etition C No 381 of 1998
8 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
SK Sinha for the Petitioner
D Goburdhan Ms A Subhashini KK Lahiri Ms Lira Goswami and DN Misra for the Respondents
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by SINGHJ We heard the arguments in detail on 1312
1990 and dismissed the petition with costs amounting to Rs 5000 with the direction that the reasons shall be delivered later on
We are accordingly delivering our reasons
This petition is under Article 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 from  Steel Co Ltd to stop forthwith discharge of slurrysludge 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 sludgeslurry discharged form the washeries of the Tata Iron  Steel Co Ltd The petitioner has alleged that the Parliament has enacted the hereinafter referred to as the Act  providing for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water for the establishment of Board for the prevention and control of water pollution
Under the provisions of the Act the State Pollution Control Board constituted to carry out functions prescribed under Section 17 of the Act which among other things provide that the Board shall inspect sewage or trade effluents and plants for the treatment of sewage and trade effluents and to review plans specifications or other data set up for the treatment of water and to lay down standards to be complied with by the persons while causing discharge of sewage or sullage
Section 24 of the Act provides that no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous noxious or polluting matter to enter into any stream or well which may lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution
The petitioner has asserted that Tata Iron and Steel Co respondent No5 carries on mining operation in coal mineswasheries in the town of Jamshedpur
These coal mines and collieries are known as West Bokaro Collieries and the Collieries have two coal washeries where the coal after its extraction from the mines is brought and broken into graded pieces and there 9 after it is processed for the purpose of reducing its ash contents
A chemical process is carried out which is known as froth floatation process 
Under this process the graded coal is mixed with diesel oil pine oil and many other chemical ingredients and thereafter it is washed with the lacs of gallons of water
The end water is washed coal with reduced quantity of ash content fit for high graded metallurgical process for the purposes of manufacture of steel
In the process of washing large quantity of water is discharged through pipes which carry the discharged water to storage ponds constructed for the purpose of retaining the slurry
Along with the discharged water small particles of coal are carried away to the pond where the coal particles settle down on the surface of the pond and the same is collected after the pond is de watered
The coal particles which are carried away by the water is called the slurry which is ash free it contains fine quality of coal which is used as fuel
The petitioner has alleged that the surplus waste in the form of sludgeslurry 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 No170
He was further alleged that the sludge or slurry which gets deposited on the agricultural land is absorbed by the land leaving on the top a fine carbonaceous product or film on the soil which adversely affects the fertility of the land
The petitioner has further alleged that the effluent in the shape of slurry is flown into the Bokaro river which is carried out by the river water to the distant places polluting the river water as a result of which the river water is not fit for drinking purposes nor it is fit for irrigation purposes
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 became acute
The petitioner has asserted that inspite 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 averred 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 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 10 The respondents have contested the petition and counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos 2 4 and 5 State of Bihar State Pollution Board Directors of Collieries and Tata Iron  Steel Co Ltd In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents the petitioner s main allegation that the sludgeslurry 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 Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Prevention Control of Pollution Act 1974 applied for sanction from the Board of 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 discharges 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 the 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 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 storing capacity of 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 1988
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 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 settle slurry from the tanks
The Board has directed that the washeries shall perform desludging 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 of the Bokaro river and there is no question of pollution of the river water of affecting the fertility of land
In their affidavits files on behalf of the respondent 11 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 infact river Bokaro remains dry during 9 months in a year and the question of pollution of water by discharge of slurry into the river does not arise
However the management of the washeries have constructed from different ponds to store the slurry
The slurry which settles in the pounds is collected for sale
The slurry contains highly carbonaceous 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 at 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 the facts as appearing from the pleadings and the specific averments contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Pollution Control Board of Bihar prima facie we do not find any good reason to accept the petitioner s allegation that the water of the river Bokaro is being polluted by the discharged of sludge or slurry into it from the washeries of the respondent company
On the other hand we find that the State Pollution Control Board has taken effective steps to check the pollution
We do not consider it necessary to delve into greater detail as the present petition does not appear to have been filed in public interest instead the petition has been made by the petitioner in his own interest
On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos 4 and 5 it appears that the petitioner has been purchasing slurry from the respondent 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 173 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 12 the Sub Judge Hazaribagh
One Shri Jugal Kishore Jayaswal also filed a criminal complaint under Section 379 and 411 of the IPC 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
These petitions were dismissed on the ground of existence of dispute relating to the title of the land
The petitioner filed a writ petition CWJC No 887 of 199o 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 Cooperative Society Ltd  etc
vs State of Bihar  Ors
 AIR 1986 Patna 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 respondent company 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 respondent company
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
Infactthere is intrinsic evidence in the petition itself that the primary purpose of filling 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 claim interim relief from this Court permitting him to arrestcollect sludgeslurry flowing out of the washeries of the respondent Nos 4 and 5 and with a direction to the State of Bihar its officers and other authorities for not preventing him from collecting the sludgeslurry and transporting the same
