CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMITI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on August 13,1990

CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMITI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA II VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

STATE VS. CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA [LAWS(SC)-2010-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND ARYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
SPARSH SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI REGD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1993-12-15] [REFERRED]
ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-1-56] [REFERRED]
Y R MIDHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2002-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
JAYMAL JAYANLILAL THAKORE VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(GJH)-1997-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
NISHATGANJ VYAPAR MANDAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1993-5-88] [REFERRED TO]
E SHARMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1991-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
R K ANAND VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-1996-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
V SHANKAR REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1992-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ABDUL AZEEZ AMER SYED NAYEEMULLAH VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(APH)-1997-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
K PRABHAKAR REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1998-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
K P LEELA VS. SECRETARY LAW GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1999-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU MOR VS. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(APH)-2002-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
A LAKSHMISAGAR VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-1992-4-3] [REFERED TO : (1990) 4 SCC 4 41 ,31 ILR 1990 KANT 4242 41]
LEENA FERNANDES VS. PLANNING AUTHORITY MANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1992-7-19] [DISTINGUSHED ,DIST.; 15.]
SURVODAYA MILLS WORKERS UNION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
A S VIJAYARAGHAVAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1995-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
MSPL LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
FORUM FOR HUMAN LEGAL AND ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
NATURE LOVERS MOVEMENT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1999-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
SOCIETY FOR CLEAN ENVIRONMENT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1992-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
MANUEL THEODORE DSOUZA VS. N R [LAWS(BOM)-1999-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE R S VERMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
Prof. A. Lakshmisagar VS. State of Karnataka [LAWS(KAR)-1992-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
G. PRAVINA VS. NARENDRA MODI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
M C RAVISHANKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-182] [REFERRED TO]
T N RUGMANI VS. C ACHUTHAMENON [LAWS(SC)-1990-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
SAMATHA HYDERABAD ABRASIVES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1997-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1991-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
JANATA DAL VS. H.S.CHOWDHARY [LAWS(SC)-1992-8-32] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
KANPUR INCOME TAX BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1998-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
NABIN CHANDRA KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1999-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
MUDDURESHWARA MINING INDUSTRIES VS. P G R SCINDIA [LAWS(KAR)-1993-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-1997-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
HUMLOG TRUST PATNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
GORRELA DURGA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2010-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI LAL VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-216] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
MAHEBUBKHAN MAHMADKHAN SINDHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-286] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
R.K. ANAND AND THREE ORS. VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND TEN ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1996-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL DANDRIYAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-139] [REFERRED TO]
ALI MOHAMMED VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ASEEM CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1994-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
B.A. MISRI VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2013-10-21] [REFERRED]
PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA VS. EAST KOLKATA WETLANDS MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(CAL)-2008-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2015-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
IMRAN SULEMAN QURESHI VS. MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIR & RECONSTRUCTION BOARD & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-223] [REFERRED]
UJWALA J PATIL VS. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-202] [REFERRED]
ADVOCATE AFTAB HILALI SHAH & ORS VS. STATE OF J&K & ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2013-10-27] [REFERRED]
S.H. THAKUR VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2016-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BAHADUR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-114] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANT KUMAR BEHERA VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHARLAL SHANMUGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-854] [REFERRED TO]
MYTHRI RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VS. SECRETARY, [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
P. PUGALENTHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-317] [REFERRED TO]
SATTA PANCHAYAT IYAKKAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-270] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU HEALTH EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-469] [REFERRED TO]
A. VIJAYA SEKARAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-650] [REFERRED TO]
DHAKSHNAMOORTHY VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-320] [REFERRED TO]
G.VIJAYAKUMAR VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-391] [REFERRED TO]
V.ANNARAJA VS. SECRETARY TO THE UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-399] [REFERRED TO]
C.L.ANTO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE VATTUKULAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-374] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. - (1.)A letter written to this Court was treated as a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. The letter written by Chhetriya Pardushan Muleti Sangharsh Samiti, Sarnath, alleged environmental pollution in the area. It was also alleged therein that the Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills and refinery plant are located in the green belt area, touching three villages and the Sarnath temple of international fame. The smoke and dust emitted from the chimeys of the mills and the effluents discharged from these plants were alleged to he causing environmental pollution in the thickly populated area and were proving a great health hazard. It was further stated that the people were finding it difficult to eat and sleep due to smoke and foul smell and the highly polluted water. It was further alleged that the lands in the area had become waste, affecting crops and the orchards damaged. Diseases like TB, Jaundice and other ailments were stated to be spreading in an epidemic form. The growth of children was affected. It Was further alleged that the schools, nursing homes, leprosy homes and hospitals situated on the one kilometre long belt touching the oil mills and the plant were adversely affected. It was stated that licences had been issued to one richman Dina Nath for these industrial units thereby risking the lives of thousands of people without enforcing any safety measure either to cure the effluents discharged from the plants or to check the smoke and the foul smell emitted from the chimneys. The whole area was expected to be ruined due to any explosion or gas leakage.
(2.)In the background, the petitioner prayed for necessary directions to check the pollution, and also enclosed a printed leaflet allowing malpractices and corruption on the part of the proprietor of these industrial units apart from polluting the atmosphere. ,
(3.)As mentioned hereinbefore, the complaint was made by the said Samiti stated to be a social organisation about environmental pollution and ecological imbalance being caused by the two plants and thereby exposing the population to health hazards and life risk which was, therefore, considered to be a matter of great public importance. It is necessary to recognise the danger in order to strike a balance between the quality of life to be preserved and the economic development to be encouraged. Dealing with this aspect in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCR 279, it has been stated that whenever applications for licences to establish new industries are made in future, such applications should be refused unless adequate provision has been made for the treatment of trade effluents flowing out of the factories. So, letter was treated as a writ petition and notice was issued, counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent ,No. 3 being the proprietor of Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills.' Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCR 57, wherein this Court underlined the importance of satisfactory verification of allegations. The Court was asked to be ever vigilant against abuse of its process and there was need for appropriate verification. There is a statute for controlling pollution. It is well settled that if there is a statute prescribing a judicial procedure governing a particular case, the Court must follow such procedure. It is not open to the Court to bypass the statute and evolve a different procedure at variance with it. It is further asserted on behalf of the respondents that between the petitioner Sita Ram Pandey and respondent No. 3, there was a long rivalry. According to respondent No. 3, the petitioner is an anti-social-element and his only aim was to extract money from the people like respondent No. 3 as in the present case.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.