Case: Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union Of India


Decision:
0[ds]So far as the polluted water in the wells was concerned, the Court noted the offer made by the learned counsel for the respondents that they will themselves undertake theof the wells. The R.P.C.B. was directed to inspect and indicate the number and location of the wells to beimmediate concern, said the Court, was the appropriate remedial action. The report of the R.P.C.B. presented a disturbing picture. It stated that the respondents have deliberately spread the hazardous material/sludge all over the place which has only heightened the problem of its removal and that they have failed to carry out the Order of this Court dated April 4, 1990. Accordingly, the Court directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India to depute its experts immediately to inspect the area to ascertain the existence and extent ofed sludge, to suggest the handling and disposal procedures and to prescribe a package for its transportation and safe storage. The cost of such storage and transportation was to be recovered from thePursuant to the above Order, a team of experts visited the area and submitted a report along with an affidavit dated March 30, 1992. The report presented a highly disturbing picture. It stated that the sludge was found inside aso at four places outside the shed but within the premises of the complex belonging to the respondents.With a view to find out the connection between the wastes and sludge resulting from the production of H acid and the pollution in the underground water, the Court directed on 20th August, 1993, that samples should be taken of the entombed sludge and also of the water from the affected wells and sent for analysis. Environment experts of the Ministry of Environment and Forests were asked to find out whether the pollution in the well water was on account of the said sludge or not. Accordingly, analysis washe experts submitted the report on November 1, 1993.In view of the aforesaid reports, all of which unanimously point out theTaking up the objections urged by Sri Bhat first, we find it difficult to agree with them. This writ petition is not really for issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions against the respondents but is directed against the Union of India, Government of Rajasthan and R.P.C.B to compel them to perform their statutory duties enjoined by the Acts aforementioned on the ground that their failure to carry out their statutory duties is seriously undermining the right to life (of the residents of Bichhri and the affected area) guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. If this Court finds that the said authorities have not taken the action required of them by law and that their inaction is jeopardising the right to life of the Citizens of this country or of any section thereof, it is the duty of this Court to intervene. If it is found that the respondents are flouting the provisions of law and the directions and orders issued by the lawful authorities, this Court can certainly make appropriate directions to ensure compliance with law and lawful directions made thereunder. This is a social action litigation on behalf of the villagers of Bichhri whose right to life, as elucidated by this Court in several decisions, isly infringed by the respondents as is established by the various Reports of the experts called for, and filed before, this Court. If an industry is established without obtaining the requisite permission and clearances and if the industry is continued to be run in blatant disregard of law to the detriment of life and liberty of the citizens living in the vicinity, can it be suggested with any modicum of reasonableness that this Court has no power to intervene and protect the fundamental right to life and liberty of the citizens of this country. The answer, in our opinion, isWe are also not convinced of the plea of Sri Bhat that R.P.C.B. has been adopting a hostile attitude towards his clients throughout and, therefore, its contentions or the Reports prepared by its officers should not be relied upon. If the respondents establish and operate their plants contrary to law, flouting all safety norms provided by law, the R.P.C.B. was bound to act. On that account, it cannot be said to be acting out of animus or adopting a hostile attitude.nt violations call for repeated orders. That is no proof of hostility. Moreover, the Reports of R.P.C.B. officials are fullyed by the Reports of Central team of experts and of NEERI. We are also, not prepared to agree with Sri Bhat that since the Report of NEERI was prepared at the instance of R.P.C.B., it is suspect. This criticism is not only unfair but is also uncharitable to the officials of NEERI who have no reason to be inimical to the respondents. If, however, the actions of the respondents invite the concern of the experts and if they depict the correct situation in their Reports, they cannot be accused of any bias. Indeed, it is this Court that asked NEERI to suggest remedial measures and it is in compliance with those orders that NEERI submitted its interim Report and also the final Report. Similarly, the objection of Sri Bhat that the Reports submitted by the NEERI, by the Central team (experts from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India) and R.P.C.B. cannot be acted upon is equally unacceptable. These Reports were called by this Court and several Orders passed on the basis of those Reports. It was never suggested on behalf of Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 that unless they are permitted tothe experts or the persons who made those Reports, their Reports cannot be acted upon. This objection, urged at this late stage of proceedingsafter a lapse of several yearsis wholly unacceptable. The persons who made the said Reports are all experts in their field and under no obligation either to the R.P.C.B. or for that matter to any other person or industry. It is in view of their independence and competence that their Reports were relied upon and made the basis of passing Orders by this Court from time tofind it difficult to read the said sentence as referring to the storage of the remaining about 1700 MT of sludge. When the storage of 720 MT itself took up all the six tanks provided by the respondent, where was the remaining 1700 tonnes stored ? Except relying upon the said sentence repeatedly, Sri Bhat has not been able to tell us where this 1700 MT has been stored, whether in tanks and if so, who constructed the tanks and when and how were theyd. He is also not able to tell us on what dates the remaining sludge was stored. It is evident that the aforesaid sentence occurring in clause 2(b) refers to the proper sealing and completion of the said tanks wherein 720 MT