F.B. TARAPORAWALA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus BAYER INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 09-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
F.B. TARAPORAWALA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
BA YER INDIA LTD. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
t' 
En~ironment Protection Act, 1986: Section 3(3). 
··~ 
Environmental lav.-Building plans submitted by builders--lntervention 
C by lndustrialists-Cliemical Manufacturers-Directions given by High 
Court-Prohibition of construction within one kilometer of radius from 
chemical f actories-£ff ect of-Risk to residents already residing within that 
radius-Sil/ eguards for-Relocation of industries-Direction for Constitution 
of Central Authority for examining relocation. 
· 
D 
Eitvironmental Law--Sustainable development. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 21. 
" 
Right to life-Right to reside-/ndustrial area-residents of-f'robability 
E of accident in factories-Protective measures for residents. • 
Wiih a view to obtaining orders in connection with their building 
plans, some builders filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court. Some 
of the leading chemical manufacturers of the country including respon· 
' 
dents fded intervention application in these proceedings on the ground 
F that the area in question had been reserved for industrial use. The High 
Court issued various directions in this regard including the one that there 
shall be' a prohibition in respect or any further construction within 1 kni. 
radius from the chemical factories. The respondent-chemical manufac-. 
turers preferred appeals before this Court challenging the directions 
issued by the High Court. This Court being of the prime f acie view that by 
G giving immunity to the industrialist in the impugned directions, injustice 
has been caused to the respondents of the locality inasmuch as prohibition 
of constrtiction within om~ km. radius in a crowded place like Thane did 
adversely affect the right to reside in the locality, leaving at the same time 
the large· number of inhabitants already residing exposed to the risk. Thus, 
H with a view to safeguarding the interests of the respondents in the event of 
680 
.• 
~-
-
F.B. TARAPORAWALAv. BAYER INDIA LTD. 
681 
some accident happening in the factory, it was considered desirable that A 
chemical manufacturers should either (i) obtain ownership of the area; or 
(ii) shift their factories to such place where residential area could be kept 
wide apart from the factory premises. However, respondent's response to 
both these options was negative on. account of huge financial involvement 
as well as feasibility. Further in view of the fact that this Court has neither B 
the expertise nor was it in possession of various information which shall 
be required, to decide one way or the other so far as relocation was 
concerned, it was considered desirable to leave this matter to be examined 
by an Authority. 
Disposing the appeals, this Court 
. 
HELD : 1. The concept of "sustainable development" does call upon 
one and all to see to the maintenance of balance between development and 
its sustenance in future. [ 684·CJ 
c 
2. In this case the problem touches the core of Article 21 of the D 
Constitution inasmuch as the very lives of the inhabitants living around 
the factories in question are in great jeopardy so much so that any 
probable accident in the factories may see annihilation of large number of 
inhabitants. May be the accident does not take place. But no risk can be 
taken. However, relocation does need a deeper probe because of the various E 
factors which would be required to be gone into. Such an exercise can 
usefully be taken by an Authority. Accordingly it is directed that the 
Central Government shall constitute an Authority, as visualised by section 
3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 within one month from the 
receipt of this order. The said Authority shall examine and decide all the 
relevant issues after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the F 
concerne_d parties. It shall submit its report within 3 months. [684·D·G] · 
Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Fornm v. Union of India, [1996] 57 S.C.C. 
647, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7086 of G 
1994 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.94 of the Bombay High 
Court in R.P. No. 1485/91 in W.P. No. 4497 of 1990. 
H.N. Salve, Aron Jaitley, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, P. Samda.ni, Vinod L. H 
I 
682 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Desai, K.J. John, D.N. Mishra, S.V. Deshpande, A.M. Khanwilka(, D.M. 
B 
Nargolkar, N.H. Seervai, P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.