LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

TEXTILE PROCESSORS' ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS JT. SECRETARY MR. NITIN THAKKAR versus THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 04-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-. 
TEXTILE PROCESSORS' ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS 
JT. SECRETARY MR. NITIN THAKKAR 
v. 
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
JANUARY 4, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDG.B.PATTANAIK,JJ.] 
A 
B 
Pollution-Industrial 4fluents dischurged into river-Villages 
aJfected--High Court directing paym,ent of one per ce11t of gross tunzover-
Industries yet to start working and generate profit--ln view of hardship 
C 
expressed by !ndustr;es High Court to go into the matter again-Industries 
to file Review applications before the High Court--/nter.ference under 
Special leave jurisdiction not exercised. 
Constitution of India, I950 : 
Art. I 36-Special Leave jurisdiction-Matter to be gone illlo by High 
Court--Hence not inclined to interfere under special leave jurisdiction. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
617 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.95 of the Gujarat High Court 
in S.C.A. No. 770 of 1995. 
G. Ramaswamy, Dr. A.M Singhvi, Revethy Raghvan, Dr. Sonia Hurra 
and Ganpathy for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. This Special Leave Petition filed by the Association 
seeks leave to file the appeal. The main grievance sought to be brought lo 
our notice by Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned senior counsel is that some 
industries of the petitioner-Association are outside the Zone and effluents 
discharged from these industries are not directly leading to Kharicut Canal 
affecting the water in 11 villages identified by the. High Court. Though the 
High Court had given positive finding in favour of the industries, nonethe-
less the High Court had directed them to contribute 1 per cent of the gross 
turnover. Many an industries which ~the petitioner-Association is represent-
ing, are running in losses. Consequently, each industry is required to pay the 
155 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) I S.C.R. 
A 
amount as directed by the High Court from their corpus and not from the 
profits. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel further points out that the 
units are already having temporary treatment plan and secondary treatment 
plan and they accumulate the effluents so that discharge would not arise. 
B 
Unless the industries start working, it would be difficult to generate income 
by these industries; to comply. with the directions issued by the High Court. 
Therefore, by virtue of the order passed by the High Court practically all the 
industries, as found by the High Court, though were not discharging the 
effluents polluting the water leading to the 11 villages, were prevented to run 
c 
D 
E 
the operations. Consequently, they are put to great loss. In view of these 
averments, we think it is a matter to be gone into not by us but by the High 
Court. We are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the 
Constitution for the reason they are matters for the High Court to be looked 
into. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the application for review 
and in fitness of things, it would be open to each industry affected by the 
order to approach the High Court and place necessary facts before it and seek 
appropriate direction, if deemed necessary. Liberty is given to them to file 
the application as expeditiously as possible. It would be open to the High 
Court to dispose of the same according to exigency. 
The S.L.P. is accordingly disposed of. 
G.N. 
Petition disposed of. 
. ยท-111""' .-
)