Kalyaneshwari vs U.O.I. & Ors

8. State of Tamil Nadu in its affidavit has averred that only 13 factories which are handling Asbestos have been brought under the purview of Factories Act, 1948 out of which 3 factories are not working for the past 5 years and in the remaining 10 factories "Membrane Filter Test" is regularly being conducted and the asbestos fibre is found to be within the permissible limits. The workmen of these factories are covered under the Workmen Compensation Act/Employees State Insurance Scheme/Group Insurance of Insurance Company. Thus, their interests are well protected. State of Bihar in its affidavit has stated that presently there is no industrial unit involved in manufacturing asbestos in the State. The use of asbestos product in the State is limited and is not to an extent that the secondary user of asbestos is likely to suffer from Mesothelioma fatalities attributed to asbestos. On the contrary, it also appears from the records that there are 22 cases of asbestosis in Gujarat and three cases of Mesothelioma in Andhra Pradesh. Out of these, persons suffering from Asbestosis or other diseases in Gujarat have not been given any compensation and their cases are pending, while the three persons suffering from Mesothelioma in Andhra Pradesh have been paid the compensation. Thus, it is a matter which essentially has to invite the attention of the Court.

19. After passing of that order the petitioner NGO was further directed to file an affidavit explaining its conduct highlighted by Gujarat High Court in the case of B.K. Sharma (supra). In furtherance to the direction of this Court dated 27th August, 2010, B.K. Sharma, claiming to be working as Secretary of the petitioner, filed a detailed affidavit. In this affidavit, besides reiterating some of the averments made in the Writ Petition, it has been specifically averred that `on the advice of the High Court all the three Writ Petitions were withdrawn so as to make proper representation to the Central Government to consider the objections in the petition.' Specific dispute has also been raised and it is denied that one member of the Society, namely, Shanti Swaroop has worked with the Steel Company ESCL and that only consultancy services were provided by him on part time basis and comparison of his services is sought to be made with that of lawyers and Chartered Accounts working for the company. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in furtherance to the order of this Court dated 27th August, 2010, it is stated that B.K. Sharma was neither working as Advisor/Consultant of ESCL between November- December 2003 to March-April 2004 nor was he looking after the marketing activity of ESCL in Madhya Pradesh. It is stated that during this period he was working in Rajasthan on an important project. First, it is nowhere denied that B.K. Sharma had no connection of any kind with ESCL at any point of time; second, even in the affidavit, necessary particulars have not been given of the company or the project for which he was working in Rajasthan. Still attempt has been made to put the blame on the Gujarat High Court by stating that the Court had not appreciated the facts correctly. Other NGOs had also filed some writ petitions and as such the petition by the petitioner was bona fide. It is also averred, `it is pertinent to mention that neither the Court nor the respondent felt the need for substantiating the allegations with evidence, which is contrary to the settled proposition of law that a person making an allegation needs to prove it'.

16. In light of the above discussion, we do not see any reason to grant any of the prayers made in the Writ Petition except to the extent that we would issue the following directions while disposing of the Writ Petition:

18. Before parting with this file we have to deal with one of the main objections raised by the respondents, as noticed above, particularly, Respondent No. 37 that the present petition is a result of business rivalry and has been filed by the petitioner at the behest of other industries and the entire Writ Petition lacks bona fide and is complete abuse of process of law. The petitioner NGO claims to be a registered body under the Societies Registration Act and non-profit organization, inter alia, working for protection of the environment and other public welfare activities. It also aims at protecting various interests of the common man particularly those who have no means and/or access for redressal of their grievances. It is concerned about the health hazards to workmen resulting from manufacture and use of asbestos and, thus, it prays for complete ban on such activity. As already noticed, this petition was defended by different respondents i.e. the State Government, Union of India and Association of Asbestos Cement Product Manufacturers. In light of this objection and the material placed on record, a Bench of this Court passed the following Order on 13th August, 2010 :

The above observation of the High Court indicates the relationship between the NGOs and the Steel Company, whose name is quoted hereinabove.

The Advocate-on-Record is given discharge. We appreciate the stand taken by Shri Colin Gonsalves in taking a fair stand in the case."

24. Presumably, and as contended, the direct impact of banning of activities of mining/manufacturing relating to asbestos shall result in increase in demand of cast iron/ductile iron production as they are some of the suitable substitutes for asbestos. It is not in dispute that ESCL is one of the largest manufacturer of iron and allied products in India and there was a professional and/or other connections between ESCL and B.K. Sharma on the one hand and B.K. Sharma and Shanti Swarup on the other who, admittedly at present, is involved with the activities of NGO for a considerable time. Thus, it would be a reasonable conclusion to draw that the Writ Petition has been hardly filed in public interest but is a private interest litigation to give rise to business opportunities in a particular field.

28. In view of the preceding discussion in detail and its analysis, we perceive no merit in this petition, as far as prayer of the petitioner for banning of mining and manufacturing activities in asbestos or its allied products is concerned. While rejecting that prayer, we dispose of this petition with the above directions.

29. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, particularly, B.K. Sharma, we hereby issue notice to him as well as the petitioner to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against them and/or in addition/alternative, why exemplary cost be not imposed upon them. Further, we also call upon the petitioner to show cause why the Registrar, Government of NCT, Delhi be not directed to take action against them in accordance with law.

IA No.9 of 2010 in WP (C) No.260 of 2004 We find no reason to implead the applicant as a party respondent in the present petition at this stage. The IA for impleadment is dismissed.