MODERN TERRY TOWEL LTD. versus SOLANKI MULJIBHAI REVABHAI HARIJAN VYAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 05-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MODERN TERRY TOWEL LTD. 
v. 
SOLANKI MULJIBHAI REVABHAI HAR!JAN VY AS AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 2004 
B 
[RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR , J.] 
Environment Law : 
Environment pollution-Factory discharging trade ejjluent outside 
C factory premises-Writ Petition-Order of closure of factory--Court 
directing unit to deposit certain amount as a condition for restarting a unit 
not generating any ejjluent--Subsequently in terms of agreement, 
affected persons compensated, ejjluent treatment plant set up and pollution 
control norms satisfied-Disposal of writ petition without any order 
D regarding refund of amount deposited-Application for refund of amount 
deposited-Disposed of directing that it could be revived after cases 
pending before Supreme Court are disposed of-On appeal, held: Affected 
persons having been satisfied with the compensation paid, High Court 
should have refunded the amount treating the case separately-Hence, 
E order of High Court set aside and matter remitted back for fresh 
consideration. 
Appellant-industrial unit was discharging trade effluents outside 
the factory premises. A resident within the vicinity of the unit filed a 
F writ petition. High Court ordered closure of the unit and also directed 
the appellant to deposit certain amount as a condition for restarting 
a unit not generating trade effluents. Thereafter, in terms of the 
agreement entered between the parties the affected persons were paid 
damages, effluent treatment plant was set up and pollution control 
norms were satisfied. This agreement was filed before the court on the 
G basis of which High Court disposed of the writ petition allowing the 
same to be withdrawn. However, it did not make any order regarding 
the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant before the Court. 
Appellant filed an application for refund of the amount deposited. High 
Court disposed of the application directing that it could be revived 
H after the cases pending before the Supreme Court are disposed of. 
102 
f 
.. 
-
MODERN TERRY TOWEL LTD. v. S.M.R.H. VY AS [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ.] 103 
Hence the appeal. 
A 
Appellant-industrial unit contended that the writ petition having 
been withdrawn, the concerned persons who had suffered damage 
having been compensated, the question of continuing to keep the said 
amounts deposited in Court would not arise, and that this case stands B 
entirely on different footing from other cases pending before this 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Degradation of environment or damage, if any, suffered C 
by the residents residing in the vicinity having been satisfied with the 
compensation paid to them in terms of the agreement which was 
produced before the High Court, the Effiuent Treatment Plant having 
been set up and with pollution control norms having been satisfied, the 
High Court ought to have considered the question of refund of the D 
amounts deposited with the Court and should have treated this case 
on a different footing altogether and not connected with other cases 
pending before this Court. Hence, order of High Court is set aside and 
matter is remitted back to it for fresh consideration. [I 05-B-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2991 of E 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.200lofthe Gujarat High 
Court in c:Appln. No. 4361/2001 in C.Appln. No. 1074 of 1998. 
R.F. Nariman, Ms. Manik Karanjawala for the Appellant. 
Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent Nos. 2-3. 
E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent No. l. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. : Leave granted. 
F 
G 
A writ petition was filed in the High Court by a resident within the 
vicinity of a unit of the appellant on the allegation that the appellant was H 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A letting out its trade effiuents outside factory premises. On 16.12.1996 the 
High Court appointed a Committee to make a report regarding discharge 
of effiuent. On the filing of Report by that Committee a show cause notice 
was issued to the appellant on 26.12.1996 in the light of the contents 
thereof. Thereafter, the High Court on 9.1.1997 directed the closure of the 
B factory. In the course of the order made by the High Court it was noticed 
that the appellant could not say that there was no discharge of trade 
effiuent. The High Court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 
75,000 and also ordered its dosure. On 16.1.1997 by another order made 
the High Court dir

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