BEFORE

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

SUBHASH KUMAR……………………………………………..(APPEALANT)

Versus

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS……………………………………..(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE JUDGE OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .....................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ............................................................................................. 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................ 11
Q1? WHETHER THE WATER OF RIVER BOKARO IS POLLUTED BY DISCHARGE OF
SLURRY FROM WASHERIES OF RESPONDENT COMPANY?.....................................11
1.1)violation of section 17 water(prevention and control of pollution…………………….. 12
1.2)violation of section 24 water(prevention and control of pollution……………………..13
Q2)Whether the petitioner is allowed to collect slurry?……………………………………15
2.1) slurry is industrial waste……………………………………………………………….16
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS:
1. Member secretary Karnataka v. Shri Krishna spinning and weaving
2. MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas leak)
3. Mahmud ali v. State of Bihar and Anr.
4. Abdul Hamid v. The Gwalior rayon Silk Mfg.
5. Kundori Labour Coorperation Society Ltd. V. State of Bihar

STATUTES:
1) Article 226 of Constitution of india,1950
2) Water (Prevention and control of pollution)Act,1974:Sections 17 and 24
3) Article 32-Writ petition in public interest

DATA BASES:
1. Manupatra
2. Jstor
3. SCC Online

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA, UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1 IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE INACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IS VIOLATING
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS GUARANTEED

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by
the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 5

1. Subhash Kumar filed the petition as a Public Interest Litigation to prevent pollution of the
river Bokaro's water due to the discharge of sludge/slurry from Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
washeries. The Petitioner claimed that the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978
was adopted by Parliament to ensure the wholesomeness of water and to avoid pollution. The
State Pollution Control Board was established to carry out the tasks set forth in Section 17 of the
Act. The Board is recommended to check trade effluents and sewage treatment plants, as well as
analyse data and requirements for water treatment. No one should deliberately cause or authorise
any dangerous or contaminating matter in the river, according to Section 24 of the
aforementioned statute. The Petitioner claimed that the Tata Iron and Steel Company operated
mining activities in Jamshedpur, also known as the West Bokaro Collieries.
2. The Petitioner claimed that the waste from the washeries is dumped as effluent in the Bokaro
River, where it is deposited on the riverbed and settles on the property, including Plot No.170,
which is Petitioner's land. He further stated that the sludge discharged in this manner is absorbed
by agricultural soil, leaving a fine carboniferous coating. He further claims that the outflow of
sludge from the washeries pollutes the water, rendering it unfit for irrigation or drinking. Despite
a number of assertions.
3. Instead of taking action, the State Pollution Control Board neglected to take action against the
Company, allowing water pollution, and the State of Bihar is providing a lease on the payment of
royalty for slurry collection to various parties.
4. As a result, he has sought relief for the issuance of a direction directing the Respondents,
which include the State of Bihar, the Bihar Pollution Control Board, the Union of India, and Tata
Iron & Steel Co., to take immediate steps to prevent the pollution of the Bokaro river water
caused by the discharge of slurry into the Bokaro river, as well as to take further action against
the Tata Iron & Steel Co. under the Act. The defendants' counter-affidavit totally denies that
sludge is discharged through washeries into the river Bokaro, polluting it, and that the Board has
taken no action.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 6

Q1. Whether the water of river bokaro is polluted by discharge of slurry from washeries of
Respondent company?

Q2. Whether petitioner is allowed to collect slurry?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 7

Q1. Whether the water of river bokaro is polluted by discharge of slurry from washeries of
Respondent company?

It is humbly submitted by petitioner to court that River bokaro is polluted by discharge of slurry
from washeries.It leaves the carboniferous products on soil which affects fertility.It poses hevy
amount of risk to health

Q2. Whether petitioner is allowed to collect slurry?

It is humbly submitted by petitioner to court that petitioner is allowed to collect slurry from his
land as all the slurry is getting collected in petitioners land and due to which petitioner can
collect slurry

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 8

Q1) Whether the water of river bokaro is polluted by discharge of slurry from washeries of
Respondent company?
River bokaro is polluted by discharge of slurry from washeries.It leaves the carboniferous2
products on soil which affects fertility.It poses heavy amount of risk to health.Tata releases all its
waste into water and state board is also neglecting it.Due to this,water cannot be used for purpose
of drinking and it is also harmful to health of people.Thus petitioner files an petition under article
323 of Indian constitution because anything which endangers quality of life in derogation of
laws,a citizen has right to recourse to article 32 as it was affecting river bokaro petition was filed.
Thus all pollution and contamination of water should be inspected and treated by state board and
should be looked down by them.

1.1) Violation of section 17 water (prevention and control of pollution)

2
Carboniferous is a term that means "coal-bearing."
3

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by
the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 9

Article 174 of water (prevention and control of pollution) is the act violated here.
Here the respondent is discharging slurry into river bokaro from its washeries by which it can
cause harm to health of general public. The Petitioner claimed that the waste from the washeries
is dumped as effluent in the Bokaro River, where it is deposited on the riverbed and settles on the
property, which is Petitioner's land. He further stated that the sludge discharged in this manner is
absorbed by agricultural soil, leaving a fine carboniferous coating. He further claims that the
outflow of sludge from the washeries pollutes the water, rendering it unfit for irrigation or
drinking. Instead of taking action, the State Pollution Control Board 5 neglected to take action
against the Company, allowing water pollution, and the State of Bihar is providing a lease 6 on
the payment of royalty7 for slurry collection to various parties.
In a similar case MC Mehta V.Union of India Despite the above-mentioned requirements of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Act, the Court found that the State Board
took no meaningful actions to prevent the discharge of effluents into the river Ganga. In addition,
notwithstanding the requirements of the Environment Protection Act, the Central Government
took no significant steps to prevent public nuisance produced by the tanneries8 in Kanpur.
In the case of The Member secretary karnataka v. shri Krishna9 spinning and weaving
Karnataka State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, Bangalore, filed an
application under Section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('Act'
for short), alleging that the Respondents had discharged and continued to discharge untreated
effluent or trade wastes into a nalla joining the Vishwabharathi river, and that as a result of the
disposal of the end untreated effluent.
By this it is known that even of state pollution control board,industries are not able to control
their pollution and contaminating the water which is harmful to health

4
Board shall inspect sewage or trade effluents and to review plans,specifications or other data setup for treatment of
water and to laydown standards to be compiled by the persons while causing discharge of sewage or sullage.

