Case: Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan &amp; Others Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

Court. 26. It is commonly conceded before us that the corpus money stands completely transferred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health Research (for short ‘DHR’) and they have also taken over the management of BMHRC. 27. Thus, it is necessary for us to deal with the various prayers made in the above application and the background leading to the filing of such application in its correct perspective. We have to take a balanced approach which would further the cause of accurate research and better medical care in favour of the gas victims. The Union of India has already passed a resolution directing the ICMR to establish a permanent research centre at Bhopal which, as already noticed, has already been established in the name of NIREH. This itself is sufficiently indicative of the intent of the Government of India to provide and procure necessary machinery for research related works as well as to further the process of getting much needed scientific manpower and research, which can contribute in research activities relating to gas affected persons. 28. The Advisory Committee is performing its advisory function continuously. Definite replies had been filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Government of India ensuring their full cooperation and complete implementation of the recommendations of these Committees, so as to provide adequate medical facilities to the affected persons and the completion of the research work. 29. As already noticed, suggestions made by the Monitoring Committee in its Report dated 29th March, 2011 have been broadly accepted by the State of Madhya Pradesh, except for two of such proposals. The reservation of the State Government on the issue of assistance of non-governmental organisation and experts from outside in assessing the quality of care and research work, appears to be for valid and good reasons. We wish to make it clear that the recommendations of the Empowered Monitoring Committee, as afore-mentioned, shall not be deemed to have been accepted by this Court, except where directions in that behalf have been specifically passed by this Court in the operative part of this order. 30. Vide letter dated 12th April, 2012, the ICMR while making a reference to the order of this Court dated 19th July, 2010 had informed that the administrative control of BMHRC, after winding up of BMHT, had been transferred to the DHR, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and all other matters, including administrative, financial and legal, pertaining to BMHRC would be dealt with by the DHR. All documents were also admitted to have been transferred, except the corpus of the Trust. It was suggested that the Corpus of BMHT with accumulated interest along with original documents/receipts be transferred to the Secretary, DHR-cum-DG, ICMR and it was also stated that BMHT had been wound up as per the directions of this Court with effect from 19th July, 2010. 31. The BMHT had been constituted under the Deed of Trust dated 11th August, 1998. Since then, it had carried on its activities under the guidance of the Monitoring Committee, the Advisory Committee and as per the orders of this Court. The BMHT was to remain irrevocable for all times and the Trust Deed was to be construed and have effect in accordance with the Indian laws as per the terms and conditions of the Trust. 32. In terms of the clauses of this Deed, initially the Trust was to stand possessed of the Trust property and income thereof. This possession was to remain both during and after termination of the said period of eight years for the purposes and objects stated therein, which primarily were related to providing for infrastructure of the hospital and grant of medical aid to the poor, without distinction of race, caste or creed to the gas affected victims. 33. The accounts of the Trust had been audited and the chartered accountants submitted their Report dated 15th July, 2011 pointing out no irregularity or objections to the accounts of BMHT. This Report was submitted to the Members of the Governing Body of the BMHT. In the opinion of the Chartered Accountants, the balance sheet of the state of affairs of BMHT upto 19th July, 2010 along with accounts giving the required information, gave the true and fair view and was in complete conformity with the accounting principles generally accepted in India. Similar remarks have been made in regard to the Income and Expenditure Account wherein an excess of income over expenditure can be seen for the said period. 34. It would still be in the interest of BMHT itself, particularly when the management and the corpus of the BMHT have been transferred to the Union of India that the Government agency, besides regularly inspecting the accounts of the BMHT, also gave their final report for the period ending July 2010. The Auditor General of the State of Madhya Pradesh would be the appropriate authority to inspect the accounts of the BMHT regularly even when the management and corpus thereof is transferred to the Union of India. 35. Having noticed in detail the factual aspect of this case, the suggestions made by various applicants, recommendations of the expert bodies and keeping in mind the very object for which the present Public Interest Litigation was instituted, we are of the considered view that issuance of certain specific directions are inevitably called for. These orders would be to ensure proper progress and implementation of the ‘Relief and Rehabilitation programme’ for the penurious gas victims as well as to ensure that the research work is result-oriented and continued with exactitude. We make it clear that these directions shall be in aid of the various orders passed by this Court from time to time in the present petition and not in derogation thereto. In other words, all orders passed by this Court with specific reference to the orders mentioned above, shall be read mutatis mutandis to these directions and shall remain in force. The orders-cum-directions are:

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]35. Having noticed in detail the factual aspect of this case, the suggestions made by various applicants, recommendations of the expert bodies and keeping in mind the very object for which the present Public Interest Litigation was instituted, we are of the considered view that issuance of certain specific directions are inevitably called for. These orders would be to ensure proper progress and implementation of the ‘Relief and Rehabilitationfor the penurious gas victims as well as to ensure that the research work is result-oriented and continued with exactitude. We make it clear that these directions shall be in aid of the various orders passed by this Court from time to time in the present petition and not in derogation thereto. In other words, all orders passed by this Court with specific reference to the orders mentioned above, shall be read mutatis mutandis to these directions and shall remain in force.Having noticed in detail the factual aspect of this case, the suggestions made by various applicants, recommendations of the expert bodies and keeping in mind the very object for which the present Public Interest Litigation was instituted, we are of the considered view that issuance of certain specific directions are inevitably called for. These orders would be to ensure proper progress and implementation of the ‘Relief and Rehabilitationfor the penurious gas victims as well as to ensure that the research work is result-oriented and continued with exactitude. We make it clear that these directions shall be in aid of the various orders passed by this Court from time to time in the present petition and not in derogation thereto. In other words, all orders passed by this Court with specific reference to the orders mentioned above, shall be read mutatis mutandis to these directions and shall remain in