health issues, and that the activists have not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims.
- Relevant Law: The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requires that claims must be supported by credible evidence.

5. Demand for Stricter Enforcement of Regulations
- Argument: The activists may demand stricter enforcement of environmental regulations, arguing that the current measures are insufficient.
- Relevant Law: The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, allows for the establishment of the National Green Tribunal to address environmental issues.
- Counterargument: The company can argue that it is already subject to stringent regulations and that additional regulations may not be necessary if compliance is being met.
- Relevant Law: The principle of sustainable development under Article 21 of the Constitution of India emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to development and environmental protection.

Optimal Strategy to Defend the Client

1. Gather Comprehensive Evidence
- Collect and present documentation of compliance with all relevant environmental laws, including permits, audit reports, and waste management practices.
- Engage environmental experts to provide testimony on the company’s adherence to regulations and the effectiveness of its waste management systems.

2. Establish a Causal Link
- Challenge the activists to provide concrete evidence linking the company’s operations to the alleged health issues in the community.
- Conduct independent health assessments to demonstrate that there is no significant impact on the local population.

3. Public Relations Strategy
- Develop a public relations campaign to highlight the company’s commitment to environmental sustainability and community welfare.
- Engage with local communities to address their concerns and demonstrate the company’s proactive measures in environmental management.

4. Legal Compliance and Best Practices
- Ensure that the company is not only compliant with current regulations but also adopts best practices in environmental management.
- Consider voluntary measures that exceed regulatory requirements to strengthen the company’s position as a responsible corporate citizen.

5. Negotiation and Settlement
- Explore the possibility of negotiating a settlement with the activists that addresses their concerns without admitting liability, potentially involving community engagement initiatives or environmental restoration projects.

By employing these strategies, the manufacturing company can effectively counter the activists' claims while reinforcing its commitment to environmental responsibility.

Relevant Supreme Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2011 SCP 745)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors
Honourable Judges H.L. Dattu, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 38
Relevancy Score: 67.98

This may be considered in the light of the continuing public nuisance and suffering due to pollution, severely degraded environment, loss to the property, irreparable damage to the ecology and precious natural resources - land, air, aquifers, surface water, flora and fauna - for over twenty years since the original petition was filed. The implications of failing to remediate the affected land, water and environment over such an extensive period of time are far more severe than had the applicants-industries immediately complied with the orders of this court. 103. Mr. Mehta also placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others (2000) 6 SCC 213, in which the court observed as under: "...pollution is a civil wrong. By its very nature, it is a tort committed against the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution, has to pay damages (compensation) for restoration of the environment and ecology. He has also to pay damages to those who have suffered loss on account of the act of the offender. The powers of this court under Article 32 are not restricted and it can award damages in a PIL or a Writ Petition as has been held in a series of decisions. In addition to damages aforesaid, the person guilty of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner." 104. Mr. Mehta submitted that having regard to the respondent's conduct in the present case, it would be reasonable to impose an additional pecuniary penalty on them. Reliance is placed on Minister for the environment and Heritage v. Greentree (No.3) [2004] FCA 1317, wherein the Federal Court imposed a pecuniary penalty against the respondents totaling $450,000 for having illegally cleared declared a Ramsar wetland. A strong factor contributing to the imposition of a substantial penalty was because the actions of the respondent were deliberate, sustained and serious, they took place over a substantial period of time and the respondents did not exhibit any contrition. 105. Mr. Mehta also submitted that the present case would warrant a severe penalty because the respondents carried out their activities without even possessing any appropriate licenses. Respondents must be required to pay exemplary damages so as to act as a deterrent for others, as also to remedy the harm they have caused to the environment and the villagers of Bichhri. 106. Mr. Mehta has also placed reliance on the famous "Love Canal Case" United States v. Hooker Chems and Plastics Corp., 722 F. Supp 960 (W.D.N.Y. 1989). This case was initiated after it was discovered that a school, homes and rental units were built over approximately 21,000 tonnes of chemical waste at Niagara Falls, New York. The Federal Court of New York allowed a claim against the defendants based on public nuisance.

Result 2
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1996 SCP 347)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action ... vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc
Honourable Judges B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.N Kirpal
Date of Judgment: 13 Feb 1996
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
Relevancy Score: 67.42

The effluents seriously polluted the nearby drain and overflowed into Udaisagar main canal, severely corroding its cement-concrete lined bed and banks. The polluted waters also seriously degraded some agricultural land and damaged standing crops. On being ordered to contain the effluents, the industry installed an unlined holding pond within its premises and resorted to spraying the effluent on the nearby hill-slope. This only resulted in extensive seepage and percolation of the effluents into ground water and their spread down the aquifer. Currently about 60 wells appear to have been significantly polluted but every week a few new wells, down the aquifer start showing signs of pollution. This has created serious problems for water supply for domestic purposes, cattle-watering crop irrigation and other beneficial uses, and it has also caused human illness and even death, degradation of land and damage to fruit, trees and other vegetation. There are serious apprehensions that the pollution and its harmful effects will spread further after the onset of the monsoon as the water percolating from the higher parts of the basin moves down carrying the pollutants lying on the slopes - in the holding pond and those already underground." Each of the Respondent Nos.4 to 8 filed separate counter-affidavits. All the affidavits filed on behalf of these respondents are sworn-to by Lt.Gen. M.L.Yadava, who described himself as the President of each of these units. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it is stated that it is in no way responsible for the situation complained of. It is engaged in the manufacture of sulphuric acid and had commenced its operations on January 6, 1987. It has been granted 'No- Objection Certificates' from time to time. The consent obtained from R.P.C.B. is valid upto August 15, 1988. Application for extension of consent has already been filed. This counter-affidavit was filed on January 18, 1990. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the fifth respondent [Silver Chemicals], it is stated that the manufacture of `H' acid which was commenced in February, 1988 has been completely stopped after January, 1989. The respondent is fully conscious of the need to conserve and protect environment and is prepared fully to cooperate in that behalf.

Result 3
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2002 SCP 1089)
K.M. Chinnappa, T.N. Godavarman ... vs Union Of India And Ors
Honourable Judges Chief Justice, Arijit Pasayat
Date of Judgment: 30 Oct 2002
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
Relevancy Score: 66.34

These liabilities fall into five general categories : (a) Criminal liabilities; The number of criminal offences for non-compliance with environmental legislation is immense, and in recent years the regulation agencies have shown an increased willingness to resort to prosecution. Private prosecution is also a possibility. Fines will be the normal penalty, though in a number of cases sentences of imprisonment have been imposed (there is normally a potential personal liability for directors and senior managers). Maximum fine levels have risen in recent years, as have actual levels of fines imposed. (b) Administrative sanctions : In most regulatory systems there is a range of options available to the regulator, including variation, suspension or revocation of a licence. Since these steps may lead to the closure of a plant, they are obviously of great importance. (c) Clean up costs : In most environmental legislation there is a power to clean up after a pollution incident and receive the cost from the polluter or (in some cases) the occupier. (d) Civil liability : There is growing interest in the toxic torts, although many of the actions have in fact been around for a long time. Many environmental actions rest upon strict liability. Although liability may often be difficult to establish, the size of claims may be very high indeed. (e) Adverse publicity : In practice the publicity attracted as a result of infringements of the law may be as costly as any direct costs. The tide of judicial considerations in environmental litigation in India symbolizes the anxiety of Courts in finding out appropriate remedies for environmental maladies. At global level, the right to live is now recognized as a fundamental right to an environment adequate for health and well being of human beings. (See World Commission on Environment and Development - Our Common Future (1987). To commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Stockholm Conference, the World Community of States assembled in Nairobi (May 10-18, 1982) to review the action taken on to implement Stockholm Declaration. It expressed serious concern about the state of environment world wide and recognized the urgent need of intensifying the effort at the global, regional and national levels to protect and improve it. Progress and pollution go together. As this Court observed in M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 965), when science and technology are increasingly employed in producing goods and services calculated to improve the quality of life, there is certain element of hazard or risk inherent in the very use of science and technology and it is not possible to totally eliminate such hazard or risk altogether. We can only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all necessary steps for locating such industries in a manner which would pose least risk of danger to the community and maximizing safety requirements.

Result 4
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2011 SCP 745)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors
Honourable Judges H.L. Dattu, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 39
Relevancy Score: 65.94

This case led to the development of the Comprehensive Response Compensation and Environmental Liability Act, 1980, more commonly referred to as the "Superfund", into which polluters contribute monies to enable clean-up of toxic sites. 107. In the written submissions filed by Mr. Mehta he has also mentioned about principle of accountability and it is the duty and obligation of the court to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. Pollution and public nuisance resulting from mis-regulation infringes on the fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Mr. Mehta also submitted that applicants are liable for causing continuous suffering to the people in Bichhri and surrounding villages. 108. Mr. Mehta also submitted in his written submissions that in several cases of environmental pollution the courts have ordered the payment of damages by the errant industries/individuals responsible for causing pollution in violation of environmental related issues and the money recovered be spent for remediation or eco-restoration and damages be paid to the victims or spent for their benefit. It is the duty of the government to ensure proper administration of this fund in a transparent and accountable manner. The establishment of such a fund would ensure that polluters take responsibility for their actions and that monies derived from penalties, damages and settlement are directly invested towards remediating the environmental damage that has occurred. 109. Mr. Mehta further mentioned in his submissions that creation of such a fund would be consistent with the precautionary principle which has been evolved and accepted by this court. He has also mentioned that similar funds have been set-up in United States of America, Canada, Australia, Malaysia and other countries. 110. Mr. Mehta also made a reference regarding Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 which makes it mandatory for industries handling hazardous material to be insured against environmental hazards. However, this legislation only provides relief to persons affected by accidents whilst handling hazardous materials, who are most likely to be workers. Members of the local community would not obtain relief under this legislation, though they are also adversely affected by hazardous industries. This is most pertinently exemplified in the present case. 111. In his written submissions Mr. Mehta also submitted that the applicants clearly show defiance of the environmental laws and the orders of this court. Mr. Mehta prayed for dismissal of Interlocutory Application Nos. 36 of 2004 and 44 of 2007 with heavy costs and direct the respondents to deposit Rs.37.385 crores with the MOEF as per the judgment of this court. 112. This case raises many substantial questions of law. We would briefly deal with some of them. 113. We would also like to discuss the concept of Finality of the Judgment passed by the Apex Court.

Result 5
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2011 SCP 745)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors
Honourable Judges H.L. Dattu, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 65.92

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 the bowels of the earth polluting the aquifers and the sub-terrain supply of water. The water in the wells and the streams has turned dark and dirty rendering it unfit for human consumption. It has become unfit for cattle to drink and for irrigating the land. The soil has become polluted rendering it unfit for cultivation, which is the main source of livelihood for the villagers. The resulting misery to the villagers needs no emphasis. It spreads disease, death and disaster in the village and the surrounding areas. This sudden degradation of earth and water had an echo in Parliament too and the concerned Minister said that action was being taken, but nothing meaningful was done on the spot. The villagers then rose in virtual revolt leading to the imposition of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the District Magistrate in the area and the closure of Silver Chemicals in January, 1989. It is averred by the respondents that both the units, Silver Chemicals and Jyoti Chemicals have stopped manufacturing 'H' acid since January, 1989 and are closed. We may assume it to be so, yet the consequences of their action remain - the sludge, the long-lasting damage to earth, to underground water, to human beings, to cattle and the village economy. 7. The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (for short "R.S.P.C.B.") in pursuance of the show cause notice filed a counter affidavit and stated the following averments: (a) Re.: Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited (respondent for short) [R-4]: The unit obtained 'No-Objection Certificate' from the R.S.P.C.B. for manufacturing sulphuric acid and Aluminum sulphate. The Board granted clearance subject to certain conditions.

Result 6
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1996 SCP 347)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action ... vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc
Honourable Judges B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.N Kirpal
Date of Judgment: 13 Feb 1996
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 64.66

The villagers then rose in virtual revolt leading to the imposition of Section 144 Cr.P.C. by the District Magistrate in the area and the closure of Silver Chemicals in January, 1989. It is averred by the respondents that both the units, Silver Chemicals and Jyoti Chemicals have stopped manufacturing `H' acid since January, 1989 and are closed. We may assume it to be so. Yet the consequences of their action remain - the sludge, the long-lasting damage to earth, to underground water, to human beings, to cattle and the village economy. It is with these consequences that we are to contend with in this writ petition. The present social action litigation was initiated in August, 1989 complaining precisely of the above situation and requesting for appropriate remedial action. To the writ petition, the petitioner enclosed a number of photographs illustrating the enormous damage done to water, cattle, plants and to the area in general. A good amount of technical data and other material was also produced supporting the averments in the writ petition. COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS OF THE RESPONDENTS On notice being given, counter-affidavits have been filed by the Government of India, Government of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Pollution Control Board [R.P.C.B.] and Respondents Nos.4 to 8. Since the earliest counter-affidavit in point of time is that of R.P.C.B., we shall refer to it in the first instance. It was filed on October 26, 1989. The following are the averments: (a) Re. Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited [R-4]: The unit obtained 'No-Objection Certificate' from the P.C.B. for manufacturing sulphuric acid and alumina sulphate. The Board granted clearance subject to certain conditions. Later 'No- Objection Certificate' was granted under the Water [Prevention and Control of Pollution] Act, 1974 [Water Act] and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 [Air Act], again subject to certain conditions. However, this unit changed its product without clearance from the Board. Instead of sulphuric acid, it started manufacturing Oleum and Single Super Phosphate [S.S.P.].

