LexSUBHASH KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUBHASH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. JANUARY 9, 1991 [K.N. SINGH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Sections 17, 24, 25 and 26. A B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21-Right to live includes right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air-A citizen has a right C to invoke Article 32 for removing pollution. Article 32-Writ petition in public interest-Allegation that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company are polluting the river Bokaro by discharging slurry from their washeries into the river- No material to substantiate the allegations-Held petition is not in D public interest but for personal interest. Public Interest Litigation-Should be ·resorted to by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society-Personal interest can- not be enforced in the garb of public interest litigation-Entertainment of petitions satisfying personal grudge is abuse of process of the Court- E Duty of the court is to discourage such petitions. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court by way of public interest litigation alleging that the respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) were polluting the river Bokaro by discharging surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry as F effluent from their washeries into the river making the river water unfit for drinking and irrigation purposes thereby causing risk to the health of the people; the State of Bihar and the State Pollution Control Board have failed to take appropriate steps for prevention of the pollution and instead the State of Bihar has granted leases on payment of royalty to various persons for collection . of slurry. Accordingly the petitioner G prayed for directions to the respondents to take immediate steps pro- hibiting the pollution of the river and to take legal action against TISCO under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The petitioner also claimed interim relief from this Court that he should be permitted to collect sludge/slurry flowing out of washeries of the respondents. H 5 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R. A The respondents contested the petition denying the petitioner's ,..\..__ allegations. Bihar State Pollution Board asserted that directions have been issued to the Bokaro Collieries to take effective steps for improving the quality of the emuent going into the river Bokaro and that the TISCO Company has been granted permission to discharge their effluents from their outlets in accordance with sections 25 and 26 of the B 1974 Act. On behalf of TISCO and the Bokaro Collieries it was con- tended that all effective steps have been taken to prevent the pollution and they have complied with the instructions of the State Pollution ~ Board. ' By an order dated 13.12.1990, this Court dismissed the writ peti- -( tion'with costs. ' c ,.,.. I Giving reasons for dismissal of the petition, this Court, HELD: 1. Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fonda- T mental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court. It provides for an extra- D ordinary remedy to safeguard the fundamental rights of a citizen. Right to life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen bas right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which / E may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution should be .. taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the community. Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by F a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and ~ enmity. If such petitions under Article 32 are entertained it would -1 amount to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Pllblic -interest G litigation contemplates legal procee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.