Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
– 2. This petition is under Art. 32 of the Constitution by Subhash Kumar
for the issue of a writ or direction directing the Director of Collieries, West Bokaro Collieries
at Ghatotand, District Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar and the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. to
stop forthwith discharge of slurry/sludge from its washeries at Ghatotand in the District of
Hazaribagh into Bokaro river. This petition is by way of public interest litigation for
preventing the pollution of the Bokaro river water from the sludge/slurry discharged from the
washeries of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.… The petitioner has asserted that Tata Iron and
Steel Co., respondent No. 5 carries on mining operation in coal mines/washeries in the town
of Jamshedpur.
- The petitioner has alleged that the surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry is
discharged as an effluent from the washeries into the Bokaro river which gets deposited in the
bed of the river and it also gets settled on land including the petitioner’s land bearing Plot No.
170.… The continuous discharge of slurry in heavy quantity by the Tata Iron & Steel Co.
from its washeries posing risks to the health of people living in the surrounding areas and as a
result of such discharge the problem of pure drinking water has become acute. The petitioner
has asserted that in spite of several representations, the State of Bihar and State Pollution
Control Board have failed to take any action against the Company, instead they have
permitted the pollution of the river water. He has further averted that the State of Bihar
instead of taking any action against the Company has been granting leases on payment of
royalty to various persons for the collection of slurry. He has, accordingly, claimed relief for
issue of direction directing the respondents which include the State of Bihar, the Bihar
Pollution Control Board, Union of India and Tata Iron & Steel Co., to take immediate steps
prohibiting the pollution of the Bokaro river water from the discharge of slurry into the
Bokaro river and to take further action under provisions of the Act against the Tata Iron &
Steel Co. - In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner’s main
allegation that the sludge/slurry is being discharged into the river Bokaro causing pollution to
the water and the land and that the Bihar State Pollution Board has not taken steps to prevent
the same is denied. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Bihar State Pollution Board
it is asserted that the Tata Iron & Steel Co. operates open case and underground mining. The
Company in accordance to Ss. 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974 applied for sanction from the Board to discharge their effluent from their outlets.
The Board before granting sanction analysed their effluent which was being watched
constantly and monitored to see that the discharge does not affect the water quality of the
Bokaro river adversely. In order to prevent the pollution, the Board issued direction to the
Director of Collieries to take effective steps for improving the quality of the effluent going
into the Bokaro river. The State Pollution Board imposed conditions requiring the Company
to construct two settling tanks for settlement of solids and rewashing the same. The Board
directed for the regular samples being taken and tested for suspended solids and for the
97
communication of the results of the tests to the Board each month. The State Board has
asserted that the Company has constructed four ponds ensuring more strong capacity of
treating effluent. The Pollution Board has been monitoring the effluent. It is further stated that
on the receipt of the notice of the instant writ petition the Board carried out an inspection of
the settling tanks regarding the treatment of the effluent from the washeries on 20th June, - On inspection it was found that all the four settling tanks had already been completed
and work for further strengthening of the embankment of the tanks was in progress and there
was no discharge of effluent from the washeries into the river Bokaro except that there was
negligible seepage from the embankment. It is further stated that the Board considered all the
aspects and for further improvement it directed the management of the collieries for removal
of the settled slurry from the tanks. The Board has directed that the washeries shall perform
dislodging of the settling tanks at regular intervals to achieve the proper required retention
time for the separation of solids and to achieve discharge of effluents within the standards
prescribed by the Board. It is further asserted that at present there is no discharge from any of
the tanks to the Bokaro river and there is no question of pollution of the river water or
affecting the fertility of land. In their affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5,
they have also denied the allegations made in the petition. They have asserted that the
effective steps have been taken to prevent the flow of the water discharge from the washeries
into the river Bokaro. It is stated that in fact river Bokaro remains dry during 9 months in a
year and the question of pollution of water by discharge of slurry into the water does not arise.
However, the management of the washeries have constructed four different ponds to store the
slurry. The slurry which settles in the ponds is collected for sale. The slurry contains highly
carboniferous materials and it is considered very valuable for the purpose of fuel as the ash
contents are almost nil in the coal particles found in the slurry. Since, it has high market
value, the Company would not like it to go in the river water. The Company has taken
effective steps to ascertain that no slurry escapes from its ponds as the slurry is highly
valuable. The Company has been following the directions issued by the State Pollution
Control Board constituted under the 1974 Act. - On a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 it
appears that the petitioner has been purchasing slurry from the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 for
the last several years. With the passage of time he wanted more and more slurry, but the
respondent-company refused to accept his request. The petitioner is an influential
businessman, he had obtained a licence for coal trading, he tried to put pressure through
various sources on the respondent-company for supplying him more quantity of slurry but
when the Company refused to succumb to the pressure, he started harassing the Company. He
removed the Company’s slurry in an unauthorised manner for which a Criminal Case No. 178
of 1987 under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act was registered against the petitioner and Pradip Kumar his brother
at Police Station Mandu, which is pending before the Sub-Judge, Hazaribagh. One Shri Jugal
Kishore Jayaswal also filed a criminal complaint under Sections 379 and 411 of I.P.C. against
the petitioner and his brother Pradip Kumar in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Hazaribagh, which is also pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class
Hazaribagh. The petitioner initiated several proceedings before the High Court of Patna under
Article 226 of the Constitution for permitting him to collect slurry from the raiyati land.
98
These petitions were dismissed on the ground of existence of dispute relating to the title of the
land. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No. 887 of 1990 in the High Court of Patna
for taking action against the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh for implementing the Full
Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Kundori Labours Co-operative Society Ltd. v.
State of Bihar [AIR 1986 Pat. 242], wherein it was held that the slurry was neither coal nor
mineral instead it was an industrial waste of coal mine, not subject to the provisions of the
Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Consequently the collection of
slurry which escaped from the washeries could be settled by the State Government with any
person without obtaining the sanction of the Central Government. The petitioner has been
contending before the High Court that the slurry which was discharged from washeries did
not belong to the Company and he was entitled to collect the same. Since the respondentcompany prevented the petitioner from collecting slurry from its land and as it further refused
to sell any additional quantity of slurry to him, he entertained grudge against the respondentcompany. In order to feed fat his personal grudge he has taken several proceedings against the
respondent-company including the present proceedings. These facts are quite apparent from
the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed before the Court. In fact, there is
intrinsic evidence in the petition itself that the primary purpose of filing this petition is not to
serve any public interest instead it is in self interest as would be clear from the prayer made
by the petitioner in the interim stay application. The petitioner claimed interim stay
application. - Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the
Apex Court. It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the Fundamental rights of
a citizen. Right to life is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution and it includes
the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything
endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have
recourse to Art. 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may
be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition under Art. 32 for the prevention of pollution is
maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or
journalists. But recourse to proceeding under Art. 32 of the Constitution should be taken by a
person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. Public
interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its
personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Art. 32 are entertained, it would amount
to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from
this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Art.
32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation
contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a
group of persons or community who are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on
account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of
this Court under Act 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights
of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It
is duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not
obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation.
99 - In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this petition has been filed
not in any public interest but for the petitioner’s personal interest and for these reasons we
dismiss the same and direct that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