Result 7
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1996 SCP 347)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action ... vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc
Honourable Judges B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.N Kirpal
Date of Judgment: 13 Feb 1996
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 64.25

Respondents Nos.6 and 7 were established to produce fertilizers and a few other products. All the units/factories of Respondents Nos.4 to 8 are situated in the same complex and are controlled by the same group of individuals. All the units are what may be called "chemical industries". The complex is located within the limits of Bichhri village. 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. That need is catered to by the industries like the Silver Chemicals and Jyoti Chemicals in this part of the world. [A few other unites producing `H' acid have been established in Gujarat, as would be evident from the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Pravinbhai Jashbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (1995 (2) G.L.R.1210), a decision rendered by one of us, B.N.Kirpal,J. as the Chief Justice of that Court.] Silver Chemicals is stated to have produced 375 MT of `H' acid. The quantity of `H' acid produced by Jyoti Chemicals is not known. It says that it produced only 20mt., as trial production, and no more. Whatever quantity these two units may have produced, it has given birth to about 2400-2500 MT of highly toxic sludge [iron-based sludge and gypsum-based sludge] besides other pollutants. 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 the bowels of the earth polluting the aquifers and the subterranean supply of water. The water in the wells and the streams has turned dark and dirty rendering it unfit for human consumption. It has become unfit for cattle to drink and for irrigating the land. The soil has become polluted rendering it unfit for cultivation, the main stay of the villagers. The resulting misery to the villagers needs no emphasis. It spread disease, death and disaster in the village and the surrounding areas. This sudden degradation of earth and water had an echo in Parliament too. An Hon'ble Minister said, action was being taken, but nothing meaningful was done on the spot.

Result 8
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2011 SCP 745)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors
Honourable Judges H.L. Dattu, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 64.03

9. The State Government stated that the water in certain wells in Bichhri village and some other surrounding villages has become unfit for drinking for human beings and cattle, though in some other wells, the water remains unaffected. 10. The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India (for short `MOEF') in its counter affidavit filed on February 8, 1990 stated that M/s. Silver Chemicals was merely granted a Letter of Intent but it never applied for conversion of the Letter of Intent into industrial licence. Commencing production before obtaining industrial licence is an offence under Industries [Development and Regulation] Act, 1951. So far as M/s. Jyoti Chemicals is concerned, it is stated that it has not approached the Government at any time even for a Letter of Intent. The Government of India stated that in June, 1989, a study of the situation in Bichhri village and some other surrounding villages was conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment. A copy of their report was enclosed with the counter affidavit. The report states the consequences emanating from the production of 'H' acid and the manner in which the resulting wastes were dealt with by Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 thus: "The effluents are very difficult to treat as many of the pollutants present are refractory in nature. Setting up such highly polluting industry in a critical ground water area was essentially ill- conceived. The effluents seriously polluted the nearby drain and overflowed into Udaisagar main canal, severely corroding its cement-concrete lined bed and banks. The polluted waters also seriously degraded some agricultural land and damaged standing crops. On being ordered to contain the effluents, the industry installed an unlined holding pond within its premises and resorted to spraying the effluent on the nearby hill-slope. This only resulted in extensive seepage and percolation of the effluents into ground water and their spread down the aquifers. Currently about 60 wells appear to have been significantly polluted but every week a few new wells, down the aquifers start showing signs of pollution. This has created serious problems for water supply for domestic purposes, cattle-watering crop irrigation and other beneficial uses, and it has also caused human illness and even death, degradation of land and damage to fruit, trees and other vegetation. There are serious apprehensions that the pollution and its harmful effects will spread further after the onset of the monsoon as the water percolating from the higher parts of the basin moves down carrying the pollutants lying on the slopes - in the holding pond and those already underground." 11. This court passed number of orders during the period 1989-1992. 12. On February 17, 1992, this Court passed a fairly elaborate order observing that respondent nos.

Result 9
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1996 SCP 347)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action ... vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc
Honourable Judges B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.N Kirpal
Date of Judgment: 13 Feb 1996
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 45
Relevancy Score: 61.53

Inspite of repeated Reports of officials and expert bodies, they persisted in their illegal course of action in a brazen manner, which exhibits their contempt for law, for the lawful authorities and the Courts. (II) That even after the closure of `H' acid plant, the fourth respondent had not taken adequate measures for treating the highly toxic waste water and other wastes emanating from the Sulphuric Acid Plant. The untreated highly toxic waste water was found - by NEERI as well as the Central team - flowing through the dumps of iron/gypsum sludge creating a highly potent mix. The letter of the fourth respondent dated January 13, 1996, shows that the Sulphuric Acid Plant was working till November 10, 1995. An assertion is made before us that permanent E.T.P. has also been constructed for the Sulphuric Acid Plant in addition to the temporary tank which was constructed under the Orders of this Court. We express no opinion on this assertion, which even if true, is valid only for the period subsequent to April, 1994. (III) The damage caused by the untreated highly toxic wastes resulting from the production of `H' acid - and the continued discharge of highly toxic effluent from the Sulphuric Acid Plant, flowing through the sludge [H-acid waste] - is undescribable. It has inflicted untold misery upon the villagers and long lasting damage to the soil, to the underground water and to the environment of that area in general. The Report of NEERI contains a sketch, at Page 178, showing the area that has been adversely affected by the production of `H' acid by the respondents. The area has been divided into three zones on the basis of the extent of contamination. A total area of 350 he has become seriously contaminated. The water in the wells in that area is not fit for consumption either by human beings or cattle. It has seriously affected the productivity of the land. According to NEERI Report, Rupees forty crores is required for repairing the damage caused to men, land, water and the flora. (IV) This Court has repeatedly found and has recorded in its Orders that it is respondents who have caused the said damage. The analysis Reports obtained pursuant to the directions of the Court clearly establish that the pollution of the wells is on account of the wastes discharged by Respondents Nos.4 to 8, i.e., production of `H' acid.

Result 10
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2011 SCP 745)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors
Honourable Judges H.L. Dattu, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 22
Relevancy Score: 61.22

The respondent No.8, however, started manufacturing H-Acid and continued its operation till March, 1989. (iii) That the State Board vide letter dated 30.5.88 withdrew the NOC for the reason that respondent no.8 violated the conditions of the NOC. (iv) That the State Board vide its letter dated 30.5.89 also refused application filed by respondent no.8 for discharging trade effluent under section 25, 26 of the Water Act for the reasons, inter alia, that it failed to install pollution control measures and changed its product from Ferric alum to H-Acid without the consent of the State Board. 11. That this Court by its common order and judgment dated 13.2.96 in the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No.967/89, Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India & Others; Writ Petition (Civil) No.76/94 Hindustan Agro Chemical v. State Pollution Control Board & Others and Writ Petition (Civil) No.824/93 Hindustan Agro Chemical v. State Pollution Control Board and Others attached the factories, plant, machinery and all other immovable assets of respondent nos.4 to 8. The State Pollution Control Board was directed to seal all the factories, plants of respondent nos.4 to 8 forthwith. The State Board in compliance of the aforesaid direction sealed the plants of respondent nos.4 to 8 as directed by this Court. 45. The written submissions were also filed by the Union of India and the R.S.P.C.B. in response to the order dated 03.05.2005 in IA No.36. It is stated in the said affidavit: 2. That the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India vide its affidavit dated 29.1.2005 submitted a summary report prepared by a consortium of SENES Consultants Limited, Canada; and NEERI, Nagpur before this Court. The Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India and the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board are making joint submissions herein below for remediation of the environmental damage caused in village Bichhri. Based on the recommendations given in the report of July, 2002, prepared by SENES/NEERI for remediation of degraded environment of Bichhri, District Udaipur, Rajasthan, the following works will be undertaken on priority- wise: First Priority: Phase-I: Source Remediation (Short Term) 7 Clean up of water near the plant site with highest H-acid contamination. 7 Remediation of contaminated soil and sludge management within the plant site. Second Priority: Phase-II: Hot Spots Remediation (Medium Term) 7 Clean up of ground water at hot spots. Third Priority: Phase-III: Residual Contamination Remediation (Long Term) 7 Clean up of residual contaminated water. Fourth Priority: Phase-IV (long-term): 7 Clean up of contaminated soil outside plant boundary. 3. While dealing with the first phase called as short- term remedies, it has been divided in two parts namely:- (i) Clean up of water near the plant site with highest H-acid contamination. (ii) Soil and Sludge management within the plant site.

Result 11
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2006 SCP 181)
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors
Honourable Judges S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar
Date of Judgment: 07 Mar 2006
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 55
Relevancy Score: 60.76

12. "The Polluter Pays Principle" has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India. The Court observed: (SCC p. 246, para 65) "... we are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country". The Court ruled that: (SCC p. 246, para 65) "... once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on". Consequently the polluting industries are "absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas". The "Polluter Pays Principle" as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology." This Court, referring to Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, observed that the aforementioned principles are part of the constitutional law. In Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. & Ors. [JT 2006 (2) SC 568], it was stated: "In light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely asserting an intention for development will not be enough to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources. What this Court should follow is a principle of sustainable development and find a balance between the developmental needs which the respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the appellants allege." The MRTP Act does not exclude these principles. Unless they are so excluded, they are to be read in the statute both in the substantive legislation as also delegated legislation. In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Others [(1999) 2 SCC 718], this Court reiterated the necessity of institutionalizing scientific knowledge in policy-making or using it as a basis for decision-making by agencies and courts. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others, [(2000) 10 SCC 664], this Court emphasized the exercise which is required to be undertaken by the committees before policy decisions are taken. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others [(1996) 4 SCC 351], this Court directed shifting of industries which are not in conformity with the provisions of the Master Plan.

Result 12
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2011 SCP 745)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors
Honourable Judges H.L. Dattu, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 30
Relevancy Score: 60.71

66. In its reply the RSPCB further stated that the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed a Writ Petition No. 338/2000 challenging the judgment of this court dated 13.2.1996. This court dismissed the petition, by order dated 18.7.2002, having regard to the principles laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Another (2002) 4 SCC 388. 67. The RSPCB also stated in its reply that this court by order dated 4.11.1997 directed the MOEF to take necessary steps to implement the directions contained in the judgment dated 13.2.1996 and accepted the proposals submitted by the MOEF for the purpose of taking remedial measures by appointing National Productivity Council (for short NPC), New Delhi as Project Management Consultant. Pursuant to these directions, the MOEF awarded the work of conducting feasibility studies for suggesting alternative methods for remediation of affected environment in Bichhari, to a consortium of consultants namely: M/s. SENES Consultant Limited, Canada and the NEERI, Nagpur. The above consultants in their report stated that an area of 540 hectares had been affected due to industrial waste and needed remediation of contaminated ground water and soil. The said report categorically stated about contamination of ground water and of soil by H-acid. The report has been submitted by the MOEF before this court in January, 2005. This court on 9.12.2004 made the following order: "... ... ...The company M/s. Hindustan Agro Chemical Limited, which is one of the respondents in the main Writ Petition has filed a Petition supported by an affidavit of one Shri D.P. Agarwal, a Director in the respondent Nos. 4-8 companies enclosing therewith certain reports of the experts. It is the claim of the applicant that at present, the effects caused by pollution on account of operation of the concerned industries do not exist and remedial measures, as contemplated in the main judgment of this Court need not be undertaken. The respondents namely: UOI, the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board as well as the petitioner will give their responses, if any, to this I.A. The Government of India may depute an expert and be along with the expert nominated by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the nominee of the State Rajasthan shall visit the spot after giving intimation to the Petitioner-Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action and verify the facts stated in the affidavit and report the latest position to the Court by the next date of hearing... ... ..." 68. An additional affidavit was also filed on behalf of MOEF on the same lines and graphic description of existence of the pollution has affected the ground water to an extent that the entire aquifer may be affected due to the pollution caused by the industry.

Result 13
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2000 SCP 1276)
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others
Honourable Judges B. N. Kirpal
Date of Judgment: 18 Oct 2000
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 62
Relevancy Score: 59.64

The appeal filed by the company against the decision of the Pollution Board was accepted by the appellate authority. A writ petition was filed in the nature of public interest litigation and also by the Gram Panchayat challenging the order of the appellate authority but the same was dismissed by the High Court. On the other hand, the writ petition filed by the company was allowed and the High Court directed the Pollution Board to grant consent subject to such conditions as may be imposed by it. It is this decision which was the subject-matter of challenge in this Court. After referring to the different concepts in relation to environmental cases like the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle, this Court relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 and observed that there was a new concept which places the burden of proof on the developer or industrialist who is proposing to alter the status quo and has become part of our environmental law. It was noticed that inadequacies of science had led to the precautionary principle and the said precautionary principle in its turn had led to the special principle of burden of proof in environmental cases where burden as to the absence of injurious effect of the actions proposed is placed on those who want to change the status quo. At page 735, this Court, while relying upon a report of the International Law Commission, observed as follows: The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm, including, for example, extinction of species, widespread toxic pollution is major threats to essential ecological processes, it may be appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the environment. It appears to us that the precautionary principle and the corresponding burden of proof on the person who wants to change the status quo will ordinarily apply in a case of pulluting or other project or industry where the extent of damage likely to be inflicted is not known.