of sludge was stored. If, in fact, the said 1700 MT has also been entombed, it was not difficult for the respondents to give the particulars of the said storage. We are, therefore, unable to agree with Sri Bhat that the subsequent Reports which repeatedly and uniformly speak of the presence of sludge within and outside the complex of the respondents should not be accepted. It may be recalled that the Report of the team of Central Experts was submitted on November 1, 1993 based upon the inspection made by them in September/October, 1993. To the same effect is the affidavit of R.P.C.B. dated October 30, 1993 and the further affidavit dated December 1, 1993. These Reports together with the report of NEERI clearly establish that huge quantities of sludge were still lying around either in the form of mounds or placed in depressions, of spread over the contiguous area and covered with local soil to conceal its existence. It is worth reiterating that the said sludge is only part of the pernicious discharges emanating from the manufacture of H acid. The other part, which is unfortunately not visible now (except in its deleterious effects upon the soil and underground water) is the mother liquor produced in enormous quantities which has either flowed out of percolated into theSo far as the responsibility of the respondents for causing the pollution in the wells, soil and the acquifers is concerned, it is clearly established by the analysis Report referred to in the Report of the Central experts team dated November 1, 1993 (Page 1026 of Vol. II). Indeed, number of Orders passed by this Court, referred to hereinbefore, are premised upon the finding that the respondents are responsible for the said pollution. It is only because of the said reason that they were asked to defray the cost of removal and storage of sludge. It is precisely for this reason that, at one stage, the respondents had also undertaken theof polluted wells. Disclaiming the responsibility for the pollution in and around Bichhri village, at this stage of proceedings, is clearly an afterthought. We accordingly held and affirm that the respondents alone are responsible for all the damage to the soil, to the underground water and to the village Bichhri in general, damage which is eloquently portrayed in the several Reports of the experts mentioned hereinabove. NEERI has worked out the cost for repairing the damage at more than Rupees forty crores. Now, the question is whether and to what extent can the respondents be made responsible for defraying the cost of remedial measures in these proceedings under Article 32. Before we advert to this question, it may perhaps be appropriate to clarify that so far as removal of remaining sludge and/or the stoppage of discharge of further toxic wastes are concerned, it is the absolute responsibility of the respondents to store the sludge in a proper manner (in the same manner in which 720 MT of sludge has already been stored) and to stop the discharge of any other or further toxic wastes from its plants including Sulphuric Acid Plant and to ensure that the wastes discharged do not flow into or through the sludge. Now, turning to the question of liability, it would be appropriate to refer to a few decisions of thedeclared the law, the Constitution Bench directed the parties and other organisations to institute actions on the basis of the law so declared. (A distinction between the Oleum Gas Leak Case and the present case may be noticed. That was not a case where the industry was established or was being operated contrary to law as in the present case. That was also not a case where the orders of lawful authorities and Courts were violated with impunity as in this case. In this case, there is a clear violation of law and disobedience to the orders of this Court apart from the orders of the lawful authorities. The facts stated above and findings recorded by us hereinafter bear it out. This Court has to ensure the observance of law and of its Orders as a part of enforcement of fundamental rights. That power cannot beare convinced that the law stated by this Court in Oleum Gas Leak Case is by far the more appropriate oneapart from the fact that it is binding upon us. (We have disagreed with the view that the law stated in the said decision is obiter). According to this rule, 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.Once the law in Oleum Gas Leak Case held to be the law applicable, it follows, in the light of our findings recorded hereinbefore, that respondents Nos. 4 to 8 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 the sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected area (by affected area, we mean the area of about 350 ha. indicated in the sketch at Page 178 of NEERI Report) and also to defray the cost of the remedial measures required to restore the soil and the underground water sources. Sections 3 and 4 of Environment (Protection) Act confers upon the Central Government the power to give directions of the above nature and to the above effect. Levy of costs required for carrying out remedial measures is implicit in Sections 3 and 4 which are couched in very wide and expansive language. 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 thisaccording to this principle, the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry. Sections 3 and 5 empower the Central Government to give directions and take measures for giving effect to this Principle. In all the circumstances of the case, we think it appropriate that the task of determining the amount required for carrying out the remedial measures, its recovery/realisation and the task of undertaking the remedial measures is placed upon the Central Government in the light of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It is, of course, open to the Central Government to take the help and assistance of State Government, R.P.C.B. or such other agency or authority, as they thinkReport of NEERI has worked out the cost at more than Rupees forty cores. The estimate of cost of remedial measures is, however, not a technical matter within the expertise of NEERI officials. Moreover, the estimate was made in the year 1994. Two years have passed by since then. Situation, if at all, must have deteriorated further on account of the presence ofand dispersal of the sludgein and around the complex of the respondents by them. They have been discharging other toxic effluents from their other plants, as reported by NEERI and the central team. It is but appropriate that an estimate of the cost of remedial measures be made now with notice to the respondents, which amount should be paid to Central Government and/or recovered from them by the Central Government. Other directions are also called for in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above