Water Act, 1974

Case Summaries

1. Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Board for Prevention & Control of Pollution
[AIR 1986 Del 152]

In this case, a sample of trade effluent was taken by the Board from the bottling company’s
(petitioner) discharge stream and after the analysis was found not conforming to the
requirements of the consent order granted to the company. Consequently, the Board filed a
suit under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and accordingly an
injunction was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, requiring the company to
establish a treatment plant and ensure that the quality of the trade effluents conform to the
prescribed standards. The petitioner challenged this before the Delhi High Court. The Court
held that the sample was not taken in strict compliance with the procedure as under Section
21 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and this evidence cannot be
regarded as admissible.

2. M.C. Mehta vs State of Orrisa [AIR 1992 Ori 225]

A writ petition was filed in the interest of the health of thousands of people living in Cuttack
and adjacent areas who were suffering from pollution from sewage being discharged by the
Municipal Committee Cuttack and the SCB Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. In this case,
the Orissa High Court pointed out the synergy between rights and duties. There cannot be any
right without any duty and there cannot be any duty without any right. Unsanitary conditions
lead to slow poisoning and adversely affect the life of the citizens and hence it falls within the
purview of Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries case) [AIR 1988 SC 1037]

This case stems from an incident in 1985, in Haridwar, along the Ganga. A matchstick tossed
by a smoker resulted in the river catching on fire for more than 30 hours, due to the presence
of a toxic layer of chemicals produced by a pharmaceutical firm. In response, M.C. Mehta
requested the Supreme Court to restrain the respondents from discharging effluents into the
Ganga stream until they establish treatment plants for treatment of cyanogenic effluents to
arrest pollution. He further requested the court to order the leather tanneries of the district of
Kanpur to prevent discharging their untreated effluent into the stream.
Relying on provisions such as Article 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution, as well as
Sections 16, 17, 24, 32 and 33 of the Water Act, 1974, the Court ordered that the tanneries
establish a primary, if not a secondary, effluent treatment plant. The financial capacity of the
tanneries is irrelevant while requiring them to establish a treatment plant.

The Court also noted that despite the aforementioned provisions in the Water Act, 1974 no
effective steps were taken by the State Board to prevent the discharge of effluents into the
river Ganga.

Finally, the Court pushed for spreading environmental awareness throughout the nation, via
promoting environmental education in educational institutes and organizing cleanliness
weeks in municipalities, villages, towns, etc. throughout India.

4. M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (Calcutta Tanneries case) [1997 (2) SCC 411]

This case featured the application of the Polluter Pays Principle. The Court heard issues
pertaining to pollution caused by about 550 tanneries located in the adjoining areas in the
eastern fringe of Kolkata. The Court directed the State Government to appoint an to assess
the damage to the environment in the areas affected by the pollution caused by the tanneries.
The said authority should determine the compensation to be recovered from the polluter-
tanneries as cost of restoring the environment.

5. Pravinbhai J Patel vs State of Gujarat [1995 (2) GujL.R. 1210]

In this case, it was noticed that despite being aware of legal requirements for effluent
treatment plants, 756 industrial units were extremely irresponsible in not waiting or caring for
the setting up of the effluent treatment plants and have merrily been manufacturing and
polluting till now. They were only concerned to meet the pollution norms because they were
threatened with closure. This was in blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The pollution has adversely affected the 11 Kalambandi villages of Kheda. Consequently, the
Gujarat High Court ordered that a lumpsum payment should be made by the 756 industrial
units, calculated at the rate of 1% of their one year’s gross turnover for the year 1993-94 or
1995-96, whichever is more and that amount should be kept apart by the Ministry of
Environment and should be utilised for the works of socio-economic uplift of the aforesaid
villages and for the betterment of educational, medical and veterinary facilities and the
betterment of the agriculture and livestock in the said villages. Payment should be quantified
by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (G.I.D.C.) within three months and the
collection made within two months thereafter.

6. M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (Badkhal & Surajkund Lakes) [(1997) 3 SCC 715]

In this case, the banning of construction activities within the radius of 5 km from the tourist
resorts of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund only in the State of Haryana was challenged on the
grounds of being arbitrary and discriminatory. The Supreme Court held that the
“precautionary principle” has been accepted as a part of the law of the land. The principle
makes it mandatory for the State Govt. to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environment degradation. In order to protect the two lakes from environmental degradation it
is necessary to limit the construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes.