Result 14
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1999 SCP 62)
A.P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof.M.V.Nayudu (Retd.) & Others
Honourable Judges S.B. Majmudar, M.Jagannadha Rao
Date of Judgment: 27 Jan 1999
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 59.64

On 7.4.1997, the company applied to the A.P. Pollution Control Board, seeking clearance to set- up the unit under section 25 of the Water Act. It may be noted that in the said application, the Company listed the following as by-products of its processes: "Glycerine, spent bleaching earth and carbon and spent nickel catalysts." According to the AP Pollution Board the products manufactured by this industry would lead to the following sources of pollution: "(a) Nickel (solid waste) which is heavy- metal and also a hazardous waste under Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. (b) There is a potention of discharge or run off from the factory combined joining oil and other waste products. (c) Emission of Sulpher Dioxide and oxide of nitrogen. It was at that juncture that the company secured from the Government of A.P. by GOMs 153 dated 3.7.1997 exemption from the operation of GOMs 111 of 8.3.1996 which prescribed the 10 k.m. rule from the Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar Lakes. In regard to grant of NOC by the A.P. Pollution Board, the said Board by letter dated 30.7.1997 rejected the application dated 7.4.1997 for consent, stating "(1) The unit is a polluting industry and falls under the red category of polluting industry under section S.No.11 of the classification of industries adopted by MOEF, GOI and opined that it would not be desirable to locate such industry in the catchment area of Himayatsagar in view of the GOMs No.111 dated 8.3.1996. (2) The proposal to set up this unit was rejected at the pre-scrutiny level during the meeting of CDCC/DIPC held on 24.5.1996 in view of the State Government Order No.111 dated 8.3.1996." Aggrieved by the above letter of rejection, the respondent company appealed under section 28 of the Water Act. Before the appellate authority, the industry, filed an affidavit of Prof. M.Santappa Scientific Officer to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in support of its contentions. The appellate authority under section 28 of the Water Act, 1974 (Justice M.Ranga Reddy, (retd.)) by order dated 5.1.1998 allowed the appeal of the Company.

Result 15
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2013 SCP 272)
Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc
Honourable Judges A.K. Patnaik, H.L. Gokhale
Date of Judgment: 02 Apr 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 19
Relevancy Score: 59.38

Levels of cadmium, chromium, copper and lead were also found to exceed the drinking water standards in some of the wells. ? The hourly composite wastewater samples were collected at six locations. During the sample collection, flow monitoring was also carried out at the inlet and final outlet of the effluent treatment plant (ETP). The concentrations of total dissolved solid (TDS) and sulphate exceed the limit stipulated by the TNPCB for treated effluent. All the other parameters are within the consent conditions prescribed by TNPCB. The treated effluent is being recycled back in the process to achieve zero discharge. Soil Environment ? Soil samples were also analyzed for level of heavy metals. The soil samples at the plant site showed presence of As (132.5 to 163.0 mg/kg), Cu (8.6 to 163.5 mg/kg), Mn (283 to 521.0 mg/kg) and Fe (929.6 to 1764.6 mg/kg). Though there is no prescribed limit for heavy metal contents in soil, the occurrence of these heavy metals in the soil may be attributed to fugitive emission, solid waste dumps, etc.” It will be clear from the extracts from the Executive Summary of NEERI in its report of 2005, that while some of the emissions from the plant of the appellants were within the limits stipulated by the TNPCB, some of the emissions did not conform to the standards stipulated by TNPCB. It will also be clear from the extracts from the Executive Summary relating to water environment that the surface water samples were found to be within the prescribed limits of drinking water (IS:10500-1995) whereas ground water samples showed high mineral contents in terms of dissolved solids as compared to the drinking water standards, but concentrations of nutrient demand parameters revealed that the phosphate and nitrate contents were within the limits stipulated under drinking water standards and levels of chromium, copper and lead were found to be higher in comparison to the parameters stipulated under drinking water standards, whereas the heavy metal concentrations, namely, iron, manganese, zinc and arsenic were within the drinking water standards. Soil samples also revealed heavy metals. Regarding the solid waste out of slag in the plant site, the CPCB has taken a view in its communication dated 17.11.2003 to TNPCB that the slag is non- hazardous. Thus, the NEERI report of 2005 did show that the emission and effluent discharge affected the environment but the report read as whole does not warrant a conclusion that the plant of the appellants could not possibly take remedial steps to improve the environment and that the only remedy to protect the environment was to direct closure of the plant of the appellants. 37. In fact, this Court passed orders on 25.02.2011 directing a joint inspection by NEERI (National Engineering and Research Institute) with the officials of the Central Pollution Control Board (for short ‘the CPCB’) as well as the TNPCB.

Result 16
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2008 SCP 898)
Nicoment Industries Ltd vs Goa State Pollution Control Board & Ors
Honourable Judges K. G. Balakrishnan, Altamas Kabir, R. V. Raveendran
Date of Judgment: 25 Mar 2008
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 59.27

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2160 of 2008 PETITIONER: Nicoment Industries Ltd RESPONDENT: Goa State Pollution Control Board & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/2008 BENCH: CJI K. G. Balakrishnan & Altamas Kabir & R. V. Raveendran JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R Civil Appeal No 2160 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23352 of 2007) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The appellant herein, Nicoment industries Ltd., is a manufacturer of Cobalt metal and Cobalt derivatives. It was alleged in a public interest petition before the High Court that Appellant's factory, among others, were producing huge quantity of hazardous and toxic waste; and that appellant was not taking steps to store the waste in safe and effective manner, and dumping such waste in the open, leading to serious problems of pollution. The Goa State Pollution Control Board ('Board' for short) informed the High Court that appellant had not complied with the requirement of setting up a landfill site for its hazardous waste and violated the conditions of authorization and sought leave to stop its activities. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, submitted before the High Court that the landfill site proposed by the appellant (in Survey No.339/1 and 340/1) did not fulfil the requirements for waste treatment management and disposal, as use of that site was likely to lead to water contamination. The High Court after examining the various aspects passed an interim order on 23.11.2007, directing the appellant to shut down its factory and stop all its operations till it complied with all the environmental requirements and all directions issued by the Board. The Board was also directed to seal the premises of the appellant where the hazardous operations were being carried out and inform the Court as and when the appellant fulfilled the requirements. Accordingly, the appellant's operations have been stopped. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has now made the necessary short term and long term arrangements for the disposal of hazardous waste. According to him, the appellant had installed a three stage evaporator for treatment of effluents and had created a secure storage space (two sheds) to accommodate 4400 tonnes of hazardous waste. It is submitted that the sheds will be able to store the hazardous waste generated for about 13 months; that the appellant had also implemented suggestions of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur ('NEERI') to prevent seepage from the said two sheds where hazardous waste will be stored. It is submitted that for the present, the hazardous waste generated will be stored in the said two sheds constructed within the factory premises.

Result 17
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2009 SCP 1918)
Tirupur Dyeing Factory Oweners Ass vs Noyyal River A.Protection Ass. & Ors
Honourable Judges K.G. Balakrishnan, B.S. Chauhan
Date of Judgment: 06 Oct 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 59.11

There was no material on record on the basis of which such a liability could be fastened on the unit owners. The calculation of fine/compensatory expenses at such a higher rate was not based on any scientific data and, therefore, such imposition of fines etc. cannot be held justifiable. More so, the High Court ought to have allowed the Review Petition filed by the appellant. The appellant has always been willing to safeguard the environment and to prevent pollution and discharge of effluents into Noyyal river or Orathapalayam dam. In view of the fact that the industrial units had undertaken to fix the R.O. plant and to achieve ZLD and it had set up 17 CETPs investing a huge amount of about 700 crores, such onerous liability should not have been imposed. The industrial units have already installed a pre-treatment plant to prevent the untreated effluents to be discharged either into the river or dam. The High Court failed to appreciate that there are more than 40 thousand families to earn their livelihood on dyeing and bleaching industry. Several lakh persons are employed in its ancillary industries who directly depend on this business and most of them are basically the erstwhile agriculturists who could not earn their livelihood because of the barren nature of their land and for want of proper rain over several years. A large number of people have indulged in transport activities because of such heavy industries in Tirupur area. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and appeals deserved to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has submitted that in spite of several orders passed by the High Court, there could have been no improvement in the ecological set up of the area. The "precautionary principle" and principle of "polluter-pays" are the integral part and parcel of national environmental law. The appellant is bound to compensate the persons who have suffered the loss because of the activity of its members, as water of the river is neither worth for irrigation purpose nor potable. The members of the appellant association being responsible for the pollution, cannot escape the responsibility of not meeting the expenses of removing the sludge from the river and cleaning the dam and treating the water to make it pollution free. The cost so imposed by the High Court by the impugned order, is based on the report of the Expert Committee. In spite of the fact that the High Court had passed several orders and extended the period from time to time to take all possible measures to establish the RO system and achieve ZLD, no improvement could be made. In case the said members of the Association are not willing to achieve the pollution free atmosphere, they do not have any right to continue with their industrial activities. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

Result 18
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1996 SCP 347)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action ... vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc
Honourable Judges B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.N Kirpal
Date of Judgment: 13 Feb 1996
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
Relevancy Score: 58.87

It was observed that even after the operation of hauling the sludge back to the industry premises, some sludge mixed soil was still lying in the premises of a primary school (Table 1.1), which needs decontamination." In Chapter-6, the Report mentions the remedial measures. Para 6.1, titled "Introduction", states: "As could be seen from the data reported in Chapter 4 and 5, the ground water and soils within 2 km from the plant have been contaminated. After critically scrutinising the date, it was concluded that there is an urgent need to work out a decontamination strategy for the affected area. This strategy includes the decontamination of the soil, contaminated ground water and abandoned dump sites. This chapter details the remedial measures that can be considered for implementation to restore the environmental quality of the affected area." The Chapter then sets out the various remedial measures, including land treatment, soil washing, revegetation, control over the flow of the contaminated water to adjoining lands through canals, leaching of soluble salts, design of farm to development Agroforestry and/or forestry plantation with salt tolerant crops/plants and ground water decontamination. Inter alia, the Report states: "The entire contaminated area comprising of 350 ha of contaminated land and six abandoned dump sites outside the industrial premises has been found to be ecologically fragile due to reckless past disposal activities practiced by M/s. Silver Chemicals Ltd. and M/s.Jyoti Chemicals Ltd. Accordingly, it is suggested that the whole of the contaminated area be developed as a green belt at the expense of M/s.Hindustan Agrochemicals Ltd. during the monsoon of 1994." Under Para 6.3.2, the Report suggests "Decontamination Alternatives for Groundwater" including Bioremediation, Degradation of H-acid by Azotobacter Vinelandii, Isolation of Bacterial Population from H-acid Contaminated Soil and several other methods. Under Para 6.4.2, the Report mentions the several decontamination alternatives including containment of contaminated soil, surface control, ground water control, leachate collection and treatment, gas migration control and direct waste treatment. At Pages 157 and 158, the report mentions the continuing discharge of effluents in an illegal and dangerous manner.

Result 19
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2000 SCP 881)
M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors
Honourable Judges S.S.Ahmad, Doraiswami Raju
Date of Judgment: 12 May 2000
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Relevancy Score: 58.62

Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for "life", would be hazardous to "life" within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. In the matter of enforcement of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court, besides enforcing the provisions of the Acts referred to above, has also given effect to Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and has held that if those rights are violated by disturbing the environment, it can award damages not only for the restoration of the ecological balance, but also for the victims who have suffered due to that disturbance. In order to protect the "life", in order to protect "environment" and in order to protect "air, water and soil" from pollution, this Court, through its various judgments has given effect to the rights available, to the citizens and persons alike, under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment for removal of hazardous and obnoxious industries from the residential areas, the directions for closure of certain hazardous industries, the directions for closure of slaughter-house and its relocation, the various directions issued for the protection of the Ridge area in Delhi, the directions for setting up effluent treatment plants to the Industries located in Delhi, the directions to Tanneries etc., are all judgments which seek to protect environment. In the matter of enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 21, under Public Law domain, the Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, has awarded damages against those who have been responsible for disturbing the ecological balance either by running the industries or any other activity which has the effect of causing pollution in the environment. The Court while awarding damages also enforces the "POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE" which is widely accepted as a means of paying for the cost of pollution and control. To put in other words, the wrongdoer, the polluter, is under an obligation to make good the damage caused to the environment.

