M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 12-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.C. MEHTA 
.) 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
,.. 
JANUARY 12, 1988 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH. JJ.) 
In re. control, prevention and abatement of pollution of Ganga 
water-In Kanpur, U. P. -Responsibility of the municipal body in 
respect thereof 
c 
This Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., 119871 4 
S.C.C. 463 had issued certain directions with regard to the industries in 
which the business of tanning was being carried on near Kanpur on the 
-l
banks of the River Ganga. On that occasion, the Court had directed 
that the case in respect of the municipal bodies and the industries which 
were responsible for the pollution of the water in the river Ganga would 
D be taken up next, and accordingly, the Court took up for consideration 
this case against the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika, since it was found that 
"' 
Kanpur was one of the biggest cities on the banks of the river Ganga. 
Under the laws governing the local bodies, the nagar Mahapalikas 
and Municipal Boards were primarily responsible for the maintenance 
E of cleanliness in the areas under their jurisdiction and the protection of 
;,..; 
their environments. Under the water (Prevention and Control of Polin-
lion) Act, 1974 (the 'Water Act') provisions had been made for the 
establishment of Boards for the prevention and control of water polio- ' 
lion, etc. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, contained provisions y 
relating to the control, prevention and abatement of pollution of water. 
F 
Although Parliament and the State Legislature had thus enacted 
-,!( 
laws, imposing duties on the Central and State Boards and the munici-
palities for the prevention and control of pollution of water, no ade-
quate action had been taken pursuant to many of their provisions. 
274.50 million litres a day of sewage water was being discharged into 
G the river Ganga from the city of Kanpur, which was the highest in the 
~ 
State of U .P. Sewer cleaning had never been done systematically in 
Kanpur, and there was mal-functioning and choking of the city sewer-
--> 
age. Pollution of water in the river Ganga was of the highest degree at 
Kanpur, and a large extent of misery, sickness and death due to infecti-
ous diseases arose out of water supplies. The petitioner filed this writ 
H petition as a Public Interest Litigation against the public nuisance 
530 
\ ' 
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 
531 
caused by the serious pollution of the river Ganga, for protecting the 
A 
lives of the people using the Ganga water. 
Disposing of the petition, the Court, 
HELD: The petitioner before the Court was no doubt not a 
riparian owner. He was a person interested in protecting the lives of the 
people who made use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his 
right to maintain the petition could not be disputed. The nuisance 
caused by the pollution was a public nuisance, wide-spread in range and 
indiscriminate in its effect, and it would not be reasonable to expect any 
··particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the 
community at large. The petition was entertained as a Public Interest 
Litigation. On the facts and.in the circumstances of the case, the Court 
was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to move the Court in 
order to enforce the statutory provisions which imposed duties on the 
municipal authorities and the Boards under the water Act, on account 
of failure of which to obey the statutory duties for several years, the 
water in the River Ganga at Kanpur had become so much polluted that 
it could no longer be used by the people for drinking or bathing. The 
Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur had to bear the major responsibility for 
the pollution of the river near the Kanpur city. The construction of 
certain works, undertaken under the Ganga Action Plan at Kanpur to 
impron the sewerage system and prevent pollution of the water in the 
river Ganga, were going on at a snail's pace. The Court expected the 
authorities concerned would complete those works within the target 
dates mentioned in their counter-affidavits. The Court noticed that the 
Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika had not yet submitted its proposals 
for sewage treatment works to the State Board constituted under 
Water Act, and directed that the mal:apalika should submit its pro-
posals to the State Board within six months (from the date of this 
judgment). [551H; 552A-F] 
The Court further directed; 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(i) The Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika should take action under .the 
prov

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.