LexM.C. MEHTA & ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 312 M.C. MElITA & ANR. E'l'C. v. UNION OF INDIA & <llS. E'l'C. FEBRUARY 17, 1986 [P.N. BHAGWATI, C •. J., D.P. MADON AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] Public Interest Litigation and enviro!ll!l!nt law - Power of t~ Supreme Court to interfere under Article 32 of the Constitution to permit the restarting of caustic chlorine plant and under what conditions explained - Constitution of Environment Court, need for - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 section 40(2) of Factories Act, 1948 section 430(3) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1~57 and section 133(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. r Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., a public limited company having its reguterecl in Delhi runa an enterprise called Shriram Pooda and Fertilizer Industries, which has several units eagqecl in the 1181111factnre of caustic soda, chlorine, hydro- chloric acid, 1table bleaching powder, superphosphate, vanaa- pati, aoap, 1ulphuric acid, alua anhydrous sodium sulphate, high tut hypochlorite and active earth, These various units are all Ht up in a si.ngle COIQ>lU situated in approxillately 76 acru and they are surrounded by thicltly populated colonies Inch 11 Punjabi Bagh, Weat Patel Nagar, Karampura, Asholt .. Vihar, · Trinqar, Shaetri Nagar and within a radius of 3 • kil011etrea frOll thil complex there is a population of approrl- ~ utely 200,000. The cau1tic chlorine plant wu coraissioned in the year 1949 and it has a strength of about 263 employees' includiag executives, aupenisora, staff and work.era. In the Wike of the Bhopal gas tragedy realising the lluardoue character of eau1tic chlorine plant of Shrirma, the Labour Mini1try of the Government of India cOlllliasioned •tecbnica•, a f ira of couul tatl, Scientists and Engineer&• of the United Xiaidoa who set out the areas of concern and potential probl-, in their Report. Thereafter, the Dehi~'" Adliiautration coutituted an Expert Comittee ·under the Chair.a.hip of Mr.· llanohan Singh. This Coiiimittee Jllede M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. 313 ~l various recmmiendations in regard to safety and pollution control measures with a view to minillising ltasard to the workmen and the public. On December 4, 1985, a major leakage of oleua gas toolt place frOll one of the units of Shri Ru and this lealtags . affected a large number of persons, both aongst the workmen and the public and an Advocate practising in tlte Tis .Basari Court died on account of inltalation of oleo11 gas. Thia leakage resulted. from the borsting of tlte tank containing oleum gas aa a result of the collapse of the structure on which it vu 1111unted and it· created a scare uongst tlte people residing in that ares. Hardly had the pe0ple got out of the sltoclt of this disaster, when within two days, another leakage, though thia time a minor one toolt place as a result of escape of oleum gaa froa the joints of a. pipe. The 1-diste response of the Delhi Adminilitration to these two leakages was the ulting of, an order dated 6th December '85 by the District Magistrate Delhi, under sub-section (1) of section 133 of tlte Code of Criainal "'· Procedure, directing and requiring Shriraa within two' days from the date of issue of the order to cease carrying on the occupation of 1111111ufacturing and processing ltasardona and letltal chemicals and gases ilicluding chlorine, oleua, auper- chlorine, phosphate etc. at their establishllent in Delhi and within 7 days to remove such chemical• and gases from the said place and not again to lteep or store tltea at the s- place or to appear on 17th December 85 in ~he Court of District Magistrate, Delhi to allow cause why the order should not .be enforced. In the meantime, the "Agarwal Coami~tee" appointed •• by the Supreme Court . visited the caustic chlorine plant and submitted a Report in which it pointed · out various inadequacies in the plant and expressed the opinion that it waa not possible to eliminate ltasard to the public so long as the plant remained at.the present location. Since there were conflicting opinions put forward in regard to the question whether the caustic chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted withont any real ltasard or . risk to the woria.en and the public at large, another Expert Comrlttee called "Nilay Chondhary Coamittee• vu constituted by the Supreme Court, by its order dated 18th .Decaaber 85 • . -I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.