Result 20
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2019 SCP 204)
Tamil Nadu Polution Control Board vs Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. .
Honourable Judges Rohinton Fali Nariman, Vineet Saran
Date of Judgment: 18 Feb 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 58.46

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4763-4764 OF 2013 TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8773-8774 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9542-9543 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5782 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1552-1554 OF 2019 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2019 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1582 OF 2019 JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J. 1. The present appeals arise out of orders that have been passed Signature Not Verified by the National Green Tribunal [“NGT”] dated 31.05.2013, 08.08.2013, Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2019.02.18 16:43:08 IST Reason: and 15.12.2018. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy raised in the present case are as follows. 2. The respondent, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. / Vedanta Ltd., was operating a copper smelter plant at the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT) Industrial Complex at Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. On 01.08.1994, the respondent received a No-Objection Certificate [“NOC”] from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board [“TNPCB”] for the production of blister copper and sulphuric acid. The environmental clearance to the project by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change [“MoEF”] followed on 16.01.1995. On 17.05.1995, the State MoEF also granted environmental clearance to the respondent. The TNPCB granted its consent under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 [“Air Act”] and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [“Water Act”] on 22.05.1995. After obtaining the requisite permissions, the consent to operate the plant was issued on 14.10.1996 by the TNPCB. Production commenced on 01.01.1997. However, the environmental clearances that were granted were challenged before the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos.15501-15503/1996, 5769/1997, and 16961/1998. On 20.05.1999, the TNPCB granted its consent for production of two more products, namely, phosphoric acid and hydrofluorosilicic acid. On 21.09.2004, a Supreme Court Monitoring Committee was constituted to verify the compliance status of hazardous waste management. It recommended to the MoEF that the environmental clearance for the proposed expansion should not be granted, and if granted, should be revoked. On 19.04.2005, the TNPCB issued consent to operate, subject to fulfillment of various conditions for the expanded capacity. Meanwhile, the Madras High Court, on 28.09.2010, allowed the various writ petitions that had been filed and quashed the environmental clearances granted to the respondent and directed the TNPCB to close down the plant. 3. Meanwhile, on 23.03.2013, the residents of nearby areas started complaining of irritation, throat infection, severe cough, breathing problem, nausea etc. due to emissions from Sterlite Industries. Reports were obtained after inspection of the premises by the TNPCB.

Result 21
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1996 SCP 2260)
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors
Date of Judgment: 30 Dec 1996
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 36
Relevancy Score: 58.44

We are, however, of the view that "the precautionary principle" and "The polluter Pays" principle are essential features of "Sustainable Development". The "Precautionary Principle" -- in the context of the municipal law - means: (i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (iii) The "Onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. 12. "The Polluter Pays" principle has been held to be a sound principle by this court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India J.T. 1996 (2) 196. The Court observed "We are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country". The Court ruled that "Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on." Consequently the polluting industries are "absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas". The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. 13. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.

Result 22
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2000 SCP 874)
M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors
Honourable Judges S.S.Ahmad, Doraiswami Raju
Date of Judgment: 12 May 2000
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
Relevancy Score: 58.38

The recognition of the vice of pollution and its impact on future resources was realised during the early part of 1970. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, during a panel discussion in 1971, concluded that the total environmental expenditure required for improvement of the environment was overestimated but could be reduced by increased environmental awareness and control. In 1972, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development adopted the "POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE" as a recommendable method for pollution cost allocation. This principle was also discussed during the 1972 Paris Summit. In 1974, the European Community recommended the application of the principle by its member States so that the costs associated with environmental protection against pollution may be allocated according to uniform principles throughout the Community. In 1989, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reaffirmed its use and extended its application to include costs of accidental pollution. In 1987, the principle was acknowledged as a binding principle of law as it was incorporated in European Community Law through the enactment of the Single European Act, 1987. Article 130r.2 of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty provides that Community Environment Policy "shall be based on the principle that the polluter should pay." "POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE" has also been applied by this Court in various decisions. In Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446 = 1996 (2) SCR 503 = (1996) 3 SCC 212 = JT 1996 (2) SC 196, it was held that once the activity carried on was hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on that activity was liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by that activity. This principle was also followed in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2715 = (1996) 5 SCC 647= JT 1996 (7) SC 375 which has also been discussed in the present case in the main judgment. It was for this reason that the Motel was directed to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment ecology of the area. But it is the further direction why pollution fine, in addition, be not imposed which is the subject matter of the present discussion.

Result 23
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2021 SCP 772)
Electrosteel Steels Limited vs Union Of India
Honourable Judges Ms. Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari
Date of Judgment: 09 Dec 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 58.34

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7576-7577 OF 2021 [Arising out of SLP (C.) Nos. 11226-11227 of 2020] Electrosteel Steels Limited ……Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India and Ors. Etc. ….Respondent (s) JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J. Leave granted. 2. These Appeals are against an order dated 16 th September 2020 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand in W.P. (C) No.1873 of 2018 and W.P. (C) No. 4850 of 2018, discontinuing the interim orders earlier passed by the High Court, allowing the Appellant to operate its unit under the supervisory regulatory control of the Respondent – Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, hereinafter referred to as “JSPCB”, which had been in force for over two years. Signature Not Verified3. The Appellant owns and runs a 1.5 MTPA integrated steel plant in Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Bokaro District in Jharkhand. The said steel plant in Bokaro, which Date: 2021.12.14 17:13:44 IST Reason: employs 3,000 regular employees and 7000 contractual employees, produced steel worth Rs.4,200 crores in the financial year 2019-20. 4. The Appellant claims that about 30,000 persons other than those actually employed by the steel plant as regular or contractual employees depend on the steel plant for their livelihood. 5. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had commenced against the Appellant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. As successful Resolution Applicant, Vedanta Ltd. took over the Appellant on or about 4th June 2018 upon payment of Rs.5,320 crores for discharge of its debts. 6. Pollution and consequential deterioration of environment has been assuming alarming proportions, and has become a cause of universal concern. Fumes, smoke, emission of green house gases by use of motors and machines and operation of mills, factories and plants cause environmental degradation. 7. Under the aegis of the United Nations discussions and deliberations have been held to protect and improve environment and prevent pollution. 8. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was convened in Stockholm to work out ways and means to protect and improve the environment. In course of deliberations, it was felt that there was need to enact law to tackle environmental pollution. India participated in the conference and strongly voiced environmental concerns. 9. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as “the 1986 Act”, has been enacted as a consequence of decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June, 1972. 10. The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the 1986 Act declares that the Act has been prompted by concern over environment, that has grown the world over, since the sixties.

Result 24
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2024 SCP 150)
Vedanta Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
Honourable Judges Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
Date of Judgment: 29 Feb 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
Relevancy Score: 58.24

This principle serves as a reminder that economic activities should not come at the expense of environmental degradation or the health of the population. 25. In addition, the public trust doctrine, recognized in various jurisdictions, including India, establishes that the state holds natural resources in trust for the benefit of the public. It reinforces the idea that the State must act as a steward of the environment, ensuring that the common resources necessary for the well-being of the populace are protected against exploitation or degradation. These principles underscore the importance of balancing economic interests with environmental and public welfare concerns. While the industry has played a role in economic growth, the health and welfare of the residents of the area is a matter of utmost concern. In the ultimate analysis, the State Government is responsible for preserving and protecting their concerns. 26. As consistently held in numerous decisions of this Court, the unequivocal right to a clean environment is an indispensable entitlement extended to all persons.8 Air, which is polluted beyond the permissible limit, not only has a detrimental impact on all life forms including humans, but also triggers a cascade of ecological ramifications. The same is true for polluted water, where the pervasive contamination poses a profound threat to the delicate balance of ecosystems. The impact of environmental pollution and degradation is far reaching : it is often not only severe but also persists over the long term. While some adverse effects may be immediately evident, the intensity of other kinds of harm reveals itself over time. Persons who live in surrounding areas may develop diseases which not only result in financial burdens but also impact the quality of life. The development and growth of children in these communities may become stunted, creating a tragic legacy of compromised potential. Basic necessities, such as access to potable water, may not be met, exacerbating the challenges faced by these already vulnerable populations. Undoubtedly, such adverse effects are felt more deeply by marginalised and poor communities, for whom it becomes increasingly difficult to escape the cycle of poverty.

Result 25
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2021 SCP 567)
Municipal Corporation Of Gr. ... vs Ankita Sinha
Honourable Judges Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy
Date of Judgment: 07 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 25
Relevancy Score: 58.11

In the past ten to fifteen years, this issue has crystallized a grass-roots movement that combines civil rights issues with environmental issues, with a goal of achieving "environmental justice" or "environmental equity," which is understood to mean the fair distribution of environmental risks and protection from environmental harms.”26 27.3 There is also a need to focus on the interconnection between principles of procedural justice and distributive justice. The concern is to create a system which is affirmative enough to balance the disproportionate wielding of power between polluters and affected people. “Environmental justice starts with distributive justice, or more accurately, distributive injustice. The rich and powerful derive the most benefit while suffering the least harm from environmentally harmful activities; conversely, the poor and minorities derive the least benefit but suffer the most harm.Further, those who benefit cause harm to the places where people “live, work, play, and go to school,” whereas the people who reside there do little or nothing to harm their community.” 27 26 Schiffer, L. J., & Dowling, T. J. (1997). Reflections On The Role Of The Courts In Environmental Law. Environmental Law, 27(2), 327–342. 27 Jeff Todd, A “Sense of Equity” in Environmental Justice Litigation, 44 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 169, 193 (2020). Page 60 of 77 When substantive justice is elusive for a large segment, disengaging with substantive rights at the very altar, for a perceived procedural lacuna, would surely bring in a process, which furthers inequality, both economic and social. An “equal footing” conception may not therefore be feasible to adequately address the asymmetrical relationship between the polluters and those affected by their actions. Instead, a recognition of the historical experience of marginalized classes of persons while accessing and effectively using the legal system, will allow for necessary appreciation of social realities and balancing the arm of justice. 27.4 The law must be interpreted in such a manner as to foster further development of existing legal concepts by incorporating this sense of equity. The issues which this Court has had the occasion to examine have highlighted the limitations of the mechanisms to reach to the heart of environmental concerns.

Result 26
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2010 SCP 83)
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors
Honourable Judges Mukundakam Sharma, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 18 Jan 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 23
Relevancy Score: 57.92

If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. 90. The case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others (1988) 1 SCC 471, relates to pollution caused by the trade effluents discharged by tanneries into Ganga river in Kanpur. The court called for the report of the Committee of experts and gave directions to save the environment and ecology. It was held that "in Common Law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an injunction in an action brought by a riparian owner who has suffered on account of the pollution of the water in a river caused by the Corporation by discharging into the river insufficiently treated sewage from discharging such sewage into the river. But in the present case the petitioner is not a riparian owner. He is a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition cannot be disputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance, which is widerspread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The petition has been entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to move the Supreme Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which impose duties on the municipal authorities and the Boards constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974". 91. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others AIR 1996 SC 2715, this court ruled that precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country. This court declared Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g) to be part of the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment. 92. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others AIR 1988 SC 1037, this court observed that the effluent discharged in river Ganga from a tannery is ten times noxious when compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river from any urban area on its banks. The court further observed that the financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant without requiring them to establish primary treatment plants. Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence for the adverse effect on the public at large.

Result 27
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2011 SCP 745)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors
Honourable Judges H.L. Dattu, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 18 Jul 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
Relevancy Score: 57.78

Both these institutions wrote to the Secretary that the data available was not sufficient to determine the cost of remediation, if any. The Secretary, who under the directions of the Court was directed to determine the amount within six weeks was left with no alternative but to simply affirm the lump sum amount determined by the NEERI. 34. It is stated that now almost fifteen years have passed since the final judgment of this Court and the situation in the area needs to be inspected again to find out as to whether any remediation is necessary or whether with passage of time nature on its own has taken care of the pollution in the area and because of the same no further remediation is required to be done in the area. This submission is being made without prejudice to the right of the applicant to contend that the applicant had not caused any pollution in the area but the applicant for the limited purpose of this application is ready to assume for the sake of arguments that the applicant had caused pollution in the area and that the nature in the last so many years has taken care of the pollution and on that basis there is no pollution existing in the area at present. 35. One of the issues that came up for consideration before this Court was the liability of the Union of India to take remediation measures in the area even if the applicant were not to pay the remediation costs as determined by the Secretary, MOEF. In these proceedings the counsel on behalf of the applicant made a suggestion to the Court that a fresh team be sent to the units of the applicant to find out whether there is still any pollution existing in the area and also whether any remediation as of today is required to be done or not. It was suggested during the course of hearing that the remediation cost being sought to be recovered from the applicant is not some kind of a decree in which the applicant is a judgment debtor but is merely a cost which the applicant is being made liable to pay on the "Polluter Pays" principle and there is no necessity of payment if there is no pollution existing. Till date there is no working out as to how the cost of remediation has been worked out by NEERI which had been affirmed by the Secretary, MOEF and which had been further affirmed by this Court. 36. According to the applicant, on the basis of the reports of some experts it is quite evident that there is no pollution in and around the factory premises of the applicant and accordingly there is no need for any remediation to be done in the area and the factory of the applicant is required to be handed over to the applicant forthwith so that the applicant may take proper steps to re-start the factory and generate resources to meet the liabilities of the financial institutions and banks.