Air Act, 1981

Case Summaries

1. Dwarka Cement Works Limited vs State of Gujarat [1992 (1) Guj Law Herald 9]

The magistrate had issued process against the chairman and other officials of the company for
alleged offences under sections 21(4), 21(5), 31-A, 39 and 40 of the Air Act. Company
officials moved the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
for quashing and setting aside the impugned order issuing process against them. The Gujarat
High Court held that under the Air Act, an accused company and its directors are obliged to
disclose the identity of the managers who could be held liable. Further, invoking the inherent
powers of the court under section 482 of CrPC would amount to prejudging the issue as held
in the case of State of Bihar v. Raj Narayan Sing by the Supreme Court in 1991 and would
also lead to abuse of the process of court. The petition thus failed and the High Court directed
the accused company to appear before the magistrate and take appropriate date for further
proceeding.

2. Ishwar Singh vs State of Haryana [AIR 1996 P&H 30]

In this case, a petition in the nature of public interest litigation was filed in the Punjab and
Haryana High Court for shifting the stone crushing industries in view of preventing health
hazards. The court, taking note of the pollution caused by these industries and relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Delhi Stone Crushing case, directed the Haryana state
government for closure and shifting of industries in identified zones.
 3. M.C. Mehta vs Union of India [Taj Trapezium case]

The petition was filed regarding the deteriorating condition of the monument. Due to the
pollution caused by the nearby industries and factories due to residential fuel combustion,
diesel trains, and buses, and backup generators, the gases emitted are having harmful effects
not only on the people but also on the monument. The petitioner said that pollution is the
main cause for the yellow colour of the marble. Emission of pollutant gases like sulphur
dioxide and oxygen turned into acid rain which is harmful for the environment and
monument also. Therefore, he asked for the protection of the monument. As a result, the
Central Board for the Prevention & Control of Water published “Inventory and Assessment of
Pollution Emission” in and around Agra-Mathura region. The report declared the pollution
levels as high and measures to reduce them. In report, one of measures were to shut down the
thermal power stations. Another step was to reduce omissions of Sulphur Dioxide by 50%.

The Supreme Court observed that other than Chemicals, Socio-economic factors too
influenced the degradation of Taj Mahal. By applying the principle of sustainable
development, the court noted the necessity of drawing a balance between environmental
protection and economic development. Furthermore, the court recognized the Polluter Pays
Principle and the Precautionary Principle. In order to repair and prevent further damage, the
court advocated the practice of ‘Sustainable Development’ and that the polluter should be
held liable to compensate the suffering party/parties and must additionally pay the cost of
reversing the damaged ecology. The judgement also relied upon the various reports that were
released at the time. As the court was concerned with the prevention of further degradation
and destruction, it ordered the neighbouring industries to either shift to natural gas or shut
down the operations of such industries and relocate outside the area of the Taj trapezium. The
people living in the trapezium zone were at risk due to air pollution. The court ordered 292
industries to operate using safe fuels like propane instead of coke/coal otherwise they would
have to relocate. The court also recognized the fundamental rights of workers of these
industries and ordered the payment of their wages during the time taken for relocation.

4. M.C. Mehta vs Union of India [Delhi vehicular pollution case] 1991 SCR (1) 866

In this case, M.C. Mehta filed the petition under Article 32 asking the Court to issue
directions for closing down of hazardous industries located in the densely populated areas of
Delhi, and for regulation of air pollution caused by automobiles operating in the area as also
the thermal units generating power for the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking.
The Supreme Court kept this writ petition pending for the purpose of monitoring and passed
the following interim orders –

 The importance of protection of the environment, life, flora and fauna under Article
51 A and Directive principles of state policy. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to
protect the environment.
 All persons using automobiles should have a fair idea of the harmful effects on the
environment due to the emissions caused by their vehicles. Awareness is an effective
way of reducing the environmental pollution.
 A committee was set up to investigate the problem of Vehicular Pollution in Delhi and
to find methods to arrest pollution. This committee was composed of a retired judge
of the Supreme Court acting as the Chairman of the committee, M.C. Mehta (the
petitioner), the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board and a person
representing the Association of the Indian Automobiles Manufacturers. The members
were given the power to take advice from not more than three members. The Joint
Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests was appointed as the Convener-
Secretary of the Committee. This committee came into effect from 18th March 1991
under the Notification of the Union Government.