UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES

B.Com. LL.B. Taxation Laws

SEMESTER VII

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-18 SESSION: JULY-DECEMBER

CASE STUDY
FOR

ENVIRONMENT LAW

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION Vs UNION OF INDIA

Under the Supervision of: SHRI AMIT SINGH/APARAJITA SINGH

NAME: TANRAJ SINGH SEHMBEY

SAP NO: 500040407

ROLL NO: R129214058

Case Name: INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION VS UNION OF INDIA

Court Name: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, INDIA

WRIT PETITION (C) No.967 OF 1989

Year: 18 July, 2011

INTRODUCTION

This writ petition filed by an environmentalist organization Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action brings to light the woes of people living in the vicinity of chemical industrial plants in
Bichhri Village in particular (and in general across the country India). The case highlights the
disregard, nay, contempt for law and lawful authorities on the part of some among the
emerging breed of entrepreneurs, taking advantage, as they do, of the countrys need for
industrialization and export earnings. Quest of profit has extremely drained them of any
feeling for the fellow human beings - for that matter, for anything else. And the law seems to
have been helpless; Systemic Defects? It is such instance, which has led many people in this
country to believe that disregard of law pays and that the consequences of such disregard will
never be visited upon them - particularly, if they are men with means.

Bichhri is a small village located in the Udaipur District of Rajasthan, India. North of this
village, there are major industrial establishment, Hindustan Zinc Limited, a public sector
concern. However, it did not affect Bichhri but the problems began in 1987 when the fourth
respondent herein, Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited started producing certain chemicals
like Oleum (said to be the concentrated form of sulphuric acid) and Single Super Phosphate.
The real calamity occurred when another sister concern, Silver Chemicals (Respondent 5),
commenced production of H acid in a plant located within the same complex. H acid was
meant for export exclusively. Its manufacture gives rise to enormous quantities of highly
toxic effluents in particular, iron based and gypsum-based sludge - which if not properly
treated, pose grave threat to Mother Earth. It poisons the earth, the water and everything that
comes in contact with it. Jyoti Chemicals (Respondent 8) is another unit established to
produce H acid, besides some other chemicals. Respondents 6 and 7 were established to
produce fertilizers and a few other products.
All the units/factories of Respondents 4 to 8 are situated in the same geographic region and
are controlled by the same group of individuals. All the units are what may be called
chemical industries. As per the report, about 2500 tonnes of highly toxic sludge was
produced while producing 375 tonnes of H-acid. And, all these sludge thrown in the open
field of village area. Over period of time, the toxic chemicals leached and percolated deep
into the ground and polluted the aquifers and subterranean supply of water. The water of the
wells and other streams in the vicinity turned dark in color and became polluted very badly.
It did not remain for any use including drinking, irrigation, and cattle. The soil has become
polluted rendering it unfit for cultivation, which is the main source of livelihood for the
villagers. Further, the pollution caused disease, death and disaster in the village and in the
nearby areas. This sudden degradation of earth and water had an echo in Parliament also and
the respective Minister ensured that the action was taken, but nothing meaningful was done
on the spot. The villagers then rose in virtual revolt leading to the imposition of Section 144
of the Criminal Procedure Code by the District Magistrate in the area and the closure of
Silver Chemicals in January, 1989.

ISSUES

I. What is the measure of liability of companies which are engaged in a hazardous or

inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry,
persons die or are injured?
II. Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher apply in such case or is there any other principle
on which the liability can be determined?
III. The Respondents must pay the amount necessary to carry out appropriate remedial
action is one thing but should they pay only that amount or with interest? If the period
were a few days or months that would have been different but in this case, it is almost
14 years have been lapsed and amount has not been paid.
DECISION

July 18, 2011, Justice BHANDARI DALVEER and DATTU H.L: We have carefully
considered the facts and circumstances of this case. We have also considered the law declared
by this Court and by other countries in a number of cases. We are clearly of the opinion that
the concerned applicant-industry must deposit the amount as directed by this Court vide order
dated April 11, 1997 with compound interest. The applicant-industry has deliberately not
complied with the orders of this court since April 11, 1997. Thousands of villagers have been
adversely affected because no effective remedial steps have been taken so far. The applicant-
industry has succeeded in their design in not complying with the courts order by keeping the
litigation alive for more than 15 years by filing the interlocutory applications which were
being totally devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed with costs. Consequently, the
applicant-industry is directed to pay Rs. 37,385,000 INR (USD 608,628) along with
compound interest @ 12% per annum from April 11, 1997 till the amount is paid or
recovered. The applicant-industry is also directed to pay costs of litigation. Even after final
judgment of this Court, the litigation has been kept alive for almost 15 years. The respondents
have been compelled to defend this litigation for all these years. Enormous court's time has
been wasted for all these years. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances
of this case, we direct the applicant-industry to pay costs of Rs.1,000,000 INR (USD 16,280)
in both the Interlocutory Applications. The amount of costs would also be utilized for
carrying out remedial measure in village Bichhri and surrounding areas in Udaipur District of
Rajasthan, India on the direction of the concerned authorities.

CONCLUSION

Moreover, this Court applied the principle of Polluter pays and observed thus: the polluter
pays principle demands that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by
pollution should lie with the undertakings which caused the pollution, or produced the goods
which caused the pollution. Under this principle, it is not the role of government to meet the
costs involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out remedial action,
because the effect of this would to shift the financial burden of the pollution incident to the
taxpayer.