Result 28
Supreme Court of India
(ID::2022 SCP 323)
Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd. vs Dastak Ngo
Honourable Judges Ms. Banerjee, A.S. Bopanna
Date of Judgment: 25 Mar 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 57.73

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4795 OF 2021 M/S PAHWA PLASTICS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. …... Appellants Versus DASTAK NGO AND ORS. ….. Respondents JUDGMENT INDIRA BANERJEE, J. This appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, is against an order dated 3 rd June 2021 passed by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in O.A No.287/2020 at New Delhi, inter alia, holding that establishments such as the manufacturing units of the Appellants, which did not have prior Environmental Clearance (EC) could not be allowed to operate. 2. The question of law involved in this appeal is, whether an establishment employing about 8000 workers, which has been set up pursuant to Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) Signature Not Verified from the concerned statutory authority and has applied for ex post Digitally signed by facto EC can be closed down pending issuance of EC, even though it Sanjay Kumar Date: 2022.03.25 16:28:56 IST Reason: may not cause pollution and/or may be found to comply with the required pollution norms. 3. With increasing industrialization and the establishment of factories which emitted smoke and other pollutants, there was worldwide concern for protection of environment. In June 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, where decisions were taken to take appropriate steps for preservation of the natural resources of the earth, which, among other things, included preservation of the quality of air and water by controlling pollution. 4. In 1974, Parliament enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, with a view to prevent and control water pollution and to maintain and restore wholesomeness of water. 5. In furtherance of the decisions taken at Stockholm, Parliament enacted the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as “the Air Pollution Act”, to provide for prevention, control and abatement of air pollution. 6. The Air Pollution Act provides for the constitution of a Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) to deal with the problem of air pollution. Section 16 of the Air Pollution Act enables the Central Pollution Control Board to take steps to improve the quality of air and to prevent, control or abate air pollution in the country. Section 17 of the Air Pollution Act enables the State Pollution Control Boards to plan comprehensive programmes for the prevention, control or abatement of air pollution , inter alia, by laying down standards for emission of air pollutants. 7. Section 18 of the Air Pollution Act enables the Central Government to give directions by which the CPCB is to be bound. Similarly, every SPCB is to be bound by directions in writing as might be given by the CPCB or the State Government.

Result 29
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1988 SCP 15)
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors
Honourable Judges E.S. Venkataramiah, K.N. Singh
Date of Judgment: 12 Jan 1988
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 22
Relevancy Score: 57.73

The application of effluents on agricultural land supplies not only much needed water to growing crops but also manurial ingredients; the recovery of commercially valuable ingredients during the treatment of industrial waste waters often yields by-products which may to some extent offset the cost of treatment If appropriate financial credits could be calculated in respect of these and other incidental benefits, it would be apparent that measures for the prevention of pollution are not unduly costly and are within the reach of all nations, advanced or developing. It is fortunate that people are be coming more receptive to the idea of sharing the financial burden for lessening pollution. It is now recognised in most countries that it is the responsibility of industries to treat their trade wastes in such a way that they do not deteriorate the quality of the receiving waters, which otherwise would make the utilisation of such polluted waters very difficult or costly for downstream settlers. URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM The crucial question is not whether developing countries can afford such measures for the control of water pollution but it is whether they can afford to neglect them. The importance of the latter is emphasised by the fact that in the absence of adequate measures for the prevention or control of water pollution, a nation would eventually be confronted with far more onerous burdens to secure wholesome and adequate supplies of water for different purposes. If developing countries embark on suitable pollution prevention policies during the initial stages of their industrialisation, they can avoid the costly mistakes committed in the past by many developed countries. It is, however, unfortunate that the importance of controlling pollution is generally not realised until considerable damage has already been done; (Pages 3 and 4)" In common law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an injunction in an action brought by a reparian owner who has suffered on account of the pollution of the water in a river caused by the Corporation by discharging into the river insufficiently treated sewage from discharging such sewage into the river.

Result 30
Supreme Court of India
(ID::1996 SCP 347)
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action ... vs Union Of India And Ors.Etc
Honourable Judges B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.N Kirpal
Date of Judgment: 13 Feb 1996
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 42
Relevancy Score: 57.61

Appropriate directions can be given by this Court to the Central Government to invoke and exercise those powers with such modulations as are called for in the facts and circumstances of this case. The question of liability of the respondents to defray the costs of remedial measures can also be looked into from another angle, which has now come to be accepted universally as a sound principle, viz., the "Polluter Pays" Principle. "The polluter pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution, or produce the goods which cause the pollution. Under the principle it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer. The `polluter pays' principle was promoted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] during the 1970s when there was great public interest in environmental issues. During this time there were demands on government and other institutions to introduce policies and mechanisms for the protection of the environment and the public from the threats posed by pollution in a modern industrialized society. Since then there has been considerable discussion of the nature of the polluter pays principle, but the precise scope of the principle and its implications for those involved in past, or potentially polluting activities have never been satisfactory agreed. Despite the difficulties inherent in defining the principle, the European Community accepted it as a fundamental part of its strategy on environmental matters, and it has been one of the underlying principles of the four Community Action Programmes on the Environment.

Relevant High Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
(ID::2009 HJKHP 1)
Mangu Ram And Ors vs State And Ors
Honourable Judges Sunil Hali
Date of Judgment: 16 November 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
Relevancy Score: 60.77

10.The "precautionary principle" was elucidated thus by this Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others, (1996) 5 SCC 647, inter alia, as follows: (1) the State Government and the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (2) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (3) The "onus of proof' is on the actor or the developer to show that his action is environmentally benign. (4) It cannot be gainsaid that permission to use automobiles has environmental implications, and thus any "auto policy" framed by the Government must, therefore, of necessity conform to the Constitutional principles as well as overriding statutory duties cast upon the Government under the EPA. (5) The "auto policy" must, therefore, (a) focus upon measures to "........Anticipate, prevent and attack....." the cause of environmental degradation in this field. (b) in the absence of adequate information, lean in favour of environmental protection by refusing rather than permitting activities likely to be detrimental. (c) Adopt the "precautionary principle" and thereby ensure that unless and activity is proved to be environmentally benign in real and practical terms, it is to be presumed to be environmentally harmful. (d) Make informed recommendations which balance the needs of transportation with the need to protect the environment and reserve the large scale degradation that has resulted over the years, priority being given to the environment over economic issues." It is on the basis of above principle emphasised in the above judgments passed by the Apex Court, the case in hand has to be dealt with. In the present case, as noticed above, the grievance projected by the petitioners who are the inhabitants of the area where the respondentindustrial units have been established, is that by the activity performed by the said units which are engaged in the business of manufacturing the Carbon, Resin and Turpentine, the surrounding environment has been polluted due to the smoke and foul smell emitted from the said units. The status report filed by the District Magistrate concerned reveals that the respondentUnits are located within the area specified as Industrial estate.

Result 2
Bombay High Court
(ID::2006 HBOMP 15)
Mangesh G. Salodkar vs Monsanto Chemicals Of India Ltd. And ...
Honourable Judges D.Y. Chandrachud
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2006
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 60.15

The Petitioner contends that almost all pesticides, insecticides and herbicides have been proved to be dangerous to human health. The Petitioner relies upon several studies to establish that pesticides lead to an increased risk of cancer, spontaneous abortion, genetic damage, infertility, liver and pancreatic damage, neuropathy, disturbances to immune systems, stillbirths and decreased sperm counts. The Petitioner has alleged that Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being a "potentially responsible party"for no fewer than 93 contaminated sites (Superfund Sites) in the U.S. In 1986, a U.S. District Court found Monsanto liable in the death of a Texas employee from leukemia caused by exposure to benzene, which is a carcinogen. It has been alleged that in 1988, Monsanto agreed to a $1.5 million settlement in a chemical poisoning case filed by over 170 former employees of the company's Nitro, West Virginia facility. Six workers said they had been exposed to chemicals which gave them a rare form of bladder cancer. The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office is stated to have fined Monsanto U.S. $ 1 million for violation of a State environmental law for illegally discharging acid-laden waste water from a plant and failing to report the release immediately and for understating the volume of the release. In 1992, Monsanto agreed to pay U.S. $39 million in a settlement with 1700 Houston residents who claimed injuries as a result of living near a former toxic waste dump. The Petitioner has alleged that the Mississippi River suffered environmental damage from pollution originating in Monsanto's facility in Illinois which was a major producer of chloronitrobenzenes. 3. The Petitioner's allegation is that the plant at Lonavala was run by Monsanto in a shoddy fashion. The plant faced serious constraints of space and problems with regard to the storage of chemicals and the disposal of hazardous residue. According to the Petitioner, the plant was not designed to the specifications of the Factories Act, 1948 or the Insecticides Act, 1968. Ventilation and exhaust systems were poor and the mixing of chemicals was carried out in open furnaces, exposing the staff at the plant to serious risks.

Result 3
Gujarat High Court
(ID::2013 HGUJP 15)
Liyakat Mahmad Circle & vs Sterling Sez And
Honourable Judges N.V.Anjaria
Date of Judgment: 30 September 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 13
Relevancy Score: 59.11

6.2 Learned advocate for the appellants laid emphasis on the group of words in the said section &. and such question arises out of implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I to contend on that basis that the suit does not bring out any question relating to implementation of the enactments in question. This argument is wholly misconceived. As already seen, the suit and the suit prayers are about the grievance in relation to the environmental damage to the crop in the agricultural fields, live stock and injury to health of the people. These damage and injuries are apprehended, as the averments in the plaint clearly suggest, because of laying of pipeline in particular manner leading to improper management in discharge of industrial effluent and dirty water, which come out because of the industrial operations carried out by the defendant companies engaged in manufacturing of pesticides and using chemicals for that purpose. The schedule I to the Act is connected to sections 14(1), 15(1),. 17(1)(a),. 17(2), 19(4)(j) and section 34(1) of the Act. The statutes mentioned in the schedule are (1) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; (2) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; (3) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (4) The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; (5) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; (6) The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; and (7) The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. 6.3 It is quite conceivable that in the compass of the grievance made and reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in their suit, questions regarding implementation of the provisions of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 would arise and addition to other laws. The suit prayer is directed against the Pollution Control Board which is a statutory body entrusted with implementation of all the environmental laws including the Scheduled statutes. The kind of relief which the Tribunal could grant as per Section 15 of the Act also buttresses the reasoning adopted and view taken herein. The relief to be granted by the Tribunal include relief of compensation, restitution of property damaged and restitution of environment.

Result 4
Gujarat High Court
(ID::2010 HGUJP 12)
Shri vs State
Honourable Judges S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Date of Judgment: 26 July 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 57.38

The petitioner has made allegation to the effect that the respondent No.4-company is discharging untreated industrial effluent through open channel into the sea caused serious damage to the environment in violation of the provisions under the Environment Protection Act, 1986; Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control) Act, 1981. On such allegations, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned reliefs:- 15(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent no.1 to 3 to take immediate actions against respondent no.4 for violation the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981. (b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondent no.4 from discharging untreated industrial effluent or the effluent which does not meet with the standard prescribed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 into the Arabian Sea. (c) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or dir5ection directing respondent no.4 to restore the environmental damage caused by it in the manner that may be suggested by respondent no.2. (d) This Honourable Court may be pleased to direct respondent no.4 to pay in public law remedy an ad-hoc compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each person engaged in the business of fishing who is affected by the pollution caused by respondent no.4. (e) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to appoint a Committee of experts to submit a report on the nature of pollution caused by respondent no.4, its effects on environment and suggest the modes of checking environmental pollution and restoring the environment damage caused by respondent no.4. In response to the notice, the respondents have appeared and in their respective affidavits in reply, the allegations have been denied. Mr. Asim Pandya learned advocate for Mr. H.L.Patel Advocates has appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Meena, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent No.2-Gujarat Pollution Control Board.

Result 5
Gujarat High Court
(ID::2012 HGUJP 4)
Patel vs Union
Honourable Judges Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.B.Pardiwala
Date of Judgment: 11 May 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
Relevancy Score: 56.01

In that view of the matter various enactments have been made viz. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, etc. Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 pertaining to restrictions on new outlets and new discharge of sewage or trade effluent provides that no person shall, without previous consent of State Pollution Control Board, establish any industry, operation or process or any treatment or disposal or an extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land or bring into use any new or altered outlets for the discharge of sewage or begin to make new discharge of sewage. Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 imposes restrictions on use of certain industrial plants by, inter alia, providing that no person shall, without previous consent of State Pollution Control Board, establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area. Section 22 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 further provides that no person operating any industrial plant shall discharge or cause or permit to be discharged the emission of any air pollutant in excess of standard laid down by the State Pollution Control Board under Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 17. Under Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 an industrial unit generating hazardous waste shall be responsible for proper collection, reception, treatment, storage and disposal of waste listed in the Schedules to the said Rules. 2.6 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3, has been committing serious acts of violation of environmental laws much before the expansion activity was undertaken. In addition thereto, new line of products such as Sponge Iron and Ductile Iron Pipes was manufactured without necessary Clearance/ Consent in that behalf. Induction Furnaces have been installed for manufacturing Ductile Iron Pipe, without prior Environmental Clearance by respondent no.1. This apart, while manufacturing other products the consented limit for manufacturing has also been grossly violated.

