LexGOPI AQUA FARMS AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A GOPI AQUA FARMS AND ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA JULY 29, 1997 B [SUHAS C. SEN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] Constitution of India 1950: Article-32. Article 32-Acqua F ann~Filing Writ petition challenging the notifica- C tion dated 19.2.91 after the decision of this cowt involving the notification was pronounced-Writ petitioners contending that they were not parties in the earlier case before this cowt-Held-The w1it petitions not maintainable-En- vironment (protection) Act 1986. D Code of Civil Procedure 1908 : Order I Rule 8-Held-ln a Public Interest Litigation there is no question of invoking the principle of order I Rule-8-Public Interest Litiga- tion. The writ petitioners who were not parties to the proceedings in the E case of Jagannath v. Union of India filed the present writ petitions nuder Article 32 stating that the decision was not binding on them. Their case was that the cause of action arose after and because of the Judgment in Jagan- nath case. The petitioners also challenged the impugned notification dt. 19.2.91 as ultra vires Environment (protection) Act 1986 and also violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. It was also urged F on behalf of the petitioners that Aqua Farms are not industry. Dismissing the writ petitions, this court HELD : 1.1. The present writ petitions are not maintainable. This is an attempt to get rid of the judgment passed by this court in the case of S. G Jagannath v. Union of India and others and if the prayers made in the writ petitions are granted the judgment will be robbed of its efficacy and the Aqua farms will carry on their business merrily notwithstanding the direc- tion to the contrary given in that Judgqient. Writ not maintainable. [125-H; 126-A-B; 127-G] H Jagamzath v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 2 sec 87, referred to. 124 GOPIAQUAFARMSv. U.O.I.[SEN,J.] 125 1.2. Investigation into facts relating to shrimp culture was made and A reports were obtained from various sources like NEERI, Central Board for prevention and Control of Water pollution and various other authorities. The case of Jagannath' received widest µublicity and a large number of shrimp farmers and organizations representing them appeared in court and placed their points of view about the dispute. Public notices B were issued in large number of news papers all over India in English as also in local language and also informing about the next date of hearing as 17.10.95. Special care was taken to notify the individual aqua farms to issue public notices in daily news papers which have circulation in the coastal areas, and the case was heard over a span of two years. A few persons cannot come up and say that they were not parties in that case C and that the judgment does not bind them and that the case should be heard all over again. [126-C-D; 127-E-F] Makhan Lal Waza & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., [1971] 3 SCR 832, relied on. 2. The notification dated 19.2.91 was the basis of the judgment in Jagannath case anci there is no explanation as to why the validity of the. notification was not challenged at the time when Jagannath case was heard. [128-A-B] D 3. In a Public Interest Litigation the question of invoking the prin- E ciple of Order 1 & Rule 8 of the Civil procedure code will not apply.[126-E] CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 107 of 1997 Etc. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) F T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General, Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, K.K. Venugopal, R. Mohan, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, K.R. Nambiar, M.C. Mehta, Ms. Seema Midha, A . Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, V.C. Pragasam, R.C. Verma, A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Manju Kainth, G M.P. Vinod, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Aparna and Rajgopal for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. These writ petitions under Article 32 must be dismissed in H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A limine. This is nothing but an attempt to get rid of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others, [1997) 2 SCC 87 by a side wind. A large number of review petitions have been filed against that judgment and are now pending to be heard. If the prayers made in the writ petitions are granted, the ju<lgment will be robbed of its B efficacy and the Aqua farms will be able to carry on their business merrily . notwithstanding the direc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.