LexINDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 146 A INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION B v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS IA N0.36 AND IA N0.44 IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.967 OF 1989 JULY 18, 2011 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] C ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: Abuse of process of law - Chemical industries causing damage to the ecology by throwing untreated toxic sludge in the open - Toxic substances percolated deep into the bowels 0 of earth polluting the acquifers and the sub-terrain supply of water as also rendering the soil unfit for cultivation - Supreme Court by its judgment dated 13.2.1996 directing to close down the industrial units and attachment of their plants, machinery and all other immovable assets as also directing remediation E at the cost of the polluters industrial units - By order dated 4.11.1997, the cost of remediation assessed to Rs.37.385 crores - Review and curative petitions dismissed - Several interim applications filed by the industrial units also dismissed - Again two I As filed by the industrial units- HELD: This is a classic example of abuse of the process of law and is indeed F a very serious matter concerning the sanctity and credibility of the judicial system in general and of the apex Court in particular - All the issues raised in the instant applications had already been argued and determined by an authoritative judgment of the Court - The applications have been filed to G avoid liability to pay the amount for remediation and costs imposed by the Court on the 'polluter pays' principle - Permitting the parties to reopen the concluded judgment of the Court by filing repeated interlocutory applications is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have far reaching H 146 } INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION v. 147 -~ ..+,..,., UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ' ~ adverse impact on the administration of justice - The A applicants had adequate opportunity and were heard by the Court on a number of occasions - The applications being dev.oid of any merit are dismissed with costs of Rs. 1 O lakhs .,, which would be utilised for carrying out remedial measures \ in the affected area - Environmental Law - 'Polluter pays' B principle - Costs. Finality of judgment - Chemical industrial units causing damage to ecology - Judgment by Supreme Court directing closure- of industrial units and remediation at their cost - c Review and curative petitions dismissed - Industrial units keeping on filing interim applications - Judgment of the Court not complied with - HELD: It should be presumed that every proceeding has gone through infiltration several times before -<. the decision of the apex Court - The controversy between the parties must come to an end at some stage and the judgment D of the apex Court must be permitted to acquire finality - Various cases of different jurisdictions discussed and exceptions indicated - A final judgment of the Court cannot be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications where all possible legal remedies have been fully exhausted - In a E country governed by the rule of law, finality of the judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment. Permitting the parties to reopen the L concluded judgments of the Court by filing repeated interlocutory applications is clearly an abuse of the process F of law and would have far reaching adverse impact on the administration of justice - The principles laid down in judgments of various cosurts summed up - Maxim, 'interest 4, republicae ut sit finis litium' - Explained - Environmental law. UNJUST ENRICHMENT: G Unjust enrichment -Concept of - Discussed - Held: Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another - In the instant case, by the judgment dated H 148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. A 13.2.1996 Supreme Court fixed the liability of the polluter industries - It was on the lines of a preliminary decree - By order dated 4. 11. 1997 the Court accepting the ascertainment, fixed the amount at Rs. 37.385 crores - The liability to pay arose on 4.11.1997 - This was in the lines of a final decree B pursuant to a preliminary decree - Thus, the position of the polluter industrial units was of a Judgment-debtor' - The industrial units did not pay the amount but sought to postpone the payment and in the meantime utilised the said amount and ther
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.