Result 6
Bombay High Court
(ID::2001 HBOMP 95)
Bombay Environmental Action Group And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
Honourable Judges B.P. Singh, V.C. Daga
Date of Judgment: 5 July 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 36
Relevancy Score: 55.62

51. The learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board II(cited supra) submitted that in a case pertaining to environment the onus of proof is on the person who wants to change the status quo and, therefore, it is for the respondents to satisfy the Court that there will be no environ mental degradation. In A.P. Pollution Control Board II case the Apex Court was dealing with the case where an application was submitted by a Company to the Pollution Control Board for permission to set up an industry for production of "B.S.S. Castor Oil Derivatives". Though later on Letter Of Intent had been received by the said Company the Pollution control Board did not give its no-objection certificate to the location of the industry at the site proposed by it. The Pollution Control Board, while rejecting the application for consent, inter alia, stated that the unit was a polluting industry which fell under the red category of polluting industry and it would not be desirable to locate such an industry in the catchment area of Himayat Sagar, a lake in Andhra Pradesh. The appeal filed by the Company against the decision of the Pollution Control Board was accepted by the Appellate Authority. A writ petition was filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and also by the Gram Panchayat challenging the order of the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed by the High Court. On the other hand, the writ petition filed by the Company was allowed and the High Court directed the Pollution Control Board to grant consent subject to such conditions as may be imposed by it. It is this decision which was the subject matter of challenge in the Apex Court. After referring to the different concepts in relation to environmental cases like the "precaution ary principle' and the 'polluterpays principle'. The Apex Court relied upon their earlier decision in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India , and observed that there was a new concept which places the burden of proof on the developer or industrialist who is proposing to alter the status quo and has become part of our environmental law.

Result 7
Jharkhand High Court
(ID::2004 HJHAP 2)
Gajanand Sharma vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.
Honourable Judges P.K. Balasubramanyan, Tapen Sen
Date of Judgment: 25 June 2004
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
Relevancy Score: 55.37

We do not think that for the purpose of this case, we need go into that question, since in the public interest litigation filed before us, we are satisfied that the industry is causing pollution, has violated the relevant laws and has also not complied with the prescribed safeguards by the Air Act and the Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act. Since we are satisfied that the relief in public interest has to be granted in that writ petition, it is inappropriate to interfere with the direction in that behalf issued on behalf of the State Pollution Control Board challenged in W.P.(C) No. 4167 of 2003. Granting of any relief as sought for by the petitioner therein would perpetuate the violation of the relevant enactments by the industry and this Court can never be a. party to such a blatant violation of the environmental protection laws. On that ground, we are inclined to decline any relief to the industry, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 4167 of 2003. 9. There was a complaint on behalf of the polluting industry that it has been picked and chosen for discriminatory treatment as the State Pollution Control Board has not taken any action against other industries in and around that area and in the District and this was not proper. As we have indicated earlier, the State Pollution Control Board cannot be accused of being active in enforcement of the environmental protection laws. Taking note of this complaint of the. industry, we direct the State Pollution Control Board to initiate action against all industries in the area and in the various districts, under the relevant enactments and prevent such industries which cause pollution and which are not complying with the requirements of the relevant enactments and which are not taking steps to control pollution in terms of the relevant enactments or as directed by the State Pollution Control Board, from continuing their operation. 10. In the result, we allow W.P.(PIL) 4572 of 2003 and restrain respondent No. 9, Ashok Chemicals, from continuing to work its soap unit without complying with the requirements of the Water Act, the Air Act and the Environmental Protection Act, and unless and until the requisite consents are obtained under the Water Act, and the Air Act and the accepted pollution control devices are adopted.

Result 8
Himachal Pradesh High Court
(ID::2023 HHIMP 301)
____________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Others
Honourable Judges Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
Date of Judgment: 10 April 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
Relevancy Score: 55.32

23. In view of the above declaration, the State is under obligation to safeguard and compensate not only the victims of pollution but also liable to compensate for the adverse effects of an environmental damage. The 'Polluters Pays Principle' as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. 24. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of 'Sustainable development' and as such polluter is - 18 - liable to pay the cost not only to the individual sufferers but even to the society as a whole, towards the cost of reversing the . damaged ecology. 25. The 'Polluter Pays Principle' can appropriately be applied to the cases of encroachers because it is the injury caused by each of the occupier/encroacher to the pristine forest wealth and is, therefore, liable to compensate for the same. 26. It is more than settled that the forest land cannot be put to use for any non-forest purpose but for the facts already set out, it would reveal that there would be environmental degradation in using the forest for non-forest purposes by the occupier/encroacher affecting the environmental equilibrium. This position is apodictic and unassailable. 27. The activities of the occupiers/encroachers in the forest land for the last so many years have had its antagonistic effectiveness in the environmental premise. Therefore, all those responsible for environmental degradation cannot be exculpated. 28. It is, therefore, the duty of this court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by the litigants only on account of keeping the litigation alive. - 19 - 29. In Indian Council for Enviro- Legal-Action vs. Union . of India and others (2011) 8 SCC 161, it is noticed that conduct of the parties is to be taken into consideration and it was held as follows: "197. The other aspect which has been dealt with in great details is to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by the litigants. While adjudicating, the courts must keep the following principles in view: 1. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court.

Result 9
Kerala High Court
(ID::2021 HKERP 60)
P.E.Shamsudheen vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 54.43

Thereafter, the Pollution Control Board decided to execute the work for removal of hazardous chemicals from the factory premises under Section 32 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 11. It is also submitted that the removal and disposal of chemicals stored in the factory premises attracts no financial burden on the company, rather it would fetch revenue to the company. But what precluded the 12th respondent company to comply with the direction is the strong opposition of the employees of the company and the local public and the pendency of the interim order of learned single judge dated 06/01/2016 in W.P. (C) No. 39940/2015. The Pollution Control Board sold out the chemicals to successful bidders under the guidance of the technical committee and monitoring committee constituted by the Board and collected Rs.3.06 Crores from the sale proceeds. 12. According to the 12th respondent, the company extended full support to the Pollution Control Board for removal of chemicals at the instance of the Board by providing technical and other relevant information regarding the chemicals and its disposal. The tenders floated by the Board for sale of chemicals stored in the factory premises were evaluated by a technical committee constituted by the Board. 13. It is also submitted that the former Chief Executive of the company, Mr. Roy Kurian K.K, extended all support to the work by heading the Technical Committee. One, whole time Director of the company was a member in the monitoring committee constituted by the Pollution Control Board for the implementation of the work. There is no willful laches or deliberate negligence on the part of the 12 th respondent company for non-compliance of the directions issued by the State Pollution Control Board for removal of chemicals stored in the factory premises of the 12th Respondent. 14. It is submitted that the plants and machineries of the company were sold out to M/s. Fine Fab Engineering and Constructions by the Punjab National Bank under sale Certificate dated 18/03/2020 and the purchaser company has obtained Ext. R2(l) order from this Court permitting them to remove the plant and machineries from the factory premises. The dismantling and removal of plant and machinery by the purchaser is almost complete.

Result 10
Himachal Pradesh High Court
(ID::2018 HHIMP 47)
Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of H.P. & Others
Honourable Judges Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
Date of Judgment: 20 March 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 54.03

The industrial unit has obtained mandatory consents to . operate under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; and authorization under Hazardous (Waste Management & Handling) Rules, 2008. 4. Crucially, it stands admitted that Gram Panchayat Salapar starts from just at a distance of 3 kms from the cement factory with an aerial distance of 400- 500 meters. According to this deponent, no pollution is caused, in any of the Panchayats, falling in his District, for the project proponent has installed requisite machinery so required to meet the conditions imposed by the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board and the one envisaged under the environmental laws of the land. 5. Insofar as the issue of social corporate responsibility is concerned, it stands admitted that in three Panchayats of Barmana falling in District Bilaspur, endeavour has been taken by the project proponent. 6. But what is crucial in his affidavit, is constant grievances vented out by the general public with regard to pollution caused by the project proponent on account . of blasting, which even according to the deponent requires elaborate study. Also it stands pointed out that the National Green Tribunal is seized of such matter. 7. When we peruse the affidavit dated 13.03.2018, filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, we find the position to be totally different. With the establishment of the cement plant, flora and fauna stands adversely affected so also the health of the people leading to peculiar problems/diseases of Tuberculosis, Asthma and Malaria. Also issue of sound pollution stands raised by the natives. 8. In the affidavit dated 17.03.2018, filed by the Senior Environmental Engineer, H.P. State Pollution Control Board, Shimla, the Board has simply reiterated the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P. 9. We find that M/s ACC limited is not a party in the present proceedings. Also the matter of pollution is pending consideration with the National Green Tribunal. But insofar as the duty of the State and the Regulator for enforcement of environmental law is concerned, we are of the considered view that the grievances of the . residents of village Salapar, must be examined and if found true addressed, more so in the light of the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi.

Result 11
Bombay High Court
(ID::2023 HBOMP 58)
Shri. Balaji Saw Mill Through Tulsidas ... vs State Of Maharashtra Ministry Of ...
Honourable Judges Nitin Jamdar
Date of Judgment: 2 November 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 53.54

6. The Petitioners contend that on receiving such direction notice issued under Section 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 31 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Petitioners approached the concerned authorities immediately, however, without taking into consideration their explanation, the authorities have proceeded and have disconnected their power supply and water supply. Therefore, the Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the notices and the action taken by Respondent No.2-The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. The Petitioners have approached this Court primarily against the directions of disconnection of their electricity and water supply by the Pollution Control Board. 7. In some matters, the Petitioners had approached before the disconnection; therefore, they were protected by the orders passed by this Court with directions not to disconnect the electricity and water supply. However, in some matters, immediately after the issuance of the notice, Respondent No.2- The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has directed the disconnect of the water and electricity connection. Therefore, the Petitioners amended the Petitions to incorporate the subsequent development. R.V.Patil 13 24 WP.5783.2018. e.doc 8. It is the stand of the Petitioners that the Petitioners' Saw Mills, being Micro units, fall under the Green Category and do not cause any pollution nor are they hazardous to the environment and, therefore, it is not necessary for them to take consent. They resisted the action of the Board primarily on this ground. The Petitioners contend they have been running their respective business for many years with valid permission from the competent authorities. According to the Petitioners, all of a sudden, they received notices from Respondent No.2- The Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board through its regional officer demanding certain compliances to be made. 9. According to the Respondent Board, as per the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, under the Environment (Protection) Act, the Saw Mills are required to comply with the environmental norms stated in the notification dated 7 March 2016, and subsequent notification issued by the Ministry.

Result 12
Madras High Court
(ID::2022 HMADP 73)
Unknown vs /
Honourable Judges G.Jayachandran
Date of Judgment: 2 August 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 53.46

The 1st petitioner is a Firm involved in the construction of Multi- storied residential Buildings. The 2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. The 3rd petitioner is the Power Agent and the 4th petitioner is its Power Agent €“ Manager. 2. The respondent/the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against these petitioners to prosecute them under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (in short " the Water Act"), Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 (in short "the Air Act") and Section 19 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and Crl.M.P.Nos.16169, 16171 of 2019 and 1671 of 2020 the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for offences punishable under Sections 44, 47 and 49 of the Water Act , Sections 37, 40, and 43 of Air Act and Section 15 and 16 of Environment( Protection) Act. 3. The sum and substance of the complaint: The 1st accused Firm sought for Environmental Clearance (EC) from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu for its Multi-storied Residential Complex Project to construct 412 Nos. of dwelling units in 51,020.61 sq.m of total build-up area comprising stilt + 4 floors of 12 blocks at S.No 384/6B, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 396/4B, 5C, 5D, 397/1, etc at No: 48, Okkiyam Thoraipakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. 4. Considering the extent of the land, number of dwelling units proposed and its build-up area, total water requirement, daily fresh water requirement and its source expected solid waste generation and sewage treatment plant proposed, the Environmental Clearance was accorded on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and Crl.M.P.Nos.16169, 16171 of 2019 and 1671 of 2020 27/04/2009, subject to the strict compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in Part-A and Part-B of the said proceedings. Part-A of the Environmental Clearance list out specific conditions consisting of two parts, viz Construction Phase and Operation Phase. Part-B of the Environmental Clearance list out General Conditions.