5
To devise a comprehensive plan for the prevention, control, or abatement of pollution, as well as to ensure its
implementation.
6
a contract in which one party transfers land, property, services, or other assets to another for a set period of time in
exchange for a regular payment
7
a monetary payment provided to a writer, musician, inventor, or other creative person whenever something they
developed or invented is purchased or used by others.
8
A tanner's workshop is a site where animal hides are tanned.
9
ILR 1985 KAR 3005

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 10

1.2) Violation of section 24 water(prevention and control of pollution)

Section 2410 is violated by respondent. These Coal Mines and Collieries are known as West
Bokaro Collieries, and the Collieries have two Coal Washeries where the coal is taken and
broken into graded pieces after it is extracted from the mines, and then it is processed to reduce
its ash content. The 'froth flotation procedure'11 is used to carry out a chemical process.. The final
water is washed coal with a lower ash content, making it suitable for high-graded metallurgical
processes for the production of steel. A considerable amount of water is discharged during the
washing procedure. During the washing operation, a huge amount of water is discharged through
pipelines that transport the discharged water to storage ponds built to hold the slurry. Small
particles of coal are carried away with the discharged water to the pond, where the coal particles
settle on the pond's surface which creates slurry12.
Surplus waste is discharged in the form of slurry in petitioners land and it is also polluting river.
Petitioner wants to prevent streams from getting contaminated.It can be explained via similar
case MC Mehta v. Union of india13 where in petition was filed by him to relocate the fertilizer
plant where it is far from public but till then gas leak was already started affecting lot of people.
In another case MC Mehta v. Union of india 14, M.C. Mehta filed a mandamus writ petition in
1985 to stop these leather tanneries from dumping domestic and industrial waste and effluents
into the Ganga river. Which is contaminating water and prevention of it was needed.
In a case Mahmud ali v. State of Bihar and Anr15 .The primary charge against the accused
company was that it was discharging vast amounts of polluted water and other trade effluents
from its paper factory into the river "Daha" without the Board's permission, causing serious
environmental problems for the general public and the residents of the surrounding area.

10
It provides that no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous,noxious or polluting matter to enter into
any stream or well which may lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution.
11
The graded coal is blended with diesel oil, pine oil, and a variety of other chemical additives, then washed with
thousands of gallons of water
12
The coal particles which are carried by water is called slurry which is ash free.it contains fine quality of coal
13
1987 AIR 1086
14
1988 AIR 1115
15
AIR 1986 Pat 133

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 11

Following is another case of Abdul Hamid vs The Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg16 The following are
the circumstances that led to the revision petition: The Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing &
Weaving Company, Indi Bhai Parikh and 18 others connected with the Grasim, the chemical
factories, and the Janseva Trust hospital are all responsible for polluting the air and water of the
Chambal River near Birlagram, resulting in the deaths of children, animals, and aquatic life. It
was also mentioned that pollution causes a variety of diseases in humans, as well as damage to
crops.
By this it can be understood that how the industries are releasing their industrial waste and
contaminating by water and by which violating section 24 of water(prevention and control) act

16
1989 criLJ 2013

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 12

Q2. Whether petitioner is allowed to collect slurry?

Yes petitioner is allowed to collect slurry.Accroding to case kundori labour cooperative society
Ltd V. State of bihar17.where in it was held that slurry was neither coal nor mineral instead it was
an industrial waste of coal mine and not subject to provisions of mines and mineral act
1957.Consequently collection of slurry which escaped from washeries could be settled by state
Govt without obtaining sanction of Central govt and slurry which has been discharged did not
belong to company and he was entitled to receive it.

2.1) Slurry is industrial waste

The slurry is considered as industrial waste according to Kundori labour cooperative society
Ltd. V. State of Bihar and slurry can be collected by petitioner and respondent company prevent
to collect slurry from petitioner land and company is violating the court decision in kundori
labour case.Tata had no right to collect slurry from petitioner land. Under article 22618 of Indian
constitution for permitting petitioner to collect slurry from raiyati land.Thus petitioner was doing
all of these legally.

17
AIR 1986 Pat. 242
18
The Hon'ble High Courts are empowered by Article 226 of the Constitution to exert power through the issuance of
writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, and certiorari, or any other applicable writ.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 13

PRAYER
In the light of facts stated,issues raised,arguments advanced and authorities cited,it is most
humbly prayed by petitioner that hon’ble supreme court of India may be pleased to:
i. To seek action against respondent for discharging slurry into river Bokaro
ii. To seek relief for the issue of a directive requiring the Respondents, who include the State of
Bihar, the Bihar Pollution Control Board, the Union of India, and Tata Iron & Steel Co., to
take immediate action to prevent slurry pollution of the Bokaro river water.
For this act of Kindness and Justice,the petitioner,as in duty bound,shall forever pray.

Respectfully Submitted by,

(Counsel on behalf of petitioner.)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER