RE BHAVANI RIVER-SAKTHI SUGARS LTD. versus RE BHAVANI RIVER-SAKTHI SUGARS LTD.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 30-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RE: BHAYANI RIVER-SAKTHI SUGARS LTD. 
A 
JULY 30, 1998 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
• 
B 
Environmental Pollution :-
• 
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 
Bhavani River-Pollution-Discharge of objectional effluents from 
distillery into the River and adjoining areas-High Court disposing of writ c 
petition on consent of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board_:_Held, matters 
I 
involving greater public interest should not normally be decided merely ·on 
consent of Pollution Control Board-The manner in which Pollution Control 
Board gave its consent unmindful of grave consequences depricated-Order 
a/High Court set aside-Matter remanded to High Court for fresh disposal 
D 
in accordance with law and the directions given by this Court-High Court 
' • 
would consider the reports and suggestions of NEERJ and would decide 
whether the Industry may be permitted to have a test run-High Court would 
monitor the case till such time as is considered necessary by it. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3564 of E 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.97 of the Madras High Court 
in W.P.No. 17333 of1995. 
Harish N. Salve, K.K. Venugopal, R. Mohan, S. Muralidhar, P.H. Parekh, F 
Ms. V. Mohana, Ms. Sunita Sharma, C. Paramasivam, Rakesh K. Sharma and 
V.G. Pragasam for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
G 
). 
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Division 
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 17333 
of 1995 dated 17th July, 1997. 
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record H 
929 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A we are satisfied that the matter before the High Court was one of public 
"' 
interest and required an in-depth examination by the Court. The Division 
Bench of the High Court, it appears to us, failed to appreciate the true 
significance of the matter regarding the need to arrest the unabated pollution, 
which had become a health hazard and environmental enemy because of 
B 
discharge of objectionable effluents from the distillery into Bhavani River 
and adjoining areas. The High Court fell in error to dispose of the writ petition 
..
merely on the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Matters like 
this, which involve greater public interest should rtot normally be decided 
merely on consent of the Pollution Control Board. We are somewhat unhappy 
about the manner in which the Pollution Control Board gave its consent 
c unmindful of the grave consequences, which have been amply demonstrated 
before us. The order of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. We, 
accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court 
and remand the writ petition to it for its fresh disposal in accordance with 
law. 
D 
During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, certain affidavits 
and undertakings were filed on behalf of the industry, respondent No. 6, and 
on 29th January, 1998 we gave certain directions including the direction for 
the closure of the operation of the Industry (respondent No.6) on or before 
2nd February, 1998 because of continuing pollution from its distillery and 
sugar division. We also directed inspection of the industry and the site adjacent 
E to it by NEERI, who was also asked to submit a report to this Court whether 
the pollution control devices have been installed by the Industry and proper 
steps taken to control pollution in accordance with the provisions of the 
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter Act) or 
not. NEERI was also directed to inspect the surrounding areas with a view 
to assess damage, caused due to discharge of effluent by the Industry and to 
F indicate the cost of restitution. 
Pursuant to the directions issued by us on 29th January, 1998, NEERI 
has submitted two reports. The first inspection report was submitted on 9th 
March, 1998 and the second on 1st May, 1998. We have perused those reports 
and since we are remanding the writ petition to the High Court for its disposal, 
G it appears appropriate to us, to request the High Court to consider those 
reports and the suggestions made therein while passing orders in the Writ 
Petition from time to time. 
Mr. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Industry, 
..._ 
submits that remedial steps have already been taken as suggested by this 
H Court as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.