The prayer for the interim relief made by the petitioner clearly indicates that he is interested in collecting the slurry and transporting the same for the purposes of his business
As already state a Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that the slurry was not coal and the provisions of the Mines and Mineral Regulation and Development Act 1957 were not applicable the State Government was tree to settle the same 13 and the Tata Steel  Iron Co had no right to collect the slurry which escaped from its washeries
The respondent company filed an appeal before this Court
During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal the petitioner filed the present petition
The appeal preferred by the Tata Iron  Steel Co Ltd and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd was allowed by this Court and judgment of Patna High Court was set aside
The judgment of this Court is reported in Judgments today Vol 3 wherein it has been held that the slurrycoal deposited on any and continues to be coal and the State Government has no authority in law to deal with the same and the slurry deposited on the Company s land belongs to the Company and no other person had authority to collect the same
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 live 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 article 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 preceeding under article 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 or person to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity
if such petitions under Article 32 are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the Court preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioner from this Court
Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under article 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 which 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 article 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 14 of the public interest litigation see Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India   Pandey vs State of West Bengal  at 331 Ramsharan Autyanuprasi  Anr vs Union of India  Ors 1989 Suppl
1 SCC 251 and Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti vs State of UP  Ors 1990 4 SCC 449
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 dismissed the same and directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs 5000 as costs
These costs are to be paid to the respondent Nos 34  5


Summary:
The appellant is a registered society of agriculturists of Tamil Nadu who are entitled to riparian rights of Cauv ery river in cultivating their lands over the years
It seeks from this Court that directions be given to the Union of India Respondent No 1 to refer the dispute relating to the water utilization of the Cauvery river and equitable distribution thereof in terms of section 4 of the Inter State Water Disputes Act 1956
Also to issue a mandamus to the State of Karnataka not to proceed to construct dam projects reservoirs across the said river or its tribu taries within the state and to restore supply of water to the State of Tamil Nadu as envisaged in the agreements dated 18th February 1924
In this petition State of Karnataka Tamil Nadu Kerala and Union Territory of Pondicherry have also been added as Respondent No 2 to 5 respectively
In the year 1970 the State of Tamil Nadu requested Union of India to set up a Tribunal for settling the ques tion of equitable distribution of waters under sec
3 of the Act
A suit was filed under Article 131 of the Constitution in this Court but was withdrawn on political consideration so as to evolve a mutual and negotiated settlement
According to the petitioners it is submitted that sever al attempts were made through bilateral and multilateral talks for a negotiated settlement but no solution could be reached and the problem continued 84 The State of Karnataka filed several affidavits opposing the maintainability of the petition and the Union of India has also opposed the application on the basis of section 11 of the Act
The petition was filed on November 18 1983 and on 121283 the Court directed issue of notice
The State of Tamil Nadu supported and associated itself with the peti tioner seeking the same relief on 6587 the State also filed an affidavit in this Court supporting the contention of the petitioner and also effectively joined the dispute by adopting the stand of the petitioner
The mainstream of the river Cauvery has its origin in the hills of Coorg
Some tributaries of the river have origin in the State of Kerala and others in the State of Karnataka
The river flows for about 300 Kms
in the State of Karnataka and almost for an equal span within the State of Tamil Nadu before joining the Bay of Bengal
It is an inter state river as per Article 262 Entry 56 of List I of 7th Schedule of the Constitution so the regulation and development of the said river is under the control of the Union of India and is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest
Article 262 of the constitution provides for adjudica tion of disputes 1 with respect to the use distribution and control of the waters 2 Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court or any other Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute as is referred to in clause 1
As per section 3 of the Act if it appears to the Govern ment of any State that a water dispute with the Government of another State has arisen or likely to arise and the interests of the State or of any of the inhabitance thereof are likely to be affected prejudicially the State Govern ment in the prescribed manner request the Central Government to refer the Water dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication
Allowing the petition this Court HELD This dispute in question is one over which the people and the State of Tamil Nadu have been clamouring for more than 20 years
The matter has been pending in this Court for the last 6 12 years
It is on 85 record that over these years 26 sittings of the Chief Minis ters of Karnataka Tamil Nadu have been there and in some of these even the Central Ministers of Water Resources have also participated but have not succeeded in bringing about negotiated settlement
No serious attempt seems to have been made to have the dispute resolved
This Court has given several adjournments to accommodate the attempts for negoti ations because of the nature of the subject matter
Ulti mately on 26290 order by the Court was given that the Writ Petition would be listed for final hearing on 24490 since sufficient opportunity and time to these two states at the behest of the Central Government or otherwise has been given to arrive at negotiated settlement
On 26th April 1990 the Union of India also informed the Court that Central Govern ment did not want to undertake any further negotiations and left the matter for the disposal by this Court
89G H 90B C 91D There was no reason for the dispute to protrect for such a long period
Any further delay in taking statutority mandated action is bound to exasperate the feelings further and lead to more bitterness
91H 92A Section 4 of the Act indicates that on the basis of the request referred to in Section 3 if Central Government is of the opinion that water dispute cannot be settled by negotiation it is mandatory for the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute
92B The Central Government to fulfil the statutory obliga tion notify in the official Gazette the constitution of an appropriate tribunal for the adjudication of the Water Dispute
The same should be done within a period of one month