Result 13
Gujarat High Court
(ID::2010 HGUJP 30)
Govindbhai vs State
Honourable Judges Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Date of Judgment: 28 April 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 53.38

neglect to take appropriate legal actions for preventing and controlling pollution and who abetted and aided the causing of pollution due to their non-action for their personal gain at the cost of environmental pollution and to lodge complaints against such erring officers of the respondent no.1 to 4, in the interest of justice. (F) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ in nature of mandamus or any other(s) appropriate writ directions and/or orders, directing the respondent authorities, its officers, servants, etc. to lodge criminal complaints against the units and its responsible persons/owners who fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and of the provisions of The Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 or rules made or orders of directions issued thereunder, within the area of District - Rajkot, in the interest of justice and to maintain law and order. (G) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ in nature of mandamus or any other(s) appropriate writ, directions and/or orders, directing the respondent authorities, its officers, servants, etc. for constitution of comprehensive Authority/Experts Committee under S.3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to enquire and investigate into the question of disturbance of ecology and pollution and affection of air, water and environment by reason of discharge of untreated effluent treatment plant and to deal with the entire matters relating to proper administration and implementation of the programs of preventing and controlling the environmental pollution including powers to take all appropriate actions for prevention and control of the pollution caused due to discharge of untreated trade effluent by industrial units/person carrying on the activities of dyeing, printing and washing of sarees and cloths and to deal with the entire matter relating to proper administration and implementation of the programs of improving, rehabilitation, preservation and conservation of environment including water streams, dams, wells, land etc. and all other necessary powers, within the area of the District - Rajkot, State - Gujarat. (H) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ in nature of mandamus or any other(s) appropriate writ, directions and/or orders, directing the respondent no.1 to 4, it's officers, servants, etc. to recover cost of remedial measures from the polluter units/establishment/undertaking etc. required for taking the remedial measures for improvement of environmental pollution caused due to discharge of untreated trade effluent from the units/establishment carrying on activities of dyeing, printing and/or washing of sarees and cloths into the streams and for preservation and conservation of the ecology and environment of the District of Rajkot. (I) Your Lordships may be further pleased to direct the respondent authorities to strictly comply with the earlier directions issued by this Hon'ble High Court in various petitions ;

Result 14
Madras High Court
(ID::2019 HMADP 86)
P. Sundar Raj vs The Principal Secretary To Government
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
Date of Judgment: 15 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 53.32

(Order of the Court was delivered by S.Manikumar,J) Claiming himself to be a public interest litigant, Mr.P.Sundaraj, Agriculturalist, residing at Kinar Kandigai Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, has filed a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6, to issue an order, to shut down the functioning of the seventh respondent factory, namely M/s. Tamil Nadu Waste Management Limited Factory, situated at S.Nos.29/3 & 29/2 Kinnar Kandigai Pudhur Road, Kinnar Kandigal Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District 603 303. 2. Supporting the prayer sought for, petitioner has contended that Tamil Nadu Waste Management Limited/seventh respondent has started a Bio-Medical Waste Management and disposal factory, in the year 2009, at the above said survey numbers, by furnishing false information in the application submitted to the Pollution Control Board, while applying for consent, under Section 21 of the Prevention of Control Act, 1981 as amended (Central Act 14/91). http://www.judis.nic.in 3. According to the petitioner, in column No.17, regarding land use classification of the site, the seventh respondent has furnished false information, "unclassified", wherein, as per patta issued for the property €“ S.Nos.29/3 and 29/4, with patta No.696 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, land has been classified as 'punja' which shows that it is an agricultural land where such Bio-Medical Waste Management and disposal factory is located. 4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that as against column No.20, in the application submitted to the Pollution Control Board, under Sections 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended (Central Act 6/1974, the seventh respondent, has falsely stated that there are no specified water body nearby and the same is completely false, baseless. Village map of Kinnar Village clearly shows that Bio- Medical Waste Management and disposal factory, situated in S.Nos.29/3, 29/4, 30/2 and 31 are located near S.No.255, which is classified as "uppu-aru" river, which serves as water resources for thousands of people.

Result 15
Jharkhand High Court
(ID::2012 HJHAP 5)
Dr.S.S.Narnoly vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors.
Honourable Judges Chief Justice, P.P.Bhatt
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
Relevancy Score: 53.28

32. Firstly we may go through the best of the case of the respondent no.6, M/s. Premson Motors Udyog Pvt. Ltd., and presume that the orders were legally passed by all authorities, i.e RRDA, Pollution Control Board, under Factories Act etc. the certificates and permission granted by various authorities under different Acts and Factories Act. In our opinion, R.R.D.A, petitioner and respondent no.6 including Pollution Control Board misunderstood the controversy and therefore, went astray. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Rules framed thereunder the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Rules framed thereunder - the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1982, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Rules framed thereunder - the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975, the Factories Act, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 etc. are the laws framed for different purposes. By these laws as well as by several other laws, it has been provided that no one, may it be an industry or factory, may he be a person, should be allowed to create environmental pollution in excess of the standards prescribed under the above enactments. Section 7 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, applies not only to industries or factories but it also applies to persons. Section 7 says that "no person" carrying on any industry, operation or process shall discharge or emit or permit to be discharged or emitted any environmental pollutant in excess of such standards as may be prescribed. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, empowers the State Government, in consultation with the State Pollution Control Board, to notify any area within the State as for air pollution control area for the purpose of the State Act, 1981 and section 20 permits for prescribing the standard of emission from automobiles as laid down by the State Board and section 21 puts restriction on use of certain industrial plants and section 21(1) prohibits any person from establishing or operating any industrial plant in an air pollution control area without previous consent of the State Pollution Control Board.

Result 16
Uttarakhand High Court
(ID::2020 HUTKP 2)
Himanshu Chandola vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
Honourable Judges Ramesh Ranganathan, Ramesh Chandra Khulbe
Date of Judgment: 16 March 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 53.27

Hon'ble Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J. Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) All these Writ Petitions have been filed in larger public interest seeking a direction to the State Government and the State Pollution Control Board to cause an inquiry through a body of experts, and to take action against those industries which are causing environmental degradation, and are acting in violation of the guidelines prescribed in the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 2. It would suffice for the disposal of these four writ petitions to take note of the contents of, and the relief sought for in, WPPIL No.77 of 2017; and the directions issued by this Court, therein, from time to time. WPPIL No.77 of 2017 is filed by Shri Himanshu Chandola, an agriculturalist from Udham Singh Nagar District, who complains of the failure of the respondents to take action against the recalcitrant industries which have caused severe environmental damage to the surrounding areas. He seeks a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos.1 to 3, i.e. the State of Uttarakhand, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board to restrain the private respondents (industries causing pollution) from spreading pollution in the surrounding public areas, and to take action against them for causing water and air pollution. A mandamus is also sought commanding these private industries to ensure that they maintain the pollution standards as per the existing norms. 3. A Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 17.08.2018, directed the Central Pollution Control Board to inspect each and every industry in the State of Uttarakhand, to ascertain whether or not the norms laid down under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 are being complied with, and thereafter submit its report to this Court.

Result 17
Madras High Court
(ID::2018 HMADP 99)
Global Warming Environment Protecting vs The Chief Secretary Of Tamil Nadu
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
Date of Judgment: 15 November 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 52.94

(Order of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J) The present public interest litigation has been filed by Global Warming Environment Protecting Society (Regd.), represented by its President, Swami Govinda Ramanuja Dasa, for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 23.01.2018; for taking appropriate action to reduce and protect the Air & Water Pollution in all the affected slum areas; dispose of the solid waste at two dumping yards at Kodungaiyur and Perungudi, Chennai and other 12 Corporations in Tamil Nadu; and also to save innumerable number of down trodden people by assuring life saving and healthy living circumstances. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has highlighted the various problems of pollution (both air and water) and has ultimately made a prayer to consider his representation. 3. A perusal of the petition would show that it only deals with environment pollution. The parliament has enacted the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The National Green Tribunal has been constituted to http://www.judis.nic.in adjudicate merely substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), questions arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in the Schedule -I to the Act. Schedule 1 to the Act includes the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner covers entirely within the ambit of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Since there is an effective, efficacious and alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the petitioner should present his petition before the National Green Tribunal. 5. The issue regarding disposal of solid waste is being continuously monitored by National Green Tribunal. In fact, as late as 31.08.2018, the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has given directions regarding disposal of solid waste. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 31.08.2018 made in OA No.606 of 2018 in the matter of "compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016", reads as hereunder.

Result 18
Madras High Court
(ID::2019 HMADP 78)
R.L.Srinivasan vs Union Of India
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
Date of Judgment: 24 July 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
Relevancy Score: 52.82

These metals were found at levels in excess of Indian drinking water standards. Kosasthalal River samples were more contaminated than even legally permitted treated effluent quality. All 5 samples taken from Kosasthalal River had Lead, Mercury, Selenlum and Arsenic in excess of standards for discharge of environment pollutants into inland water bodies 2 out of 5 samples had above standards levels of Zinc and 1 out of 5 had Manganese in excess of standard for discharge into water bodies. Backwater samples too were more contaminated that even legally permitted treated effluent quality. All 5 samples that mercury levels in excess of standards for discharge of environmental pollutants into inland water bodies 4 out of 5 Lead and Copper levels in excess of prescribed standards. 3 out of 5 had above standard levels of Manganese 2 out of 5 had above standard levels of Arsenic and Selenium, 1 out 5 had above standard http://www.judis.nic.in levels of Nickel and Zinc. River water samples taken far from the flyash spread area too were contaminated but to a lesser extent and with fewer metals. 2 out of 3 samples had mercury in excess of standards for discharge of environmental Pollutants into inland water bodies 1 out of 3 samples had Copper and Lead in excess of standards." They also noted several deficiencies in managing the fly ash in the unit and also its effect on the water bodies and surrounding. They also opined that detail study will have to be done for the purpose of assessing the damage caused to the environment and also the remedial measures to be resorted to will be done. 7. This report was considered by the Bench in the order dated 21st December, 2017, where it is observed as follows: "The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that some interim order is warranted, as the report submitted by the Experts discloses a very serious environmental problem which has to be addressed ugently. The learned counsel pointed out that the report shows that heavy metals including Chromium and Mercury are detected not only in the river water and underground water but also even in the vegetables planted in the households.

Result 19
Kerala High Court
(ID::2019 HKERP 9)
Paragon Steels Private Limited vs The State Of Kerala
Honourable Judges N.Nagaresh
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 52.72

Inspections conducted in 2016 found that online stack monitoring system was not functioning. 5. Additional respondents 3 and 4 further contend that no effective steps were seen taken to reduce the sound and air pollution and the pollution is still persisting. When renewal of the consent was refused by the Pollution Control Board, the units filed W.P.(C) Nos.6924/2017 and 7193/2017, and by Exts.P24 and P25 judgments, this Court directed the Pollution Control Board to examine the issue of pollution and take a decision in the matter. Pursuant to Exts.P24 and P25 judgments, the industrial units made some make shift WP(C)Nos.41275/2018 & 4576/2019 arrangements and managed to obtain renewal of consent. Even thereafter, sound and air pollution continued to persist. They contended that issuance of Exts.P40 and P41 renewal of consent is improper, mala fide, ultra vires and per se illegal. They have an unbridled right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to live in a clean environment. They have no alternate efficacious remedy. The conditions laid down in the impugned consent letters violate the provision of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The conditions prescribed by the Pollution Control Board are consistently violated. There is heavy emission of black smoke by the units. Scrap metal are still unloaded in a careless manner causing considerable noise pollution. The permission granted to the units to operate near the residence of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.4576/2019 is in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court in Mumthas K.O. v. Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd. & Others [W.P.(C) No.9289/2015]. The impugned renewal of consent letters, viz. Exts.P40 and WP(C)Nos.41275/2018 & 4576/2019 P41, are therefore liable to be set aside and steps should be initiated to prosecute the industrial units for violating provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 6. The Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Palakkad, filed a report dated 16.01.2019 in W.P.(C) No.41275/2018. The report noted that the main pollutant from the industry is the emission of particulate matter (PM) from the furnace.

Result 20
Madras High Court
(ID::2009 HMADP 31)
Madurai Coats Private Limited vs The Appellate Authority
Honourable Judges P.Jyothimani, Aruna Jagadeesan
Date of Judgment: 12 May 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 20
Relevancy Score: 52.56

Article 51-A(g) imposes "a fundamental duty" on every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural "environment" including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. The word "environment" is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit "hygenic atmosphere and ecological balance". It is, therefore, not only the duty of the State, but also the duty of every citizen to maintain hygenic environment. The State, in particular, has duty in that behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled sovereign power and to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygenic environment. Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment, including their right to live with human dignity, encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Therefore, there is a constitutional imperative on the State authorities and bodies like the Pollution Control Board not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment, but also an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve the environment, man-made and natural." 47. The importance of such message against water and air pollution has again been reiterated by the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi & Anr., [2009] 2 SCC 147 = 2009 (1) CTC 84, wherein His Lordship, P.Sathasivam,J., has made significant and thought provoking remark, as follows: "20. In the case on hand which is also similar to Mohan Meakins Ltd. had commenced its journey in the year 1985, nonetheless lapse of such long period cannot be a reason to absolve the respondents from the trial. In a matter of this nature, particularly, when it affects public health if it is ultimately proved, courts cannot afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water. The message must go to all concerned persons whether small or big that the courts will share the parliamentary concern and legislative intent of the Act to check the escalating pollution level and restore the balance of our environment.

Result 21
Rajasthan High Court
(ID::2003 HRAJP 10)
Vijay Singh Punia vs Raj. State Board For The Prevention And ...
Date of Judgment: 7 March 2003
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
Relevancy Score: 52.52

27. In A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors. (1), the Supreme Court held that right of access to clean drinking water is fundamental right to life. 28. In the instant case, when effluents are freely reaching the canal, the right of the citizens of access, to clean drinking water, is being infringed, with impunity. 29. In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayaudu (Retd.) and Ors. (2), the Supreme Court pressed into service precautionary principle and observed that it is better to err on the side of caution and prevent environmental harm, which may indeed become irreversible. It is not necessary to wait for a scientific study of the adverse effect of effluents, which are going into the canal system. There may not be sufficient time to wait for such reports. The emphasis has shifted to action, without waiting for the scientific evidence, in order to contain the harm to the environment. 30. In M.S. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., (3), the Supreme Court, drawing inspiration from Articles 39(e), 47 and 48A of the Constitution, declared that a duty is cast on the State to secure the health of the people and improve & protect the environment. It observed that lack of concern or effort on the part of various governmental agencies had resulted in spiraling pollution levels. Relying on its earlier decision in Vellore Citizens' Welfare forum v. Union of India (4), it reiterated that one of the principles underlying environmental law, is that of sustainable development. The principle requires such development to take place, which is ecologically sustainable. Two essential features of sustainable development were delineated : (a) the precautionary principle, and (b) the polluter-pays principle. 31. In M.S. Mehta v. Union of India (5), the precautionary principle was applied, since it has been accepted as part of the law of the land. The Supreme Court held that the precautionary principle makes it mandatory for the State Government, to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. In order to protect Badkhal Lake and Surajkund from environmental degradation the Supreme Court banned construction activities with a radius of one to five kilometers therefrom.

Result 22
Kerala High Court
(ID::2007 HKERP 18)
Thilakan vs Circle Inspector Of Police And Ors.
Honourable Judges K. Balakrishnan Nair, T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Date of Judgment: 23 October 2007
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 52.44

11. Some of the salient principles of 'Sustainable Development' as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Obligation to Assist and Co-operate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing countries. We are, however, of the view that The Precautionary Principle' and The Polluter Pays Principle' are essential features of 'Sustainable Development'. The 'Precautionary Principle' in the context of the municipal law - means: (i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (iii) The 'onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialists to show that his action is environmentally benign. 12. The Polluter Pays Principle has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India . The Court observed (SCC p. 246, para 65). ...we are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country. The Court ruled that: (SCC p. 246, para 65): ...once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on. Consequently the polluting industries are 'absolutely' liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measure to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected area. The 'Polluter Pays Principle' as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment, extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution, but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.

Result 23
Jharkhand High Court
(ID::2004 HJHAP 2)
Gajanand Sharma vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.
Honourable Judges P.K. Balasubramanyan, Tapen Sen
Date of Judgment: 25 June 2004
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 52.44

The Pollution Control Board has now filed a counter affidavit stating that the Industry concerned run by respondent No. 9 has not obtained the requisite permissions under the Air Act and the Water Act and it was, in fact, causing pollution, it not having taken the required measures to control pollution and in view of this, respondent No. 9 was called upon to stop the running of the industry, but respondent No. 9 ignored the direction of the State Pollution Control Board and in the circumstances respondent No. 9 was liable to be prevented by this Court from running the industry in the premises in question. On behalf of the State Pollution Control Board, a grievance was voiced that even when the Pollution Control Board takes action under the Act and issues directions to the industries violating the Pollution Control norms and directs the stopping of their working until further orders, the authorities of the Government like the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, or officers under them, do not give any cooperation or help to the State Pollution Control Board and the Board is placed in a helpless position by not being able to enforce its orders and ensure a pollution free environment, or an environment with pollution kept under control and within the permissible limits. This grievance of the State Pollution Control Board cannot be ignored. Experience has shown that Deputy Commissioners and the Superintendents of Police of the various districts are either totally ignorant of the Environment protection laws, or have no idea of their duties and obligation to help the State Pollution Control Board in enforcing those laws and the need to protect the lives of citizens guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This ignorance or calousness of the Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police of various districts in the State cannot be condemned too strongly. At least, now it is hoped that these authorities will wake up to their duties and responsibilities to ensure a clean environment, which is the right of every citizen, which these authorities as public servants, are expected to subserve. They also owe a duty to posterity.

Result 24
Uttarakhand High Court
(ID::2016 HUTKP 3)
Lalit Miglani vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
Honourable Judges Rajiv Sharma, Alok Singh
Date of Judgment: 2 December 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 43
Relevancy Score: 52.43

11. Some of the salient principles of "Sustainable Development", as culled-out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter- Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays principle, Obligation to assist and cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing countries. We are, however, of the view that "The Precautionary Principle" and "The Polluter Pays" principle are essential features of "Sustainable Development". The "Precautionary Principle" - in the context of the municipal law - means : (i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (iii) The "Onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. 12. "The Polluter Pays" principle has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro - Legal Action v. Union of India, J.T. (1996) 2 196. The Court observed, "We are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country". The Court ruled that "Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on". Consequently the polluting industries are "absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas". The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.

Result 25
Madras High Court
(ID::2007 HMADP 28)
V.R.Thangaraj vs State Of Tamil Nadu
Honourable Judges P.D.Dinakaran, P.R.Shivakumar
Date of Judgment: 31 July 2007
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 52.35

6.3. The "Precautionary Principle" - in the context of the municipal law - means: (i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (iii) The "onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. 6.4. "The Polluter Pays Principle" has been held to be a sound principle by the Apex Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 (3) SCC 212. The Court observed: "... we are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining this country". The Apex Court observed that "... once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on". ... "Consequently the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas. The 'Polluter Pays Principle' as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of 'Sustainable Development' and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. The Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.

Result 26
Chattisgarh High Court
(ID::2021 HCHAP 76)
M/S Sms Watergrace Enviro (P) Ltd vs Chhattisgarh Environment ...
Date of Judgment: 6 August 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 52.32

M/S Sms Watergrace Enviro (P) Ltd vs Chhattisgarh Environment ... on 6 August, 2021 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Counsel for Respondent No. 3. Shri Ramakant Mishra, ASG for Respondent No. 4. Shri Rahul Jha, G.A. for the State/ Respondent No. 5. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification dated 03.11.2020 (Annexure P-1) public hearing under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is to take place tomorrow i.e. on 07.08.2021 at Baloda Bazar. It is contended that the reference was made by Respondent No. 3, to open their plant and the project description which was submitted with the Conservation Board was in respect of the hazardous waste management but the reference includes the biomedical waste which cannot be treated at par with hazardous waste as different set of rules govern the field. It is further contended that the petitioner is having bio-medical treatment plant at Raipur and the public hearing on Environmental Impact Assessment Report is within the jurisdiction which the petitioners are already operating. He would submit that hazardous waste treatment includes multiple industrial waste which are generated from the industrial waste whereas the bio-medical waste are different. He further submits that the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016 will not apply to bio-medical waste as per the definition of Rule 2 (d), therefore the public hearing which is scheduled tomorrow may be stayed. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit in the project description the industrial waste and bio-medical waste both were projected and hazardous waste also includes the biological waste as per the definition. Perused the documents. The challenge in this petition is to the letter dated 03.11.2020 (Annexure P-1). Considerable time has passed till date and when the public hearing is scheduled for tomorrow i.e. on 07.08.2021, today at the last moment the stay has been sought for. Prima facie, it appears that the petition for interim relief appears to be grossly delayed and at last moment the public hearing is sought to be arrested.

Result 27
Uttarakhand High Court
(ID::2017 HUTKP 4)
Naveen Chandra Pant And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
Honourable Judges Rajiv Sharma, Sudhanshu Dhulia
Date of Judgment: 28 March 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 118
Relevancy Score: 52.2

Ecology is often confused in the minds of laypersons with the environmental movement, a social interest group concerned with environmental degradation and problems of resource supply to human societies. Applied ecology makes a fundamental contribution to those social and political concerns by identifying environmental problems, gaging their significance, and suggesting potential solutions. Among the environmental issues to which ecology had made an important contribution have been problems of population growth and resource supply, acid rain, eutrophication, consequences of pollution, biological control of crop pests, range management, forestry, and the ecological consequences of nuclear war. From T.R. Mathus's essay on human population growth to recent scientific evaluations of nuclear war, ecology has always been concerned with problems that are important to the affairs of humans. 51. Their Lordships of Hon. Apex Court have repeatedly held that mining operation is hazardous in nature. It impairs the ecology and people's right to natural resources. The entire process of setting up and functioning of a mining operation requires utmost good faith and honesty on the part of the intending entrepreneur. A balance has to be struck. 52. The mining activities have largely affected the local surface drainage as well as the groundwater conditions in area. It has come on record that private respondents have started mining activities in the Forest areas. The ground water condition has been disturbed. The entire area is geo- dynamically sensitive and ecologically fragile. The mountain environment is entirely different from other environments. The State should adopt positive environmental economics. State should also promote the positive environmental values by education, debates etc. The essential objectives of all provisions relating to waste disposal must be protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste. The human health and environment is harmed by the illegal unscientific mining. The Dust, Chemicals spills, harmful fumes, heavy metals and radiation etc. can poison workers and cause life-long health problems. The heavy lifting can lead to injuries to the arms, legs and back.

Result 28
Kerala High Court
(ID::2021 HKERP 60)
P.E.Shamsudheen vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
Relevancy Score: 51.93

22. That apart, it is submitted that the Pollution Control Board has directed M/s Edayar Zinc Ltd., as per Annexure R2(a) communication dated 04.12.2021, to remove the remaining chemicals and to transfer the sludge to the Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility of M/s. KEIL at Ambalamugal. It is also clear from the report of the Pollution Control Board that there are four jarosite ponds in the company compound and three of which are already capped and the fourth one is open; that sides are secured with RCC walls and the bottom is lined with HDPE. But, it is submitted that jarosite is not a chemical and it is only a solid waste material produced during extraction of zinc; that when it is mixed with lime, the resulting stable material is jarofix, which is a non hazardous material. 23. Taking into account the above facts and figures and the undertaking made by M/s. Edayar Ltd., 12 th respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to M/s. Edayar Zinc Ltd. to comply with the timeline specified in the affidavit. Accordingly, we direct M/s. Edayar Zinc Ltd to do so. 24. We also direct the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to ensure that all precautionary measures are complied with by M/s. Edayar Zinc Ltd. till such time as is undertaken for removal of the chemicals, the hazardous chemicals, and other waste materials, and also to ensure that all safety features and measures are followed by the company in the matter of removal of the hazardous chemicals and waste from the factory premises. 25. In view of the timeline undertaken as above, in order to record the compliance, we direct the registry of this Court to post the writ petition before this Court during the third week of February, 2022 for filing compliance report of the Pollution Control Board and M/s. Edayar Zinc Ltd., respectively. This writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE. Rv APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22772/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE GO (RT) NO.1424/2015/LBR DATED 16.10.2015. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION NOTICE TO PUBLIC ISSUED ON 11.05.2018 BY THE 17TH RESPONDENT.

Result 29
Madras High Court
(ID::2023 HMADP 96)
C.Krishnasamy vs The District Collector
Honourable Judges D.Krishnakumar
Date of Judgment: 12 June 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 51.76

Based on the report filed by the Pollution Control Board and the directions issued to the Pollution Control Board to assess the Environmental Compensation, the grievance of the applicant is addressed and the application is disposed of." 5. In pursuant to the order of NGT dated 26.09.2022, the levy of Environmental Compensation was calculated to the tune of Rs.4,60,938/- and the same has been submitted to the Board, vide letter dated 01.11.2022, followed by reminder dated 15.12.2022. The Board has called for clarification on the assessment of Environmental Compensation calculated vide Board's Memo dated 27.12.2022 and clarification report was also submitted to the Board, vide office letter dated 28.12.2022 and the Board has issued Show Cause Notice to the unit under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1987, vide proceedings dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 01.02.2023, with a direction levying Environmental Compensation for the violations caused in respect of Air Pollution and Water Pollution and the Unit, the Environmental Compensation has been remitted by the Unit, vide letter dated 05.05.2023. 6. While that being so, the 4th respondent Unit has applied and obtained "Consent to Operate-Direct" of the Board, vide proceedings dated 29.12.2022, valid till 31.03.2024 for the change in product of (i) various sizes of Blue Metals (1- ½", ¾", ½", ¼") - 116.66 Tons / Day, (ii) M-Sand 50 Tons / Day, (iii) Stone Dust €“ 16.60 Tons / Day as the Unit has produced Air Pollution control measures such as (i) GI Sheet covered with water sprinklers arrangement to the jaw crusher-2 Nos & Vertical Shaft Impactor and (ii) G.I. Sheet cover to the Conveyor Belt Vibratory Screen €“ 2 Nos. and (iii) Water Sprinkler System within the unit premises, vehicular movement, loading and unloading area. 7. The aforesaid written instructions of the 3rd respondent / PCB is taken on record. In the light of the submission made by the respondent Pollution Control https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Board, the prayer sought for by the petitioner has become infructuous.

Result 30
Kerala High Court
(ID::2004 HKERP 4)
Soman vs Geologist
Honourable Judges K. Balakrishnan Nair
Date of Judgment: 24 August 2004
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
Relevancy Score: 51.37

The 'Precautionary Principle' - in the context of the municipal law - means: (i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (iii) The 'onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. 12. 'The Polluter Pays Principle' has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro Legat Action v. Union of India ((l996)3 SCC 212). The Court observered : (SCC p. 246, para 65) '.... we are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country.' The Court ruled that: (SCC p. 246, para 65) '......... once the activity earned on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on', Consequently the polluting industries are 'absolutely' liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence. they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected area'. The 'Polluter Pays Principle' as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution, but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of 'Sustainable Development' and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. 13. The Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and is designed to assist legal professionals, law students, and other professionals such as Chartered Accountants (CA), Company Secretaries (CS), and Cost and Management Accountants (CMA). Patodia Infotech Private Limited utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to generate information based on various laws, acts of India, and judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals of India. However, we do not make any guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided.

Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.

Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.

By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.

Research Results Based on the Query

Related Articles and Sections

Likely Arguments

Information

Menu

Quick Links

Subscribe to Our Newsletter